2011 07 26 PCCity of La Quinta
F' z Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City:s Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
OF Tt
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JULY 26, 2011
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2011-012
Beginning Minute Motion 2011-002
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public
hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to
three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 28, 2011.
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 12, 2011.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be
filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission
consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested
the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time.
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the
approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the
public hearing.
A. Item..' ...... '
tem..:................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753, AMENDMENT 1
Applicant........... Walgreens Company
Location............ Northeast Corner of Avenue 48 and Washington Street
Request ............. Consideration to Rescind Condition of Approval #6 of the
Original Site Development Permit and to Permit the Sale of
Beer and Wine at the Existing Walgreens
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution
201 1-
B. Item ................... SIGN APPLICATION 2011-1536
Applicant........... Sign -A -Rama
Location............ 79-215, 79-245 Corporate Center Drive
Request ............. Consideration of a Sign Program Amendment to Permit
Larger Letter Sizes for Individual Signs .
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion
Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Minute Motion
2011-
C. Item ................... SIGN APPLICATION 2011-1528
Applicant........... Superior Electrical Advertising
Location............ La Quinta Village Shopping Center Located at the Northwest
Corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico
Request ............. Consideration of a Sign Program Amendment to Permit the
Placement of Street -Facing Signs and Monument Signs
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute Motion
Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Minute Motion
2011-
D. Item ................... CONTINUED 2008 LA QUINTA HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location............ City-wide
Request ............. Consideration Of A Recommendation for Adoption of the
Proposed Draft of the La Quinta Housing Element Update
Document.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution
2011-
VI. BUSINESS ITEM:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meeting of July 19, 2011.
B. Commissioner Mark Weber is scheduled to attend the August 2, 2011,
City Council meeting.
IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held
on September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the
foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, July 26,
2011 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and
the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on
Thursday July 21, 2011.
DATED: July 21, 2011
MONIKA RADLVA, Secretary for
CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four
(24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission,
arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123.
A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this
take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 12, 2011
7:03 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Alderson.
B. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and
Chairman Alderson.
ABSENT: Commissioner Weber.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy
Jenson, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Planning
Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wally
Nesbit, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Secretary
Monika Rad` va.
C. Election of Chair: It was inoved and seconded by Commissioners
Wilkinson/Wright to nominate,'Chairman Alderson as Chair. There
being no further discussion,,"- the nominations were closed and
Chairman Alderson was elected as Chair.
AYES: ``Commissioners Wilkinson, Wright, and Vice Chairperson
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
\ None.
Election of Vice Chair: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Barrows/Wright to nominate Commissioner Wilkinson as Vice Chair.
There 'being no further discussion, the nominations were closed and
Commissioner Wilkinson was elected as Vice Chair.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wright, and Chairperson Alderson.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None.
IL PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Daniel Arvizo, Senior Planner with the City of Indio, 100 Civic
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
Center Mall, Indio, CA, introduced himself and gave a presentation on
the American Planning Association and outlined why it might be
beneficial for the Planning Commissioners to become members and
attend its events.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Arvizo to leave his contact information
in case the Commission had any more questions.
Commissioner Barrows asked to confirm that -the American Planning
Association (APA) Conference this year woul&be held in the Coachella
Valley area. Mr. Arvizo confirmed: and gave, information on the
Conference.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit
Partners, L.P./City of La Qt
of architectural, site, ai
on approximately W acres, locat
Palms Road,"north oi( he DSUSD
17, 'a reque"" by Coral Mountain
vel pmentJ ency, for consideration
caping plans for Coral Mountain
affordable rental housing community
approximately 660 feet east of Dune
ministration Campus.
the staff report, a copy of which
is on ffte:Jn .the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson askedf there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Borrows asked if residents would be able to walk over to
the adjacently located shopping center, Komar Desert Center. Principal
Planner' Nesbit replied there is a five-foot sidewalk proposed on the south
and east`sjdes of the project that would give residents a pedestrian path
to the adjacent shopping center. He noted that the access points to go in
and out of the development were limited to the vehicle entry points.
Planning Director Les Johnson noted that staff was working with the
Komar Desert Center to provide a sidewalk connection from the center to
the development on the south side of the driveway located directly across
from the Costco gas station.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
Discussion followed regarding the connection points, striping, and the
preliminary plans for the pedestrian access point from the shopping center
to the development.
Further discussion followed regarding additional pedestrian paths of travel
available around the area.
Vice Chair Wilkinson said the submitted plans indicated that there would
be vehicular gates as well as a pedestrian gate on the northeast corner of
the development. Staff replied the applicant had decided not to go
forward with any of the gates and build it as`':an open community.
Planning Director Johnson said it would be similar to. the Wolff Waters
development located to the southwest, which wasalso an open
community. He noted the pool area would be completely gated thus not
open to the general public, but only accessible to the residents with the
appropriate access.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked `staff to show the locations of the proposed
twenty -foot wall and why` there was an additional wall next to the
indicated blue line. Principal; Planner Nesbit showed where the twenty -
foot wall was located on the plans. He replied the shorter wall was a
sound wall and explained it consisted of short sections of wall in between
the buildings creating a staggered,,look to the development.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if the existing chain -link fence located on the
south aide of the project would remain. Staff replied the fence would not
remain.
'Planning Director Johnson said staff had been working with Desert Sands
Unified School District (DSUSD) to have the chain -link fence upgraded.
He gave a brief loverview of the ongoing discussions.
Discussion followed regarding the landscaping in proximity to the DSUSD
bus gate and access road. Staff noted that the southwest corner would
be landscaped, but the landscaping would stop on the north side of the
access road, west of where the gate was proposed to be installed.
Principal Planner Nesbit noted that the submitted plans identified the
landscaping material along the north access road as decomposed granite
to eliminate maintenance issues.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if there would be a traffic signal on Dune
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
Palms Road where the school busses were leaving from the DSUSD
facility. Staff replied the traffic study and the environmental impact
report indicated the need for a traffic signal at that location and for
certain mitigation measures that would be implemented to facilitate traffic
movement.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if the ADA path of travel encompassed all of
the down stairs, units. Staff replied that the applicant was conditioned
through the Site Development Permit to comply with ADA standards.
Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer explained that comOance with Federal and
State ADA standards did not require evert' singleeLbuilding to be ADA
m
compliant, but if the Planning Comission deemed necessary they could
condition the applicant to provide fpi that.
Commissioner Wright said he -was a s'treng adIvocate of the Hihway 1 1 1
mixed use corridor concept and was pleasad to see the implementation of
a pedestrian access fromf;;the development to the Komar Desert Center.
He noted his questions hed pilready been answ*ed.
Chairman Alderson suggested the'' primpx►sed tot' -lot and the pool area be
moved closer to each other, k enning'�t)lrectoe Johnson replied the
separation 'b6twelmOv the pool ""rid the tot" lot was intentional and he
explained iffy. He.cdded the in reason for separating the two areas
was to pi`oitide residents with multiple recreationallocations within the
community.
06irmart'41arson said the additional access from Dune Palms Road to
the Komar sert ,Centers though advantageous, could create traffic
)Goncerns andsilggested the speed limit be reduced in that area and be
fjgulated throd the Use of speed tables.
f ,;1
Chairmen Alder*6n commended the Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee on'their review and comments on the project.
Chairman> Alderson asked for clarification on the proposed interactive
water feature in the area located behind the pool. Principal Planner
Nesbit replied it was intended to provide a relief if the pool was ever
overcrowded. He said no final design had been selected. yet, but the idea
could be as simple as a few play surface water spouts.
Chairman Alderson asked if the twenty -foot wall had any specific physical
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
characteristics built into it that would deal with sound control. Staff
replied there was some specific sound deadening criteria incorporated into
the structural engineering of the wall.
Chairman Alderson said the Commission must be cognizant about
allowing any two-story structures on the north side of the project for
view protection. Planning Director Johnson said that the north property
was in a preliminary exclusive negotiating agreement with a car dealer,
but there weren't any plans indicative of height of the building or
anything concrete at this time.
Chairman Alderson asked if any solar cells,would be installed on top of
the parking structures. Staff replied sotar?panels would not be installed
on top of the carports; however, there were four buildings that housed
solar panels on the roofs.
Chairman Alderson inquired about the .parking lot light fixtures. Staff
replied the details on the fixtures was, included in the packet and
explained what they were.
Chairman Alderson said the submitted landscaping plans were very
difficult to read. Commissioner Barrowssaid she found them difficult to
read as well... .
Vice Chair. Wilkinson! said the plans indicated that solar cells would be
placed on top of the carports. Staff explained that there were some
changes that were requested and implemented during mid -project review
and it would hav,&been very burdensome for the applicant to provide new
sets of plans indicating .those changes. Due to these changes, the
current plans incorrectly; showed that there would be solar panels on top
of the parking structure. Further, staff noted that the applicant later
expressed concerns regarding the potential energy inefficiency in
transitioning the energy from the carports.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened the
public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant would like
to speak.
Mr. Ron Gregory, A.S.L.A., President of RGA Landscape Architects, Inc.,
74020 Alessandro Drive, Suite # E, Palm Desert, CA, introduced himself
and said he was available to answer any questions the Commission might
have.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if the placement of the various transformers,
electrical .boxes, gas and water meters, fire hydrants, sewer lines, PVC
lines, etc., were taken into consideration when constructing the
landscaping plans. Mr. Gregory replied they were taken into account as
the plans required the approval of Imperial Irrigation District IND) and
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD).
Discussion followed regarding the landscaping plant palette.
Mr. John Vuksic, AIA, Architect with
Real, Rancho Mirage, CA, introduced
the different utility boxes and facilities
Vice Chair Wilkinson inquired abob ;#fie engin
ducts. Mr. Vuksic explained the wsy they. i
energy efficiency.:
ksicArchitects, 39 Camino
and safd,,the placement of
n addresp4d,in great detail.
of the
increase.
Vice Chair Wilkinson inquired about the height of the roof parapets and if
the solar equipment would sae at O, # visible. Mr; Vuksic replied there was
very little equipment on the i of, th6ttWwould not be visible, and that the
height of the parapets was 6pproxlmata1^,'To&r feet and even shorter in .
some Dlaces
Commissioner Barrows asked if the -,carports would be built in a way to
„k
support possible, solar panels in the future. Mr. Vuksic said the intent
w-tp, have thenolar`penefs `'"the roof of the buildings only because
'erd`r i a�lot'4.. room up there as well as there was room for the
mechanical, 'luipment, and research had shown that they would be more
efficient at t111'se locations. Therefore the carports would not be
fined to support solar panels.
n said the downside of having solar panels on the
they would be visible from the two-story units.
Commissioner Barrows asked what passive solar designs were
incorporated into the project. Mr. Vuksic enumerated a.few, mentioning
the desert contemporary design architecture which incorporated deep,
thick walls, deep rises for the windows to maximize shade, in addition to
metal awnings and long narrow overhangs, high quality windows, high
efficiency- appliances, etc.
INIM
Planning Commission.Minutes
July 12, 2011
Commissioner Wright said he was pleased with the architecture of the
development and that it was reminiscent of the Costco center. He
commended RGA Landscape Architects, Inc. for the selection of plant
material that really compliments the architecture. He said he was very
pleased with the proposed plans and was very much in support of the
project.
Chairman Alderson asked why there was an undeveloped triangular piece
of land on the northwest. corner of the site. Planning Director Johnson
explained that piece of land was part of the adjacent lot on the north and
not part of this project.
Chairman Alderson asked if the elevations uvould be as'presented in the
proposed plans. Mr. Vuksic replied that was the intent, he added the
color palette consisted of desert hues and a lot of accent colors.'
Chairman Alderson asked if the Commissioners had additional questions.
The Commissioners had: no further questions and he closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting and returned to Commissioner comments.
Vice Chair Wilkinson commended''theapplicant's team for a job well
done.
.Commissioner Barrows asked if the memorandum from the Public Works
Department clarifying the conditions of approval should be included in the
motion. Staff replied the memorandum should be included.
There being no `further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2011-008
approving Site Development Permit 201 1-917 as recommended by staff
and subject to the condition change submitted with the memorandum
distributed by the Public Works Department.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright and Chairman
Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
None.
B. Environmental Assessment 2010-608 and Tentative Tract Map 36279; a
request by Pedcor Commercial Development for consideration of a
recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact and a Tentative Tract Map, to create 11 single-family residential
lots on 9.14 gross acres, located at the southwest corner of Madison
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
Street and Avenue 51 (also known as Vista Bonita Trail).
Principal Planner Wally Nesbit presented the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
There being no questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened the public
hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the. applicant would like to
speak.
Mr. David Turner with Coachella Val
Road, Suite #101, Palm Desert, CA,
available to answer any questions frc
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if the
remain. Mr. Turner replied the build
the building was originally intended
would be used to store lark0paping
would be developed, if it dill not fat
be removed.
Mr. Turner asket!IW clarity con
would be, no furth`dlr�16se of the
the strucfu *could Obtinue.
ey,,Engineers,77933 Las Montanas
ioti°odviced himself and said he was
n the Commission.
iM
sdsting Wlding on tha`'site would
i9 Witd remain and explained what
for. \ka said currently the building
quipm"d hater on when the site
within the plate$, it would most likely
of approval #112 stating that there
ture, he asked if the existing use of
her,
arias supportive of the applicant continuing
to'store landscaping equipment.
lissioner Barrows�tad the way the condition was written, it did not
for any further use of the existing structure. Staff replied the intent
o forbid fU4her expansion of uses and to simply limit it to what it
originally intended for. Staff noted that the Building and Safety
tnlent_.rnt st also inspect the structure to ensure that it was
urally sound and compliant with Building and Safety codes.
Commissioner Barrows suggested staff clarify the wording of the
condition because as it read, it did not reflect staff's intention. Staff
replied the condition would be clarified to read that no further expansion
of the use of the structure would be permitted.
Mr. Turner asked to clarify condition of approval #110. He said when
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
tract 30378 was originally approved there was no height limitation
applied, but tract 33085 had a height limitation of twenty-two feet. He
expressed a concern about the applied height limitation as he believed the
existing structure already exceeds it.
Discussion followed regarding the density and height limitations of the
development and the height limitation per the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Staff explained why the twenty-two feet height limitation was applied.
Chairman Alderson asked to confirm that the project to the west was the
Orchards. Staff replied the property to the west outside of the lines of
this map was actually the La Quinta Polo Estates.
Discussion followed regarding residents' concerns, expressed in the past,
from the adjacent properties, during the original approval process,
regarding the density and height structures of- the project. Staff noted
that, even though, no concerns had been' expressed regarding the current
map, it was prudent to apply the same condition as applied to the
existing map located south of the project.
Discussion followed regarding, the distance from`the existing wall to the
street curb on the lots located `-along Madisdn Street and the depth of the
lots located on She`west and east side of the project. Staff said the key
issue would'be where the residences would be built on the lots.
Planning Director,.' Johnson explained the applicable development
regulations regarding the set -back requirements and height limitations per
the La Quints General Plan.
"Planning Director Johnson said it was up to the Commission's discretion
to decide whether or not a height limitation was warranted for the entire
property. He reiterated that the project to the south had already been
conditioned to the same height limitation and that the adjacent La Quints
Polo Estates;pr'oject did not allow any two-story units.
Commissioner Wright referenced other projects within the City that had
certain lots with two-story units within the developments because the
depth of the lots allowed for set -back and height compliance per the La
Quinta General Plan requirements.
Mr. Turner said he brought up the questions regarding the height
limitation because the preexisting structure on the site exceeded the
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
proposed limitation. Staff clarified that condition of approval #112 was
worded in a way that acknowledged the existence of that structure and
its intent was to apply the zoning standards related to non-structural
development standards, such as lot coverage, etc., and not to a pre-
established structural condition.
Staff asked the City Attorney's input on how to properly address the
concern in the condition of approval. City AttorneyXathy Jenson replied
that if the concern was with the existing strct6re3 referencing it in
condition #110 would eliminate any issues wilail't,indition #112.
Further discussion followed regarding the
the adjacent lots.
Mr. Turner asked the Commissiga,"to
to apply the twenty-two feet height I
less than 150 feet from Madison S
limitation per the La nuirita Municipal
away than 150 feet.
Planning Director Johnson 8
the Commission could cons
He pointed myt.i4te were o
particular, Ci cust`ot l.,homes
elements.
limitations on
amending conlitf'on #112
only to structures located
t to allow for the height
structures located farther
loth Mr. Turner's proposals and said
nendino' tP-4,condition in such a way.
3veloprrients within the City, especially
had used architectural variations that
a- io have second story architectural
Chairmatl Aidersori asked if the height limitation was to be applied to lots
one throUdh jen tV ,, yyould encompass the preexisting structures
exceeding thy, height y'Omit. Planning Director Johnson replied that
condition #1lq;, as recommended by City Attorney Jenson, would
the preexisting structure.
Commisslaner'Barrows asked for staff's or Mr. Turner's input on how the
condition should be worded.
Planning Director Johnson suggested: imposing a single story and twenty-
two feet height limitation to lots one through six located within 120 feet
of the west property line. He said for lots six and seven located along
the north property line, imposing some type of a set -back that would be
conditioned to the single story and twenty-two feet height limitation and
in this way ensuring that if there were to be any second story elements
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
to the structure, they would be located at a reasonable distance from the
lots at the La Quinta Polo Estates.
Mr. Turner clarified that the only exception to the condition would be the
preexisting structure on lot six.
Planning Director Johnson suggested the condition also stipulate that the
applicant provide reference of the set -back boundary on the map so that
it would be clearly delineated exactly where the break would apply.
Discussion followed regarding the structuralheight limitation imposed by
the La Quinta Municipal Code for residences located along Madison
Street.
Chairman Alderson asked if the existing block wall around the project
would remain. Mr. Turner replied' all of ,the: existing walls would be
removed with the exception of the perimeter" wall along Madison Street.
Chairman Alderson asked if' the applicant had any intentions of rebuilding
the existing water feature located on the northern part of the project. Mr.
Turner said the location and condition of the water feature are being
evaluated. He expressed a concern that it might encroach into one of the
lots which, would require the iemoval of' at least a portion of it. He
added, if that affected the overall aesthetic look of the waterfall, then the
entire feature might have to be completely removed.
Chairman Alderson said the Commission would not be favorable of that
type of water feature due to recent developments regarding water
conservation.' Mr:. Turner said he could not give the Commission a
`definite answer at this time.
Chairman Alderson asked if the existing electrical, water, and sewer
utilities would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. Mr.
Turner replied the electric, water, and sewer utilities had been installed.
He explained that additional water and sewer lines would have to be
installed based on meetings with the utility companies.
Chairman Alderson asked if the Commissioners had additional questions
of the applicant. There being no further questions he closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
-11-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wilkinson/Barrows to approve Resolution 2011-009
recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment
2010-608, subject to the conditions submitted.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright and Chairman
Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
None.
There was no further discussion and it wea1i Rved and seconded, by
Commissioners Wilkinson/Wright to appi6ve`-; iesolution 2011-010
recommending to the City Council approval of 'Tentative Tract Map
36279, subject to the conditions submitted with the foil6wing revisions:
a. Amend Condition 1 10; tp.` be applied in accordance with the
provisions of Section 9.50.020 of the, LQMC. In „addition, the
one-story/22-foot restriction shall also apply within 150 feet of
the west property line for Lots 1 through 6, and to any
structures within 40=-feet of the north property line, for Lots 6
and 7. The restndtion `#haJl not apply,to the existing structure
on Lot 6.
b. Amend Condition 1 12 te' of the preexisting building
onoe. a especial inspe ion has been conducted by the Building
AYES:
Wilkinson, Wright and Chairman
Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
Continued - Zobina Ordinance Amendment 2011-104; a request by the
wry of La QuidW for consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta
Municipal Code,.,aection 9.170, Communication Towers and Equipment to
be eftotive Citywide.
Assistant' Pianner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is
on file in the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson asked ifthere were any questions of staff.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if staff could give an example of existing cell
towers within the City of La Quinta that did not meet the proposed code
amendments. Staff referenced towers that do and do not meet the
-12-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
proposed code amendments.
Discussion followed regarding existing towers, their height and aesthetic
appearance.
Vice Chair Wilkinson asked if it was possible to have the existing towers
that were out of compliance be brought up to code. Staff replied that a
subsection of the proposed amendment stipulated that approved facilities
would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission every ten years
which would allow the Commission to address any concerns at that time.
Planning Director Johnson said the 'proposed code amendment
encouraged applicants to incorporate the antennas into the architectural
design of the building.
Commissioner Wright said he was in favor of the proposed code
amendments.
Chairman Alderson asked if She code amendment imposed restrictions as
to the location of cell towers within the City. Staff replied it did.
Chairman Alderson asked if the code .addressed removal of the cell
towers if they. were no longer utilized ;'due to possible technological
advancements in the 'future. Planning Director Johnson said the proposed
amendment to the', code did address that issue and allowed for the
enforcement ofa removal to occur.
There being no fur't6er questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened the
matter for public comment_..
There being no, public' comment, Chairman Alderson opened the matter
for Commission discussion.
There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wright/Barrows to approve Resolution 201 1-01 1
recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 2011-104, as submitted by staff.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright and Chairman
Alderson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
None.
-13-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
B. 2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update; a request by the City of La
Quinta for consideration of a recommendation for adoption of the
proposed draft of the La Quinta Housing..Element Update document.
Planning Director Les Johnson noted the memo included in the packet
requesting the Commission to open the public hearing.and continue the
matter to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on
July 26, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
Planning -Director Johnson encouraged the Commissioners to address any
questions they might have regarding the document' with staff prior to the
Planning Commission meeting on July 26>, 2011.
Chairman Alderson asked if there w,.ft any questions of 'stuff.
✓. ifi
There being no questions of staff, Ch rman Attlerson noted the City was
the applicant and asked if there was ariy pl4blic comment.
There being no questions '01
Commissioners Wright/Barre
Element Update to the July :
None.
it Wee,moved and seconded by
ue th&,'-2068 La Quinta Housing
nning Commission Meeting.
ilkinson, Wright, and Chairman
Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN:
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS ie
VII. CORRESPONTDENCE AN WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER'ITI MS
A. Discussion of July 5, 2011 Council meeting. Chairman Alderson gave
a brief ',,overview of the items discussed including residents' concerns
regarding" dog parks within the City, the new legislature regarding
Redevelopment Agencies, and concerns regarding the increased
number of music events within the neighboring communities and the
affects thereafter.
B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the July 19, 2011, City
Council meeting.
-14-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 12, 2011
C. Noted that the new City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule from
July 5, 2011 — June 19, 2012, was included.
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS:
A. Planning Director Johnson suggested the Commissioners review and
consider the information provided by Mr. Arvizo at the beginning of the
meeting. He encouraged the Commissioners to 'attend and possibly
participate in any local Planning events that might- be available within the
Coachella Valley and he mentioned a few events coming up.
X. ADJOURNMENT:`
There being no further business, it was moved and 'seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Wright to adjourn this regular meeting' of the
Planning Commission to the next meeting to beheld on July 26;`2011. This
meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. on July 12, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Monika Radeva, Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
-15-
PH # A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 26, 2011
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753, AMENDMENT 1
APPLICANT: WALGREENS
PROPERTY OWNER: REALTY TRUST GROUP, INC.
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO RESCIND CONDITION OF
APPROVAL #6 OF THE ORIGINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE
AT THE EXISTING WALGREENS
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
AVENUE 48
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (EA 2002-460), AND CERTIFIED BY THE
LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 28,
2003. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) IS NECESSARY
GENERAL PLAN CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
DESIGNATION:
ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - VACANT
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RANCHO LA
QUINTA
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - LAKE LA
QUINTA
WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -
VACANT/LAING LUXURY HOMES SITE
BACKGROUND:
On January 28, 2003, the Planning Commission certified Environmental
Assessment 2002-460 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) and approved Site
Development Permit 2002-753, for the development of a 14,560 square foot drug
store and retail shops at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Washington Street.
During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received several concerns
about the proposed project from Rancho La Quinta residents, including lighting,
traffic, incompatible use, and the potential for increased crime. Per the residents'
request, the Planning Commission agreed to a number of project changes, including
a condition prohibiting alcohol sales at this location.
Subsequently, the Planning Commission's approval was appealed by the Rancho La
Quinta Homeowner Association and was considered by the City Council at its April
1, 2003, meeting. The City Council's consideration of the appeal resulted in a tie
vote. Therefore, no decision on the appeal was reached and the Planning
Commission's decision remained the final determination.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant has requested the elimination of Condition of Approval #6 of the
original Site Development Permit. Condition #6 states that, "There shall be no
storage or sale of alcoholic beverages on the premise." The applicant requests that
the Planning Commission rescind this condition to allow for on -site beer and wine
sales at this particular Walgreens location.
ANALYSIS:
During the public hearing process the Planning Commission and City Council
received comments from the Rancho La Quinta Homeowners Association regarding
the proposed development. Most comments were in regards to the centers design,
ingress and egress from the site, lighting impacts, and whether or not Walgreens
was the right fit for a commercial center located so close to the up -scale residential
community. The Planning Commission minutes from January 28, 2003 provide
context for the comments made during the public hearing. Although Condition of
Approval #6 prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site, no discussion is
contained in the minutes or original staff report regarding this condition.
The zoning designation in which the Walgreens is located in is zoned "Community
Commercial" or "CC". Section 9.80.040 "Table of Permitted Uses" of the La
Quinta Municipal Code provides a list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and
prohibited land -uses for each commercial zoning district in the City. Walgreens is
an approximately 14,400 square foot retail building with a pharmacy, photo center,
and beauty and health products. Under the Community Commercial zoning district
retail stores greater than 10,000 square feet in size require approval of a
conditional use permit; however, at the time of original approval the requirement
2
for a conditional use permit was not in place. Since there is no conditional use
permit, the applicant needs to amend the site development permit to permit alcohol
sales at the site. No changes to the site development permit, including the request
to permit alcohol sales would require the applicant to apply for a conditional use
permit. Alcohol sales are typical for this type of retail use and are permitted under
the current zoning designation.
Sales of alcoholic beverages in the State of California are regulated by local land -
use commissions and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC). Should the applicants request be granted and alcoholic beverage sales
allowed the applicant would be responsible for obtaining all permits through the
ABC for sale of alcoholic beverages at the site. ABC permits place additional
conditions on permittees for the sale of such beverages, and permits are not
typically issued by the ABC if the sales of alcohol occur in close proximity to
sensitive land -uses, such as schools and parks. In addition, the ABC regularly
monitors and enforces permit conditions on permittees. If a permittee is found to
be in violation of an ABC permit the ABC typically fines the permittee, revokes their
permit for alcoholic beverage sales, or both.
IN review of the application the Police Department recommended that alcoholic
beverage display be limited to high visibility areas, typically near the store entrance,
and that in-store closed-circuit video cameras monitor the display area. It is the
Police Departments opinion that these two precautions can significantly deter crime
should the sale of alcoholic beverages be permitted.
FINDINGS:
The following findings can be made in support of Site Development Permit 2002-
753, Amendment 1:
A. Site Development Permit 2002-753, Amendment 1, as recommended, will
require the applicant to obtain all necessary permits from the California
Alcoholic Beverage Control for the on -site sales of alcoholic beverages.
B. Site Development Permit 2002-753, Amendment 1, as recommended, is
harmonious with and visually related to surrounding developments, as it will
not adversely affect surrounding land uses as the sale of alcoholic beverage
is contained in the interior of the existing building.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 10, 2011, mailed
to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and posted on City Public
Hearing information boards. At the time of the filing of this report, staff has
3
received one letter from a Rancho La Quinta resident, asking the Planning
Commission to deny the Site Development Permit Amendment, due to crime
concerns. In addition, staff has received a written request from the Rancho La
Quinta Homeowners Association to continue this item until their Board has a
chance to convene and review the applicant's request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue this item until the
Planning Commission reconvenes on September 27, 2011.
Prepared by:
F
Eric Ceja, As 'sta t Planner
Attachments:
1) Rancho La Quinta HOA request for Continuance
2) Rancho La Quinta Resident's Letter of Opposition
0
f1c
ATTACHMENT # 1
RANCHO LA QUINTA
MASTER ASSOCIATION
Les Johnson, Planning Director
Eric CeJa, Assistant Planner
David Sawyer, Planning Manager
City of La Quinta,
P. O. Box 1504
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
Gentlemen,
July 19, 2011
It has been brought to the attention of the Board of Directors of the Rancho La Quinta
Master Association that Waigreen's, (48"' and Washington Ave.) Is attempting to
amend/rescind their "Conditional Approval #6" of the original site development permit;
their intent as we read the "Notice of Public Hearing", is that they want to engage in the
storage and sales of beer and wine.
One of the reasons for the "Condition #6" was the strong opposition by the residents of
this community and others in the immediate area to the sale of any alcoholic beverages
along with other conditions.
This notice now comes at a time when.the majority of all surrounding residents are
away either for the summer months or at least for the months of July and August.
We respectively request a continuance of this Hearing for a minimum of sixty (60) days
so that one, the Board of Directors has the chance to communicate this endeavor to its
residents and two, give those residents and the Board of Directors time to write their
letters to the City individually and or appear at the Hearing.
Any supportive dialog you can offer on behalf of the residents of Rancho La Quinta
would be greatly appreciated.
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
i�6w lie
Rob Dawson, President
On behalf of the Board of Directors
RLQ Master Association
cc: Laguna De La Paz HOA,
Rancho La Quinta Country Club
5
P.O. BOX 6419 • LA QUINCA, CA 92248-6419 • 760-777-8807 • FAX 760-777-8961
ATTACHMENT # 2
WILLIAM H. IVEY
78665 DESCANSO LANE
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
(760) 7 7 1 - 4 2 8 4 FAX(760) 771-3565
July 15, 2011
Planning Department �Ui a 2011
La Quinta City Hall CHI, r�
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: Walgreens Company
Amendment to Site Development Permit 2002-759
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are.not in favor of permitting the sale of beer and wine at the existing Walgreens,
located at the NEC of Avenue 48 and Washington Street.
We live in Rancho La Quinta Country on 78-665 Descanso Lane, directly across
Avenue 48:from-Walgreens.
Walgreens was given their site development permit in April, 2003, provided they agreed
to the following conditions:
1. No sales of wine, beer and liquors on the premises.
2. Limit their store hours.
3. Locate their building pad away from the:corner intersection.
4. Provide an abundance of landscaping on Avenue 48.
The City Counsel conditioned Walgreens with these requirements eight years ago
because of the concerns the surrounding neighbors had for crime, lighting and noise. In
our opinion, nothing has changed since then.
We strongly recommend that you disapprove Walgreens request to amend their site
deve1 ment pemut
• ,ice. �:
Bill and Gail Ivey
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 26, 2011
CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2011-1536
APPLICANT: SIGN*A*RAMA
PROPERTY OWNER: LEE OSBORNE
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SIGN
PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO PERMIT LARGER LETTER
SIZES FOR INDIVIDUAL SIGNS
LOCATION: 79-215, 79-245 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION
1531 1(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THIS PROPOSAL
INCLUDES ON -PREMISE SIGNS.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CP (COMMERCIAL PARK)
ZONING: CP (COMMERCIAL PARK)
�3�J.:1;Z�PLUT�h
ZONING/LAND. USE: NORTH: COMMERCIAL PARK - J&S PAUL
PROFESSIONAL PLAZA
SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERICAL - THE PAVILIONS
AT LA QUINTA
EAST: COMMERCIAL PARK - VACANT
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERICAL/COMMERCIAL
PARK - U.S. POSTAL OFFICE
BACKGROUND:
Corporate Center Professional Plaza was originally approved under Specific Plan
1999-036, which encompasses La Quinta Valley Plaza, J&S Paul Professional
Plaza, La Quinta Corporate Plaza, and Corporate Center Professional Plaza. The
Planning Commission has reviewed and approved different Site Development
Permits within the Specific Plan for each of the separate plazas. On April 22, 2003,
the Planning Commission approved Site Development Permits 2003-780 and 781
for two commercial buildings located at the southeast corner of Corporate Centre
Drive and Commerce Court (Attachment 1). The Sign Program (SA 2003-734)
approved in December 2003, was for both buildings at the Plaza; however each
building is now under separate ownership.
SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests an amendment to the existing sign program be approved for
Corporate Center Professional Plaza. The proposed amendment to the sign program
is to allow larger letter and logo sizes for individual building -mounted signs, by
increasing letter height from sixteen (16) inches to eighteen and a half (18.5)
inches, and increasing logo size from twenty-four (24) inches to thirty-nine (39)
inches.
Building -mounted Signs
The existing sign program permits tenants one sign per street -facing building
elevation. Tenant signs are restricted to pre -determined sign locations on the
buildings' large blank fascia (Attachment 2). Individual building -mounted sign letters
are limited to a maximum of sixteen (16) inches in height, with the overall
combined height of the sign not to exceed twenty-four (24) inches.
The applicant is requesting revisions to the sign program to allow for individual
letter sizes up -to eighteen (18) inches and an overall combined sign height of thirty-
nine (39) inches. The request has been made to accommodate a new tenant and
building owner who would prefer additional flexibility in sign design and
identification.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed sign program amendment is to allow tenants the opportunity for
larger individual letter building -mounted signs. The increase in individual letter size
from sixteen (16) inches to eighteen and a half (18.5) inches, represents a nearly
thirteen percent (13%) increase in sign height. In addition, the proposed increase in
overall combined sign height from twenty-four (24) inches to thirty-nine (39) inches
represents a nearly sixty-three percent (63%) increase in the overall sign height.
Tenants located in the Corporate Center Professional Plaza area limited to pre-
determined sign locations and are limited to a maximum sign area of fifty (50)
square feet. Because the overall sign area will remain unchanged, staff believes
that permitting larger individual sign letters will have a minimum impact on the
building facade and will permit additional flexibility for tenant identification. In
addition, signs will remain restricted to be centered on the building fascia.
2
Many of the existing shopping centers in the City, including the 111 La Quinta
Center, and the Center at La Quinta permit letter heights up to twenty-four (24)
inches and thirty (30) inches, respectively. Logo areas at these shopping centers
are also set at a height of thirty-six (36) inches. Other shopping centers, such as
the Pavilions at La Quinta, do not specify a maximum letter height and instead limit
the overall sign area. Although the proposed amendment to the sign program would
not increase sign letter height beyond eighteen and a half (18.5) inches, logo areas
would be three inches greater than most other shopping centers. However, the
buildings are located along Corporate Center Drive, which is a less travelled
thorough -fare in the City with office commercial buildings on each side. Due to the
buildings' location, visibility from major city roadways, and limited sign area
additional letter height and logo size would have a negligible impact on surrounding
land -uses.
Future signs for each tenant will be submitted under the general sign permit
process as they are identified, and reviewed against the parameters of this Sign
Program as approved.
FINDINGS:
The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2011-1536:
A. Sign Application 2011-1536, as recommended, is consistent with the
purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the
standards as set forth in said Chapter.
B. Sign Application 2011-1536, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, in that the
overall sign size, letter type, color and location remain unchanged.
C. Sign Application 2011-1536, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter
sizes used do not impede on the building design, and that the buildings
fascia permit larger signs in scale with the buildings architecture.
D. Sign Application 2011-1536, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect
surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 10, 2011, mailed
to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and posted on City Public
Hearing information boards. At the time of the filing of this report, staff had not
received any letters or phone calls from the public regarding the proposal.
3
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion No.
based on the findings and
Commission Staff Report f
following condition:
201 1- , approving Sign Application 201 1-1536,
analysis included in the July 26, 2011, Planning
or Sign Application 2011-1536, and subject to the
1. Individual sign applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the signs.
Prepared by:
Eric Cej , A sistant Planner
Attachments:
1. Building Locations
2. Building Elevations
C!
ATTACHMENT # 1
A"
W,
ATTACHMENT # 2
0
PH # C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 26, 2011
CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2011-1528
APPLICANT: SUPERIOR ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING
PROPERTY OWNER: LQ INV. SUMMIT TEAM / TFG LQV
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SIGN
PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE
SHOPPING CENTER
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND
WASHINGTON STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION
15311 (a) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN THAT THIS PROPOSAL
INCLUDES ON -PREMISE SIGNS.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CN (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -
VILLA CORTINA APARTMENTS
SOUTH: MAJOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES -
CITY HALL
EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -
DESERT CLUB TRACT 5
WEST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -
SEASONS SENIOR APARTMENTS
BACKGROUND:
The La Quinta Village Shopping Center was originally approved by the City Council
on April 16,. 1991, under Plot Plan 91-456. Through subsequent amendments, the
project size was reduced from 116,000 square feet to 79,000. square feet, and on
March 22, 1994, the shopping center was approved at its current configuration. In
2010, the shopping center completed the last remaining pad building, Pad 'A'.
Current tenants at the shopping center include Ralphs Supermarket, Subway, Pizza
Hut, Keller Williams Realty, several local eateries, and a new U.S. Bank.
In 1994, the Planning Commission approved a sign program for the shopping
center. The sign program permits illuminated building -mounted signs for Ralphs,
and suspended illuminated cabinet signs for all other tenants. In addition, the
approved sign program allows for both monument signs and pylon signs. However,
the sign program has a provision limiting pad tenants to either a street -facing
building -mounted sign or a monument sign.
SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests an amendment to the existing sign program be approved for
La Quinta Village Shopping Center (Attachment 2). The proposed amendment to
the sign program is to eliminate the provision limiting pad tenants to either a
building -mounted sign or a monument sign, and to allow pad tenants to maintain
both a street -facing suspended cabinet sign and monument sign identification.
Building -mounted Signs
The existing sign program permits tenants to have a suspended illuminated cabinet
sign at their store entry. Corner tenants and tenants with more than one street
frontage are permitted additional suspended cabinet signs. The cabinet signs are
painted to match the beams at the shopping center. Tenant signs are typically
limited to text and a white background; however, national tenants, such as
Subway, Starbucks and U.S. Banks are permitted to have a color background that
matches their respective registered trademarks (Attachment 3).
Pylon Signs
The existing sign program allows for two pylon signs, one per street frontage, for
shopping center identification and for Ralphs supermarket; the centers' major
tenant. Currently, there is one pylon sign per driveway entry at the shopping center
(Attachment 4). The pylon signs are limited to shopping center identification and
Ralph's Supermarket identification.
Monument Signs
In addition to the pylon signs, the existing sign program permits two monument
signs; one per street frontage, for the shopping center. Monument signs are limited
to eight (8) feet in height, limited to twenty-five (25) square feet in area, and are
similar in design to the existing pylon signs, excluding the terminology of "La
Quinta Village Shopping Center". The current sign program allows only pad building
tenants to be placed on monument signs; however, the program prohibits pad
2
tenants from maintaining both a street -facing building -mounted sign and a
monument sign. The new U.S. Bank, located on Pad 'A', recently installed the
centers' first monument sign along Calls Tampico (Attachment 5).
ANALYSIS:
The proposed sign program amendment is to allow pad tenants the opportunity for
both street -facing building -mounted signs and monument sign identification. As
currently written into the sign program, pad tenants must choose between a street -
facing building -mounted sign and a monument sign. Although only one tenant (U.S.
Bank) has opted to place a monument sign at the shopping center, another
monument sign may be placed along Washington Street for tenants located on
Pads 'B' (Keller Williams), 'C' (Starbucks), and/or 'D' (Subway).
The shopping centers' building -mounted signs meet the standards contained in the
City's Sign Code provisions, as individual tenant signs are limited to predetermined
sign locations, a restrictive sign area and illumination. In addition, pad tenants are
limited to suspended cabinet signs, which limit the size of the sign area to
approximately fifteen (15) square feet, and limit a tenants visibility from adjacent
public roadways.
The monument sign design is consistent with the existing pylon signs at the
shopping center; however, monument sign size is reduced by 50% and limited to a
maximum area of twenty-five (25) square feet. The smaller monument signs allow
pad tenants additional visibility from perimeter streets. The option to allow a
monument sign and street -facing building -mounted sign is especially important for
tenants located in Pads 'C' and 'D', because of the orientation of those buildings. A
monument sign is also important to pad 'A' since that building is oriented to the
interior of the shopping center, with limited store -front visibility along Calle
Tampico. Permitting both sign options for pad tenants will increase tenant visibility,
support business operations and assist customers in the navigation of the shopping
center.
The monument sign provisions contained in the sign program are more restrictive
than the City's Sign Code, in that monument sign size is restricted to twenty-five
(25) square feet.
Future signs for each tenant will be submitted under the general sign permit
process as they are identified, and reviewed against the parameters of this Sign
Program as approved.
FINDINGS:
The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2011-1528:
A. Sign Application 2011-1528, as recommended, is consistent with the
purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the
3
standards as set forth in said Chapter.
B. Sign Application 2011-1528, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to all signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the
common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs.
C. Sign Application 2011-1528, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to the subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter
sizes used do not impede on the building design.
D. Sign Application 201 1-1528, as recommended, is harmonious with and
visually related to surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect
surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 10, 2011, mailed
to all property owners within 500-feet of the site, and posted on City Public
Hearing information boards. At the time of the filing of this report, staff had not
received any letters or phone calls from the public regarding the proposal.
Adopt Minute Motion No. 2011- , approving Sign Application 2011-1528,
based on the findings and analysis included in the July 26, 2011, Planning
Commission Staff Report for Sign Application 2011-1528, and subject to the
following condition:
1. Individual sign applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the signs.
Prepared by:
a, -
Eric Ceja, A sis nt Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Sign Program Amendment
3. Pictures of Suspended Cabinet Signs
4. Pictures of Ralphs Pylon Signs
5. Picture of U.S. Bank Monument Sign
G!
}�}t. � -i �sa
EXHIBIT A
SIGN PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT # 2
LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
APRIL 13, 2004
Amended JUNE 15, 2011
GENERAL NOTES:
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Sign Program is to establish the sign standards necessary to insure coordinated
proportional exposure for all tenants within the shopping center pursuant to Plot Plan 91-456.
Conformance shall be strictly enforced and any installed non -conforming signs shall be removed by
the Landlord's sign contractor at the tenant's expense.
APPLICABILITY:
As defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.160.090), a Sign Program is required for
submissions which 1) include three or more permanent signs; 2) are in conjunction with review of a
Site Development Permit by the Planning Commission; and 3) include a request for a sign
adjustment to a sign previously approved under a sign program. For those signs requiring a
program, no permit shall be issued for an individual sign unless, and until, a Sign Program for the lot
on which the sign will be erected has been submitted and approved by the City in conformance with
the Zoning Code.
CONDITIONS:
Each tenant shall submit to the Landlord for approval two (2) copies of detailed shop drawings
of its proposed sign indicating conformance to these criteria. Such submittals shall include but
not be limited to pertinent dimensions, details and color call outs.
2. Each tenant shall pay for all signs, their installation and maintenance.
3. Each tenant shall submit to the Landlord and to all agencies requiring approval, approved
drawings and shall pay for the required approvals and permits.
4. All work shall be of excellent quality. Landlord and/or project architect reserves the right to
reject any work determined to be of insufficient quality.
5. All signs and their installation must comply with local building and electrical codes. The City's
Sign Ordinances shall be consulted for requirements not covered in this Sign Program.
6. Tenant shall be responsible for penetrations, leaks and/or defacement caused by the sign
contractor.
0
7. No animated, flashing or audible signs will be permitted.
8. No exposed tubing lamps will be permitted.
9. No exposed raceways, crossovers, conduits, conductor transformers, etc. will be permitted.
10. Sign contractor shall provide necessary fastenings and bracings to securely install the sign.
11. Each tenant for the shop buildings shall be limited to one sign only with corner tenants allowed
a second sign on the second frontage (e.g., street or parking lot). Tenants with more than two
frontages are allowed one additional building sign on the additional frontage.
12. A maximum of two (2) freestanding signs (shopping center identification and pad monument)
shall be allowed per street (Washington Street and Calle Tampico). Specific location to be
subject to approval by the Community Development Department.
13. Sign letter and colors for the shop building tenants (building tenant), and monument signs
(monument pad signs) and pedestrian signs shall be any color allowed by the Landlord,
excluding fluorescent colors.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING TENANT SIGNS
Type "A" Sign (18" high x 1 U-0" Iona x 24" wide [see drawingl)
1. Only internally illuminated cabinet signs shall be permitted.
2. Color of letter faces is up to the discretion of the tenant. Registered trademark colors and logos
can be used for letters and background areas, subject to Landlord approval.
3. Sign face background shall be an opaque stucco finish, painted to match the color of the
building. (Frazee Paint #181 White Shadow').
4. Color of cabinet shall be painted to match color of beams. (Frazee Paint #5695-A'Bourbon")
5. Cabinet retainer shall be Fnafte bFGWn match cabinet color. (Frazee Paint #5695-A
"Bourbon")
6. Letter heights to be proportional to the working surface area.
The cabinet sign shall be 18-inches high and 10-feet long (15 square feet maximum size per
facade). The Planning Commission may limit the number and size of building signs during
review and approval of a development permit.
Freestanding Building Pads (A. B. C & D) -Tenants that occupy freestanding buildings A, B, C,
& D (100% of the floor area) may install flush mounted internally illuminated building signs that
Sign Program Amendment 2011
consist of cabinets, channel letters, or other types of advertising signs (e.g., reverse channel
letter, etc.).
Total sign area per tenant shall not exceed 50 square feet (i.e., one square foot per lineal foot of
frontage). The total size of the building sign may be increased to 75 sq. ft. if no monument sign is
being provided for that tenant. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, letter
heights shall be limited to 24-inches. Returns of the letters shall be stuccoed or painted to match the
color of the building. The Planning Commission may limit the number and size
of building signs during review and approval of a development permit.
Providing they are an end cap user. (Front, side and rear elevation).
8. Type style shall be approved by the Landlord.
9. Double -and single -line copy shall be permitted.
10. All signs shall be mounted in allotted space and must align with other tenants.
11. Sign shall be supported by 1Y=" inch square aluminum tubing that is painted to match the
cabinet color. (Frazee Paint #5695-A "Bourbon")
12. All signs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and all other
applicable construction codes.
13. The tenant and the tenant's contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any and all permits
required.
14. All signs shall be maintained in good structural condition and appearance and in compliance
with the Sign Program, the La Quinta Municipal Code (Chapter 9.160), and all building and
electrical codes.
15. No exposed lamp bulbs and/or neon tubes will be permitted. Electric raceways for channel letter
signs shall be mounted behind the wall surfaces.
16. All tenants shall maintain their signs in a 'like new" appearance.
17. Upon removal of signage, the party that purchased the signage shall be responsible for the
removal of the signage, including patching and painting of holes of the sign(s) removed.
Type "B" Sign (pedestrian -type under -canopy signs):
Sign shall be sandblasted redwood, cedar, or other similar material with raised letters.
Composite plastic materials may be used, provided they replicate wood surfaces and textures.
Only indirect lighting is allowed.
Sign Program Amendment 2011
E3
Sign size shall not exceed four square feet.
3. Sign shall be double face.
Background of sign shall match the building color.
5. Color of lettering is up to the discretion of the tenant.
6. Type style is up to the discretion of the tenant.
Size of type shall be proportional to surface area.
Sign shall have one -inch square metal tubing for support frame.
9. Support frame shall match color of undersheathing.
10. Sign to align with other tenants with minimum 8'-6" vertical clearance.
Type "C" Sian (window signs):
Window Signs -Tenant shall be allowed to place in the upper window panel adjacent to the door
not more than 144 square inches of hand painted, decal or stick -on lettering or graphics
indicating hours of business, telephone numbers for emergency contact, approved credit cards,
etc. No other window signs will be allowed including, but not limited to, temporary signs, sale
banners, posters and product information in compliance with City Sign Ordinance regulations
without written Landlord approval. Businesses that are opening shall be allowed one 32 square
foot Grand Opening banner for a 30 day period subject to obtaining approval from the City's
Community Development Department before the banner is displayed. Banner permits are also
allowed for one-year anniversary sales as set forth in Section 9.160.060(J) of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. Banners shall be affixed to the building surface when displayed.
Monument Pad Sans (A. B. C. and D):
1. The monument signs shall be double -sided, and be consistent in design to the existing pylon
signs for the shopping center, excluding the use of the 'La Quinta Village" terminology at the
top of each sign. Each sign shall be placed a minimum distance of five feet away from the
property line.
2. The sign shall be internally illuminated by fluorescent lighting.
3. The sign shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
4. Total signage area per sign shall not to exceed 25 square feet, and only one sign per street
frontage is allowed.
Sign Program Amendment 2011
9
5. Color of letter faces (tenant name) is up to the discretion of the tenant.
6. Sign & face (background) to be opaque painted stucco finish to match the building.
(Frazee Paint #181 White Shadow").
7. Retainer on sign shall be painted to match the color of the tile on the building.
B. Type style shall be approved by the Landlord and City.
9. See exhibits for materials and location requirements.
10. Only two (2) tenants per monument sign. Letter size shall be no larger than 10" and largeF per
tenant high for the business name and no larger than 14" high for a loco (subject to
Landlord & City approval).
11. . Monument Sign shall have divider bar for
tenant panel separation.
12. if the vad tenants install monument simm-, tffie build-in-0 siOns faGincl the oubliG stFeet shall be
building they aFe IGGated . If a pad tenant installs a monument sign, the building signs
facing the public street shall be permitted. Only 2 tenants that occupy a pad building site
shall advertise on the pad monument sign.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CENTER PYLON SIGNS (includes Ralphs Supermarket identification sign):
Pylon sign shall be double -sided and mounted perpendicular to the street.
2. Sign shall be internally illuminated by fluorescent lighting.
3. The sign shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
4. Total signage area per sign shall not to exceed 50 square feet, ensuring only one sign per
street frontage. See Sign Application 94-264. The graphic elements for "La Quinta Village" shall
be raised two -inches from the adjacent Plexiglas surface.
5. Color of letter faces is up to the discretion of the tenant.
6. Sign face to be an opaque painted stucco finish to match the building.
7. Retainer if any to match the color of the roof tile.
8. Signs shall have divider bars for tenant separation.
9. See exhibits for materials and location requirements.
RALPH'S SIGNAGE (60-929 WASHINGTON STREET):
Sign Program Amendment 2011
lIN]
Building Sign
Size of sign to be 8' high by 22' long on the east -facing facade pursuant to Sign Application 94-
262. No other business ID signs are allowed on west, north and south sides of the building.
Changing the existing sign graphics may be allowed by the Community Development Director,
unless referred to the Planning Commission for a final decision (e.g., Business Agenda matter).
Any new supplemental business signs planned for the east facade must be submitted to the
Planning Commission for review and approval, before being installed
Special Note: The maximum amount of sign area for a new tenant shall be 100 square feet if
the existing oval sign cabinet is removed from the building.
2. Sign to be single face.
3. Background of sign to be red.
4. Color of copy to be white.
5. Return and retainer to match the roof tile
BUILDING ADDRESS SIGN:
Address signage shall be non -illuminated plastic formed 6-inch high letters. Internally
illuminated address signs, in 12-inch high letters, are encouraged for newly constructed
buildings.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
A sign application consistent with the Program shall consist of the following:
For each proposed sign application on the building, the following drawing information shall be
provided:
a) A dimensioned location of each sign on.the building and property;
b) Sign dimensions including letter height, color, sign length, and sign projection from the building;
c) Color scheme;
d) Type sign or graphic style;
e) Materials being used; and
f) Method of installation and attachment.
Sign Program Amendment 2011
11
BINDING EFFECT:
After approval of this Sign Program, no sign shall be erected, constructed, installed, displayed,
altered, placed or maintained except in conformance with this Program. In case of any conflict
between the provisions of this Program and any other provision of Chapter 9.160 of the City Zoning
Ordinance, the City Zoning Ordinance shall prevail. The Sign Program, if amended in the future,
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a public hearing agenda item.
APPROVALS:
The design and construction of the tenants' signage must receive written approval by the owner of
the building and then by the City of La Quinta before fabrication and installation. The owner's written
approval shall be submitted to the City, along with a completed City application, approved plans, and
fees.
Owner's approval shall be based on:
Showing the conformity to the Sign Program is established for the Center including fabrication and
method of installation.
Proof of owner's approval, in the form of three (3) copies of the design drawing of the signage,
submitted directly to the owner.
FINAL INSPECTION OF SIGN INSTALLATION:
The installing sign contractor shall call the City for a final inspection after having installed the sign.
Sign Program Amendment 2011
12
STAFF REPORT PH # D
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 26, 2011 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 201 1)
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118
REQUEST: 1) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO
ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATING THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599 WAS
PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
INCORPORATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970,
AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE
PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND:
On October 13, October 27, December 8, 2009, and January 12, 2010, the Planning
Commission considered staff reports regarding the La Quinta Housing Element Update.
On February 9, 2010, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Housing
Element, pending resolution of ongoing HCD concerns. A revised Housing Element
draft has since been prepared, and a Planning Commission review draft of the Housing
Element document was provided to the Commission on July 1, 2011.
and participated in the Forum as well.
AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS
California housing law allows cities to obtain credit toward RHNA housing goals in
three ways: constructed and approved units, vacant and underutilized land, and
through preservation of existing affordable housing.
Within the RHNA, 2,585 units of the 4,327 total must be affordable to lower and
moderate income households. Under State law, any lower and moderate income units
constructed or approved between January 2006 and September 2007 can'be credited
toward the respective RHNA category. Combined, these constructed and approved
units, and pending projects, will contribute 576 lower income and 569 moderate
income housing units toward the 2,585 lower and moderate RHNA allocation.
Therefore, the City must identify available land to accommodate the balance of 1,440
lower and moderate income households (1,213 lower and 227 moderate) within the
current planning period.
Land Resources
State housing law requires that a Housing Element contain a land inventory identifying
available sites within the City that can accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA
allocation. Vacant and underutilized lands need to be currently zoned for residential
development or identified for rezoning to allow for residential uses. Underutilized land
is defined as developed residential sites that are capable of being recycled at a higher
density, or sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be rezoned, if necessary, and
redeveloped for residential use.
Based on discussions conducted with HCD over the past year, staff has modified the
inventory to meet HCD expectations for potential capacity requirements. The housing
element currently identifies 147 vacant acres with a total expected yield, at a realistic
capacity established based on existing development trends, of 1,500 units. The
underutilized land inventory identifies 207 acres of underutilized land that could
accommodate new housing during the planning period, with an expected yield from
these sites of 2,112 units. Based on vacant and underutilized sites being developed at
assigned densities, along with other proposed programs such as guest house
provisions, the total projected lower and moderate income capacity of 3,240 units can
absorb the remaining 1,440 unit RHNA allocation (Attachment 3).
In order to achieve the necessary capacity, certain existing land resources need to be
rezoned. Rezoning can mean an actual change to the parcel's zoning district, or a
revision to the zoning district development standard(s) which would affect certain
identified sites. This would also include corresponding changes to General Plan land
use. Of the identified sites, one vacant site and 4 underutilized sites are proposed for
3
specific changes to their zoning district, and several sites will be designated with an
Affordable Housing Overlay (Attachment 4).
In addition, the draft Housing Element proposes the following Programs:
• An Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program (Section 9.0, Program 1.5),
which would permit higher densities at 20-24 units per acre, for projects with at
least 25% of its units set aside for lower income households. This overlay
would apply specifically to several sites, and would also apply to all commercial
zoning districts.
• The Housing Element also contains program language (Program 1.6) to study
and formulate modified development standards in the commercial zoning
districts, which would allow affordable housing developments to conform to
more traditional high -density residential development standards.
• Program 1.7 calls for an increase in maximum density for the High Density
Residential category in the General Plan, from 16 to 24 units per acre.
• Program 1.8 provides for a monitoring program intended to ensure adequate
sites will be available if other sites do not develop at their projected densities, as
called out in the inventory.
These changes will be reviewed and undertaken in conjunction with the La Quinta
General Plan Update process. Under state law, the City must rezone these sites,
generally within the first one to two years after adoption of the Housing Element, in
order to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for development of these sites
during the planning period. It should be noted that, as part of the General Plan update,
there may be other sites identified for affordable housing opportunities.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW
The public hearing for the proposed Environmental Assessment, General Plan
Amendment, and Housing Element Update was advertised in the Desert Sun
newspaper on July 1, 2011, for the July 12, 2011 meeting, which was continued.
The public hearing notice was published as 1 /8 page legal advertisement.
Public Agency Review
On March 4, 2009 the City released a Public Review Draft of the Housing Element
document to public agencies and stakeholder groups. The City also notified these same
entities on May 11, 2009 that the final HCD review draft had been sent to HCD and
was available on the City's website. The City received only one response on the
Housing Element, from the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC), submitted by
EI
email on April 3, 2009. The comments were minor and the City responded to CVHC
concerns in the aforementioned draft element submitted to HCD on May 1, 2009.
As of this report's preparation, no other comments have been received on the
proposed draft Housing Element; any comments submitted in the interim period shall
be presented to the Planning Commission and addressed at the public hearing.
SB18 Review
The Housing Element was subject to review by Native American Tribal organizations,
under SIB 18 requirements. One request for consultation was received from the 29
Palms Band of Mission Indians during the 90-day tribal consultation request period, but
there was no follow-up from that organization. One "no comment" letter was also
received from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.
CEQA Compliance
Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared
Environmental Assessment (EA) 2008-599 for the draft Housing Element. A Notice of
Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was distributed to local and state agencies, and
published in the Desert,Sun on September 11, 2009, establishing a 30-day public
review period under CEQA, ending October 12, 2009. No comments were received
during the circulation of the proposed Negative Declaration.
State Review of Housing Element
The City submitted the first draft of the revised Housing Element on May 1, 2009 and
responded to the State's comments with a second submittal on August 12, 2009.
HCD responded to the City's second submittal in October 2009, and expressed several
concerns regarding density assumptions.
The City and its consultant held several conversations with HCD between November
2009 and December 2010, resulting in the current draft document being presented.
Based on these revisions, HCD has acknowledged that the City has a draft Housing
Element that will comply with the state housing element requirements (Attachment 5).
These revisions, once adopted will be incorporated into the final draft element and sent
to HCD for certification.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011-recomending City Council
certification of Environmental Assessment 2008-599; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011-_recommending City Council
b7
adoption of General Plan Amendment 2008-1 18, the La Quinta Housing Element
Update.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. 2006 RHNA Allocations
2. Projected Housing Program Capacity toward meeting RHNA
3. Rezoning and Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites listing
4. HCD Review letter dated May 10, 2011 (2 pages)
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118 — HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the
26`h day of July, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed
General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element Update (hereinafter, "Project"); and,
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #20000991023) was
previously prepared, adopted, and certified under City Council Resolution 2002-43, for
the 2002 La Quinta General Plan as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, and identifies various mitigation measures and further identifies certain
impacts which cannot be so mitigated through a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration (SCH # 2009091037) under Environmental Assessment 2008-599, in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA
Guidelines); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that said Project will not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the mitigation measures
required in the General Plan EIR and incorporated herein by this reference and that a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, the City mailed and published a Notice of Intent to adopt the
Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the
11`h day of September, 2009 to the Riverside County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the Initial
Study and Negative Declaration in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 1, 2011, said
notice also having been mailed to concerned agencies, and all public entities entitled to
such notice; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
Environmental Assessment 2008-599
General Plan Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
Page 2
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make
the following findings to justify a recommendation to the City Council for certification
of said Environmental Assessment:
That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance
with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The
Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Environmental Assessment, and finds that it
adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project.
Based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire
record of proceeding for this Project, the Planning Commission finds that there
are no significant environmental effects resulting from this Project. .
2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were
identified by Environmental Assessment 2008-599.
3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant
effects on environmental factors have been identified under Environmental
Assessment 2008-599.
6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in
the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the City will not be
significantly affected by the Project.
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
Environmental Assessment 2008-599
General Plan Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
Page 3
7. The Project will not create environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have
been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public
services.
8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Negative
Declaration and any comments received thereon, and there is no substantial
evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
9. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2008-599
and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City.
10. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project
has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish
and Game Code §711.2., and a Finding of No Effect has been issued by the
California Department of Fish and Game, pursuant to Fish and Game Code
711.4.
13. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Planning Commission decision is based upon, are located in the La
Quinta City Hall, Planning Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California, 92253.
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 Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2008-599
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Initial Study, on
file in the Planning Department and attached hereto.
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
Environmental Assessment 2008-599
General Plan Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
Page 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of July, 2011, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND
INnuL STUDY
FOR:
2008 LA QUINTA
HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
r;
prepared for:
CITY OF LA QUANTA
Contact:
Les Johnson
Planning Director
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
Contact:
Elizabeth Kim
Environmental Planner
4
SEPTEMBER 2009
�a S CITY OF LA QUINTA
3
_ NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
�CF'y OF itff'A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
2008 LA QUINTA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Project Title: 2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update
Proponent: City of La Quinta
Proiect Locating -
This Housing Element Update will apply City-wide, as an adopted element of the La Quinta General Plan.
Project Description -
The La Quinta Housing Element is a state -mandated general plan element that establishes the City's vision for
addressing existing and future housing needs, the 2008 Housing Element Update has been prepared to identify and
address La Quinta's housing needs through 2014. As required by state law, the Housing Element describes
community demographics, housing characteristics, the residential development potential of vacant and underutilized
sites, and potential constrains to housing. The Housing Element is not a development plan and it is not an
entitlement. Rather, it is a policy document that encourages the rehabilitation, preservation, and construction of
housing in compliance with provisions of state housing law.
No potentially significant effects on the environment are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, a Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct. The Initial Study and all
documents referenced therein, along with the draft Negative Declaration, are available for review at the City of La
Quinta Planning Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 on weekdays, from 8:00 am to
5:00 pm, and on the City's website at. (http.,//wwwaa-auinta o-Wndex aspx?paae=541) The, invited to
public is
comment on the draft Negative Declaration during the public review period beginning on September 1 is 2009 and
ending on October 12, 2009. Please provide any comments to Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner, either by mail to
the above address, by email at wnesbit@la-quinta.org, or by fax at760-777-1233.
The project area is NOT on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65962.5
Planning Commission Action:
The La Quinta Planning Commission will consider the Negative Declaration at a public meeting tentatively
scheduled for October 13, 2009, to be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 78495 Calle
Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253.
City Council Action:
The La Quinta City Council will Consider the Negative Declaration at a public meeting tentatively scheduled for
November 3, 2009, to be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, CA 92253.
These are tentative dates. Please call 760-777-7125 for confirmation of the dates prior to any planned meeting
attendance, or with any other questions or concerns in regard to this notice.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the procedures of the City of La Quinta for the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the City has completed an initial Study for the project described below:
Project Information
Project:
Project Location:
Project Proponent:
Project Description:
Summary of Impacts:
Availability of Documents:
City of La Quinta Housing Element Update
City-wide, as an adopted element of the La Quinta General Plan.
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calls Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
The La Quinta Housing Element is a state -mandated general plan
element that establishes the City's vision for addressing existing and
future housing needs, the 2008 Housing Element Update has been
prepared to identify and address La Quinta's housing needs through
2014. As required by state law, the Housing Element describes
community demographics, housing characteristics, the residential
development potential of vacant and underutilized sites, and potential
constrains to housing. The Housing Element is not a development plan
and it is not an entitlement. Rather, it is a policy document that
encourages the rehabilitation, preservation, and construction of housing
in compliance with provisions of state housing law.
Attached is the Initial Study prepared for the City of La Quinta Housing
Element Update. The Initial Study reviews potential environmental
effects associated with the proposed project. Please review the Initial
Study for more information.
The Initial Study and all documents referenced therein, along with the draft Negative Declaration, are
available for review at the City of La Quinta Planning Department, located at 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quints, CA 92253.
DRAFT
1NnZAL STUDY
FOR;
2008 LA QUINTA
HOUSING ELEMENT
UPDATE
QQQ
prepared for:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-495 Calie Tampico Contact.•
La Quinta, CA 92253 Les Johnson
Tel: 760.777.7030 • Fax. 760.777.7101 Planning Director
E-mail: devans@la-quinta.org
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER
1580 Metro Drive Contact:
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim
Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax. 714.966.9221 Environmental Planner
E-mail: ekim@planningcenter.com
CLQ-03.0L
SEPTEMBER 2009
Table of Contents
Section
Pa e
1.
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................I
1.1
PROJECT LOCATION..........................................................................................................1
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...............................................................................................1
1.3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................2
1.4
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING.........................................................................................14
1.5
CITY ACTION REQUESTED..............................................................................................14
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST
............................................................................................17
2.1
BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................17
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...............................................18
2.3
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)..................................18
2.4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...............................................................19
3.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS
...............................................................................................29
3.1
AESTHETICS.....................................................................................................................29
3.2
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES...........................................................................................30
3.3
AIR QUALITY.....................................................................................................................33
3.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................35
3.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................36
3.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.....................................................................................................37
3.7
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......................................................................40
3.8
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...............................................................................41
3.9
LAND USE AND PLANNING..............................................................................................44
3.10
MINERAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................44
3.11
NOISE................................................................................................................................45
3.12
POPULATION AND HOUSING..........................................................................................46
3.13
PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................47
3.14
RECREATION....................................................................................................................48
3.15
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...........................................................................................49
3.16
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................50
3.17
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................52
4.
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................53
S.
LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................................55
ffl
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page i
Table of Contents
Ust of Figures
Figure _ Pane
Figure1 Regional Location............................................................................................................... 3
Figure2 Local Vicinity....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure3 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory ........................................................................ 11
Figure5 Existing Zoning Map.........................................................................................................15
Figure 6 Important Farmlands......................................................................................................... 31
Ust of Tables
Table Paae
Table 1
Regional Housing Needs Assessment 2006-2014............................................................
9
Table 2
Constructed, Approved, and Pending Residential Projects January 2006 to
September2007.................................................................................................................
9
Table 3
Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory Summary ........................................................10
Table 4
Development Potential to Accommodate 2006-2014 RHNA..................... :.....................
13
Table 5
Quantified Objectives for 2006-2014...............................................................................
13
Page ii • The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
The City of La Quinta is proposing an update to the housing element of its general plan. The housing
element is one of the seven general plan elements mandated by the State of California, as articulated in
Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the Government Code. To comply with state law, La Quinta prepares a housing
element every five years or in conjunction with the release of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA). The La Quinta Housing Element must contain goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the
development, improvement, and preservation of housing. State law prescribes the scope and content ofthe
housing element pursuant to Section 65583 of the California Government Codes. The element also provides
a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to priority goals, objectives, and program
actions that directly address the needs of La Quinta residents. The housing element is only one facet of the
City's overall planning program. The California Government Code requires that general plans contain an
integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. The housing element is, therefore, affected by development
policies contained in other elements of the general plan.
The City of La Quinta, as lead agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental
documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, to
determine 9 approval of the discretionary actions requested could have a significant impact on the
environment. This Initial Study will provide the City of La Quinta with information to document potential
impacts of the proposed project. 01 0
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Figure 1, Regional Location, shows the location of the City of La Quinta in the Riverside County region. La
Quinta is one of nine cities in the Coachella Valley subregion of Riverside County. The Coachella Valley
includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm
Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, as well as large areas of unincorporated Riverside County. La
Quinta is bordered by Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Indio, and unincorporated Riverside County. Regional
access is provided by Interstate 10 (1-10) and State Route 86 (SR-86), located outside of La Quinta's
boundary. State Route 111 (SR-111), near the City's northern boundary, is the only state system in the Citys
limits.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.21 Existing Land Use
The draft housing element pertains only to the area within the incorporated City limits (20,672.6 acres),
excluding the City's sphere of influence area and two planning areas, as shown in the City of La Quinta
General Plan Land Use Map. Based on the 2002 General Plan Land Use Element, 57.4 percent of the land
area is devoted to residential development, 4.9 percent to commercial uses, 1.1 percent to industrial, 0.8
percent to major community facility uses, and 35.8 percent to parks, open space, and golf course open
space.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta 0 Page I
1. Introduction
1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
The City of La Quinta is one of nine cities In the Coachella Valley subregion of Riverside County. The cities of
Indian Wells and Palm Desert share the western border with the City and the City of Indio shares the City's
eastern border (see Figures 2 and 3). Most of Indian Wells abutting La Quinta, is mountainous and
undeveloped. Uses in Palm Desert and Indio include various residential (rural residential to suburban type
residential uses), recreational, commercial, and industrial, especially along major corridors like the 1-10 and
SR-111. Unincorporated Riverside County bounds much of the City south of Avenue 52, including the Santa
Rosa Mountains to the east. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is in unincorporated Riverside County to the north
of the City and south of 1-10.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The housing element is one of the seven general plan elements mandated by the State of California.
Jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region must complete the
statutory housing element update for a seven -and -one -half -year planning period that extends from January
1, 2006, through June 30, 2014.
The proposed project is the draft housing element, which contains policy guidance and a list of potential
actions and development project. The housing element does not represent actionable proposals for
individual, subsequent housing development projects or required general plan amendments, and/or zone
changes needed to implementthe respective projects. This initial study, therefore, is not required to provide
a detailed evaluation of the subsequent projects or provide mitigation for the impacts that may be associated
with implementation of those projects. This initial study, does, however, provide an overall evaluation of the
Impacts that would likely occur to successfully implement the proposed housing element. Each individual
development project and zone change required to implement the housing element will be subject to its own
subsequent review and processing under CEQA
The housing element of the La Quinta General Plan identities vacant and underutilized sites for.potential
residential and residential over commercial development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the
RHNA by 2014 and establishes the City's policy relative to the maintenance and development of housing.
The goals, policies, and programs of the housing element will guide housing -related decision making and
facilities attainment of the 2006-2014 RHNA housing targets.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SCAG prepares housing construction needs goals for each city In Southern California as part of the RHNA.
As set forth in state law, all local governments are required to identify sufficient land, adopt programs, and
provide funding, to the extent feasible, to facilitate and encourage housing production commensurate with
that need.
As shown in Table 1, the City's total RHNA allocation is 4,327 units for the 2006-2014 planning period. The
production goal for each income category is 1,065 units affordable to very low income households, 724
affordable to low income households, 796 affordable to moderate income households, and 1,741 above
moderate income units.
Page 2 • The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
Regional Location
1Ta' t r1i''
,r/.tGs's^" an Bernazdino County
Alide
_ t a F.
��—�-RiverfC, ounry t T
`�, l t}�� y._+ r, r*�� �,cS�rYri}+�-�tsx-'_F� rTM''f: aa. i'f''.jf � f": �w.✓°` t_ �'
r�FF, f1 tidp,�.. e `ter"y}} i y�, ,,.r ��`. f•-�{,A�•Ij,.,�iR r �}'''r""e,,l '� . r, r
r 1� � \ � J„ � .. k t-' A'� '2 °<�/ z ! � .�yy lS tG`�t ° •'.%! ; ^ r
y j. r ,. { of Springs.* lltj>.1� Sr- `r4 `',��%, x�� '+'.• !�,� C- 6,r,���r
i ,r..�5 v t� .�g�� �r a' JYez �3f/ ��'f�,•b1x r�G.�i
aa.;1 palm f / _�+ ✓� }✓sa<j-1 r k
..-, .-..•� f r:. J �, r <I,r�,�,� J. '✓�.� .r. �t�F.f^ s e F.''"` y r
�/E'a'J t ,., n r• y l: r r}�j.''ri r'
��` �� � r" $ �`" >'1 .✓ ,< /;� � . ° _� 33d'' �r� ` 'x'rf rr �.'�- r' �;,tt[
f; ✓ri Cr Y'nJ ✓' Rancho
V1, I'f` °'ry.. 4 Inaien Indo Coachella r
i�*fl)�} r;" .Wells
j' h r� r x f�r✓� J/' J� �i 1e
4^ r ma v
ji ��rifrr $` t.{� x. "`L .1_CL
66
'"''M�
ft�r+�U
nl � r. J rt��f
fo
mac+ �' aL, zGe rx�� ✓'� �Jrl4F�i}, xgrrt'L tl
Salton
' {i-' C, t:)y }� 4 c''. 1' f�4t,`• n L�,Lrr f9 }'r; 'Sea
r 1
-d-IllJ
as >l�t }
j}' J r � G ,�{tr J _rly r J� i a. r _.•r '# F` k jry! S'�r /,�nJ•'i ' �'/
Pill F + Y 5f
r-^rY
'-
�
rr,.�a t JF7�,.ts�.� k.1 r..:T �Y LF� j u. tN✓t,��3 r �.
NOT TO SCALE
T
2008 IQ Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 1
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 4 0 The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
Local Vicinity
�;� B J �� YV +� Illlly� .ate , "� , a•_ C� li��
ai r _ �� .*r.9 1 11- leir te a. ==111U1161_I�@10
a.•g`� �€8 E1�IEr t—`�'FJ��tilhlo. �
Fwl/14A
ru
-Feel
0 10,000
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 2
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 6 • The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
This page intentionally lalt blank
Page 8 e The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
Table 1
Reoional Housina Needs Assessment 2006-2014
Household Income/Affordability Group
Produclion Goal
Percentage
Very Low
0-50% of median
1,065
24.6%
Low 51-80%of
median
724
16.7%
Moderate 81-120% of median
796
18.4%
Above Moderate 120% above median
1,741
40.2%
Total
4,327
100%
Source: SCAG 2007.
Accommodating the RHNA
California housing element law allows local governments to obtain construction credits toward its RHNA
housing goals in three ways: housing construction, available land for housing, and housing preservation. The
housing element has identified resources through new construction and available vacant or underutilized
land to demonstrate an ability to accommodate the RHNA. It is important to note that, for the purposes of
accommodating the RHNA, the State Department of Housing and Community Development allows
jurisdictions to listthe very low and low income categories as one combined income category referred to as
"lower income" or "very low and low income."
Housing Construction
As shown in Table 2, the City has constructed or approved 516 very low income units, 60 low income units,
569 moderate income units, and 4,530 above moderate housing units but still has the allocation balance of
1,440 units (549 very low income units, 664 lower income units, and 227 moderate income units).
Table 2
Constructed, Approved, and Pending Residential Projects
January 2006 to September 2007
Pro'ect Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
3 ..,
k `Ei ..Iv?
Above Moderate Income Projects0
i+ ... .✓,.
Om
0
m
1 0
4,346 4,346
Mediterra Apartments
0
0
224
0 224
Clubhouse artrnerds
0
0
151
0 151
8
Watercolors 55+ Housing 0
0
149
e
0 149
Vista Dunes Courtyard Homes
79
0
1
0
80
Centerpointe
0
0
40
184
224
Woof Waters Place
216
0
2
0
218
Comienzo at La Quinta
198
0
2
0
200
Washington StreetAparbnerds2
23
60
0
0
83
Total Consbvcled/Approved Protects
516
60
569
4,530
5,675
2006-2014 RHNA
1,065
724
796
1 1,741
4,327
Balance of RHNA Allocation
549
664
227
0 +2,789
1,440
Source: SCAG RHNA, City of La Quinta
i This number represents the total from approximately 52 active projects in the City of La Quinta that were constructed or approved in 2006-2007.
t The units shown are new units and are in addition to 73 existing units that will be rehabilitated as a part of the project
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 9
1. Introduction
Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Land
To address the remaining RHNA, the City has identified available land for future construction as shown in
Figure 4, Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory. Vacant land includes vacant residential sites, vacant sites
zoned for nonresidential uses that also allow residential development, and nonresidential vacant sites that
must be rezoned for residential use. As shown in Table 3, the housing element Identifies 110.9 vacant acres
with a total expected yield of 1,165 units at a realistic capacity based on existing development trends. This
unit yield includes 21.4 acres, Identified as Site #2 in Figure 4, to be rezoned from RLto RM (residential low
density to residential medium density). The zoning changes, when they do occur, could add additional
housing potential in the amount of approximately 281 units. The current project does not include the actual
zoning amendment; the rezoning is anticipated to occur concurrent with the City's 2009/2011 general plan
update.
Underutilized sites are nonvacant sites that contain stalled or severely underperforming projects, or vacant
sites that have obsolete entitlements or need to be rezoned, and are likely to be available for housing
development during the planning period. The underutilized sites inventory is made up of'131.6 acres of RM
land (including 15.8 acres to be rezoned from RL), 53.7 acres of RMH (residential medium -high density) land
(including 19.7 acres to be rezoned from RM to RMH), and 21.6 acres of neighborhood commercial (CN) and
village commercial (VC) land. The total acreage in the underutilized land inventory is 206.9, 199.9 acres of
which are already zoned to accommodate residential development at or above 8 units per acre. The total
expected yield of these sites is 1,651 units at a realistic capacity based on existing development trends and
densities. The zoning changes, when they do occur, could add additional housing potential in the amount of
approximately 203 units.
Table 3
u wu, muauny ["nag anu I!I VP MUU MUM tlDr SIMS ma[ WIII De rezoned).
a A realistic density based on adsgng development and recent development applications.
° Represents a realistic density based on e>asfing development In the City and In certain cases, based on the density of stalled projects or specific
plans.
' Yield for specific commercial park (CP) and regional commercial (CR) sites was significantly reduced to reflect highway setback requirements.
° Yield for each Village Commercial site was rounded down to provide a conservative estimate that does not rely upon lot consolidation.
° Yield for Village Commercial sites was rounded down to 13mvide a consarvaava naemwn e,x m,ae nm m1u ,,.,,.,. I,."...�..,au..a...,
Page 10 • The Planning Center September 2009
1. Introduction
Proposed Zoning
0 AL CC
RM ® CP
® RMH ® CR
CN VC
RDA Project Area One
RDA Project Area Two
source:Cwauavnm
2081a Qv6w H.i-J Element UPdwe Mili<l Slvdy
Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory
d
The Pl.,.g G w • FIYUM 0
1. Introduction
Summary of Development Potential
Table 4 summarizes the housing and land resources available to the City and demonstrates an ability to
accommodate its RHNA allocation. Table 5 provides a summary of the City's quantified objectives for new
construction and rehabilitation or housing assistance for La Quinta residents during the planning period. The
City's quantified objectives for new construction do not have to match the RHNA figures; they can be lower
or higher than the RHNA figures. State law only requires that the City demonstrate an ability to potentially
accommodate the RHNA allocation, as shown in Table 4. Moreover, the quantified objectives do not
represent proposals for the new housing projects and thus do not constitute projects under CEQA.
The City also maintains or participates in many other programs that will assist in the rehabilitation and
improvement of housing in La Quinta that are not listed in Table 5. At this time, these other programs do not
have quantified objectives. For example, it is currently unknown how many La Quinta households will utilize
County of Riverside rehabilitation grants or how much money may be available from new state and federal
resources, and there are not any unit targets by income level for housing condition monitoring.
Table 4
0
' The number of constructed and approved projects represents active projects in the City of La Quinta that have been constructed after January 1, 2006
or are expected to be constructed during the 2006-2014 planning period. Some of the units restricted to very low income households may be
inhabited by households earring 0 to 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), known as extremely low income households.
z Assisted projects on vacant and underutilized lands could also have the potential to provide housing for extremely low income households should the
eligibility range include households earning 0 to 30 percent of the AMI.
] The affordability of levels of future second unblguest houses is an estimate based on a rents survey and City, policies. For example, if all of the units
are guest houses they will be affordable to extremely low income households, since they must be provided free of rent, per the Municipal Code.
Table 5
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 13
1. Introduction
1.31 General Plan Consistency
State law requires that a general plan be internally consistent. Goals, policies, and implementation measures
In the general plan elements must support and be consistent with one another. The City of La Quinta's draft
housing element builds on the other nine elements in the La Quinta General Plan and is consistent with goals
and policies set forth therein. The City will continue to maintain consistency between general plan elements
by ensuring that proposed changes in one element will be reflected in other elements through amendment of
the general plan. The Citys housing element identifies programs and resources required for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing to meet the existing and projected needs of its
population.
1.4 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Figure 5, Existing Zoning Map, shows existing zoning designations within the City of La Quints The update to
the City's generafplan housing element consists of an updated determination of housing needs in the City,
and revisions to policies and programs the City would implement to address those needs. It identifies
adequate vacant and underutilized sites for potential residential development that could accommodate any
unmet portion of the RHNA by 2014.
Several of the sites identified in the housing element currently have general plan designations and zoning in
place that would facilitate higher density development in the area, and the housing element does not
propose any changes to land use and zoning in that area. In other cases, upzoning and amendments to the
municipal code would take place to accommodate all of the unmet need forthe RHNA. Therefore, concurrent
with the 2009/2011 general plan update, the City would evaluate the feasibility of policy and program
changes to redesignate higher density development and permit residential above nonresidential uses.
Therefore, with the adoption of the 2006-2014 housing element, the City of La Quinta is not redesignating
land or amending zoning that would directly result in the construction of any housing units or accelerate the
rate of development on existing sites that could presently accommodate such development. However,
subsequent implementation of the 2006-2014 housing element would require rezoning that would induce
growth. At that time, the City would conduct environmental review of the impacts associated with that action.
Moreover, any future projects proposed in accordance with the draft housing element would be subject to
CEQA review.
1.5 CIIYACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the General Plan housing element and adoption of the Negative Declaration for compliance with
CEQA by the La Quinta City Council.
Page 14 * The Planning Center September 2009
K]
\
�
|/\;)_■�I 6
No/��/�\/)/�hkl\\�� /
f
{�}
!I§
2. Environmental Checklist
2.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: City of La Quints 2006-2014 General Plan Housing Element
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calls Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Les Johnson, Planning Director
760.777.7030
4. Project Location: City of La Quinta, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
6. General Plan Designation: Implementation of the general plan housing element as proposed would
involve all residential, village commercial, and nonresidential land use categories within the City.
7. Zoning: Implementation of the general plan housing element as proposed would involve all residential,
village commercial, and nonresidential districts within the City.
8. Description of Project: The City of La Quinta has prepared an update to the housing element of its
general plan. The draft 2006-2014 housing element identifies housing units constructed since January 1,
2006, and adequate vacant and underutilized sites for potential residential and residential over
commercial development to meet the RHNA allocation. The housing element also includes programs to
assist households and reduce barriers to the production of fair and affordable housing. Referto Section
1.3, Project Description.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The City is in the Coachella Valley subregion in Riverside County,
bordered by a mix of land uses and undeveloped open space. The surrounding cities of Indian Wells,
Palm Desert, Indio, and Coachella all contain a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and open
space uses.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: No other public agencies have approval
authority over the project. However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
has the authority to review and comment on the housing element.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 17
2. Environmental Checklist
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLYAFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agricultural Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology / Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
2.3 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, therewill
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1-1 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Page 18 • The Planning Center September 2009
2. Environmental Checklist
2A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside
a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -
specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, v'0
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section
15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identifythefollowing:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quintet a Page 19
2. Environmental Checklist
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and '
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Page 20 01 be Planning Center September 2009
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Significant
Potenfia4 With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
a) Have a substantial adverse erect on a scenic I I I I X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime X
views in the area?
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the Caldomia Resources Agency, to non-
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, X
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could X
result in conversion of Farmland, to non -
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the I I I I X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality X
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an X
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial I I I I X
number of people?
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 21
0
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
significant
Mitigatlon
significant
No
Issues
Impact
Incoromfed
Impact
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species In local or regional plans, policies,
X
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
Identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations; or by the California Department of
X
Fish and Game; or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
X
removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
X
migratory wildlife corridors, or Impede the use of
native wildlife nurserysites?
e) Conflict with arty boat policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
X
preservation policy or ordinance?
t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
X
regional, or state habitat conservation Ian?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
X
§.15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
X
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or Indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
eologic feature?
d) Disturb arty human remains, including those
Interred outside of formal cemeteries?
X
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, iniurv. or death involving_
Page 22 • The Planning Center September 2009
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Issues
impact
incorporated
Impact
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Nquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
X
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
X
liquefaction?
iv Landslides?
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
X
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
X
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
X
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
X
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the dis al of waste water?
ORMORNM
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
X
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
erndronmerd through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
X
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
X
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
(TBe located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
X
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
X
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
0
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 23
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
SIgNOcant
Polenfially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mifigafion
Significant
No
Issues
Impact
In orated
Impact
Impact
f) For a project within to vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
X
ro ect area?
g) Impair impiementaton of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
X
emergency evacuation Ian?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
X
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
MEW
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production ram of pre-
X
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing lard hues or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the ateration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
X
which would result In a substantial erosion or
siblion on- or off -site
d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
X
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -
site?
e) Cream or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the rapacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
X
additional sources of fluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
X
flood hazard delineation ma ?
h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area
-T
structures which would Impede or redirect flood
X
flows?
Page 24 • The Planning Center September 2009
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Issues
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
i) Dose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
f
a) Physically divide an established community?
J(
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal
X
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
X
Ian or natural community conservation Ian?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to the
X
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
X
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
X
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
_UF Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome
X
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
X
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
X
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
X
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Cl a
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of I a Quinta • Page 25
2. Environmental Checklist
Signifcant
Potentiaffy
I
Wtih
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Issues I
Imnale
InmmlNalad
Imnael
f..na
muuce suoscinuai popuiauon grown in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for X
example, through extension of roads or other
housing, necessitating the construction of
necessitating the construction of replacement I I X
b)
Police protaction?
X
c)
Schools?
X
d)
Parks?
X
e)
Other public facilities?
X
a)
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substartial
X
Physical deterioration of the facility would occur
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of X
recreational facilities which might have an
cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (t.e., result in a substantial X Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
"I cm U. alum, niurvmuauy ur cumuraavely, a level
of service standard established by the county X
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
Including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in substantial safety X
risks?
Page 26 • The Planning Center September 2009
2. Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Midgadon
Significant
No
Issues
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
X
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Resulf in inadequate emergency access?
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
X
programs supporting alternative transportation
e.g., bus turnouts, big cle racks)?
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
X
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or waste water treatment facilities or expansion
X
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
X
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
X
resources or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
X
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the projects solid
X
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
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
X
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 27
%1!
2. Environmental Checklist
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are
Individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
X
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
X
human beings, either directly or Indirectly?
Page 28 0 The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
Section 2.2 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact
categories and questions contained in the checklist.
31 AESTHETICS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The draft housing element identifies opportunity areas for housing development and strategies
to achieve the regional housing needs production goals. Much of the Coachella Valley subregion has views
of the desert and mountains. Increased residential density allowed by the updated housing element would
alter visual qualities in the area and potentially have impact on a scenic vista. The location of properties that
would support densities where buildings would be greater than one story in height are limited to commercial
areas or the Village District —locations that already contain and allow for multistory buildings. However, the
housing element is a policy document and itself would not result in actual construction of housing units.
Therefore, it would not result in the individual or subsequent housing development projects. The proposed
project would not create any significant impacts and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of
Transportation, the City is not located near a major state -designated scenic highway. The nearest officially
designated state scenic highway is State Route 74 near the City of Palm Desert. The proposed updates to
the housing element would not have any substantial damage to scenic resources. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
No Impact. The draft housing element identifies opportunity areas for housing development and strategies
to achieve the regional housing needs production goals. The proposed project is the draft housing element,
not the individual, subsequent housing development projects or required zone changes needed to
implement the respective projects. Therefore, although the existing visual character or qualkyof the City may
change subsequent to the adoption of the draft housing element, the current project would have no impact
on the visual character. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views In the area?
No Impact. The draft housing element identifies opportunity areas for housing development and strategies
to achieve the regional housing needs production goals. Development of projects in accordance with the
City's draft housing element would create new sources of light and glare in the City. As potential units are
developed, greater intensity and density of development would result in increased light and glare in the City
due to exterior lighting, lighting of streets and walkways, and interior lighting. The City of La Quinta is in the
boundaries of the Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area and the effect of nighttime lighting on star-
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of Ia Quinta • Page 29
3. Environmental Analysis
gazing and open space areas will become more pronounced with additional housing development.
However, it should be noted that the proposed project is the draft housing element, not the individual,
subsequent housing development projects or required zone changes needed to implement the respective
projects. In addition, the City has an Outdoor Light Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.100.150,
Outdoor Lighting) to protect night sky and light impacts on sensitive receptors. Future development or zone
changes to implement the draft housing element would be subject to subsequent CEQA review. No impact is
anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.
X2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there are
special status farmlands in the City of La Quints. However, these areas are already zoned residential by the
La Quinta Zoning Map. As shown in Figure 6, there are prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of
local importance in the City of La Quints, and some of the vacant and underutilized lands identified by the
housing element are designated as special status farmland. Adopting the updated housing element would
allow vacant and underutilized land to be developed with higher density development. However, these lands
are already designated and zoned residential by the general plan and the zoning map. Therefore, adoption
of the updated housing element itself would not result in conversion of special status farmland to
nonagricultural uses. Impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. Adopting the updated housing element would allow vacant and underutilized land to be
developed with higher density development. However, these lands are already designated and zoned
residential by the general plan and the zoning map. The City of La Quints Zoning Map does not designate
any areas in its planning area as agricultural except for the Low Density Agricultural/Equestrian Residential
zone. However, these areas would not be affected by the draft housing element. In addition, no properties
within the City are impacted by a Williamson Act contract Conflict with existing agricultural zoning is not
anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary..
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quints zoning map does not show any agricultural uses within
the City limits. Although the housing element identifies vacant and underutilized sites to rezone, they are
already zoned for nonagricultural uses. Therefore, zone changes would not result in conversion of farmlands
to agricultural uses. In addition, the housing element itself would not result in the actual development. Future
development projects would be subject to CEQA review and potentially significant impacts to agricultural
resources would be analyzed. Adoption of the housing element would not have a significant impact on
conversion of farmland. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 30 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
13 AIR QUALITY
a) Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The City of La Quinta lies in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which spans the Coachella Valley
portion of Riverside County and all of Imperial County. Air quality management of the Riverside County
portion of the SSAB is overseen by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The air
quality plan in effect in the SSAB is the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The
SCAQMD and SCAG are the agencies responsible for preparing the AQMP. Regional population, housing,
and employment projections developed by SCAG, which are based on the land use designations of the
City's General Plan form, in part, the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These
demographic trends are incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) compiled by SCAG to
determine priority transportation projects and determine vehicle miles traveled within the SCAG region.
The draft housing element designates adequate sites for development that could potentially accommodate
any unmet portion of the RHNAthrough 2014. Since the housing assessment in the RHNA is determined by
SCAG, the proposed project would accommodate increases in population based on SCAG's demographic
projections. The project would be consistent with the AQMP because it is based on demographic projections
for the City of La Quinta from which SCAQMD creates the regional emissions inventory. Therefore, no impact
is anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future I�
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. New development
could potentially generate pollutant emissions due to new vehicle trips, use of equipment, and offsite power
and natural gas generation. During the construction phases of individual development projects, emissions
would also be generated by construction vehicles and activities. Air pollutant emissions associated with the
project could occur over the short term for demolition, site preparation, and construction activities. In
addition, emissions could result from the long-term operation of the potential additional units.
Construction Impacts
Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation and construction activities of individual projects
anticipated under the draft housing element. Major sources of emissions during this phase include exhaust
emissions generated during demolition of an existing structure, site preparation, and subsequent structure
erection, and fugitive dust generated as a result of soil disturbances.
To minimize construction -related air quality impacts, future development projects would be required to
comply with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including Rule 403 for fugitive dust control. Chapter 6.16 of
the City of La Quints Municipal Code also requires local dust control plans for projects, which is modeled on
Rule 403 and 403.1. Additionally, any future development projects would be subject to CEQA review and
evaluated for potential construction -related air quality impacts.
Operational Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts are those associated with the emissions produced from project -generated
vehicle trips as well as from stationary sources related to the use of natural gas for heating and to electricity
for lighting and ventilation. Any future developments would be subject to CEQA review on a project-by-
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 33
3. Environmental Anal
project basis, and impacts would be disclosed and mitigated as feasible. However, impacts to any air quality
standard due to the adoption of the housing element would result in a less than significant impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature
on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The California Air Resources Board adopted the Proposed Climate Change Scoping Plan
(Scoping Plan) to reduce GHG emissions on a statewide level. Construction and operational phase activities
associated with individual projects that implement the objectives of the housing plan would directly and
indirectly generate GHG emissions from stationary sources (water heaters, 'gas stoves, landscape
equipment, etc.), transportation, water use, energy use, and waste disposal. Future development in the City
would be subject to CEQA review on a project -by -project basis, to evaluate the contribution of GHG
emissions and consistency with the Scoping Plan. Impacts of the individual development projects would be
disclosed and mitigated as feasible. However, the cumulative contribution of GHG emissions due to the
adoption of the housing element would result in a less than significant impact.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region Is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. New development
would generate pollutant emissions due to new vehicle trips, use of equipment, and of ite power and natural
gas generation. Future projects would be subject to CEQA review, and computer modeling would be
completed for each development to track whether any emissions would be in excess of state or federal
ambient air quality standards. Additionally, any new development would be required to comply with
SCAQMD regulations to mitigate or prevent the generation of criteria pollutant emissions or GHG emissions.
Impacts to air quality due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significaf Approval of the housing element would not modify land uses and would not result in
an. air quality impact. Implementation of the housing element relies, however, on future development
assumptions. The potential future development of additional housing units through 2014 could lead to
fugitive emissions and other pollutants affecting adjacent sensitive land uses. Increased traffic volumes on
City streets could also lead to Increases in associated vehicle emissions. Air quality analysis would be
completed on project -by -project basis to determine whether emissions from proposed development would
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts to air quality due to the adoption
of the housing element would be less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Land uses that are sources of objectionable odors that may affect substantial numbers of people
include wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, feed lots, and
dairies. Approval of the housing element would not create objectionable odors and would not result in an
impact. Implementation of the housing element is reliant, however, on future development assumptions. it is
unlikely that any future residential/mixed-use development would create objectionable odors; however, any
project would be subject to CEQA review. Adoption of the housing element would not create odors and no
impact would occur. I
Page 34 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The housing element designates adequate sites for potential future housing development to
meet the RHNA allocation. The City of La Quinta contains a variety of unique habitat types, including
blowsand habitat, mesquite hummocks, alluvial habitat, desert dry wash, and rocky slopes that potentially
support a wide variety of sensitive plant and animal species, some of which have been listed as threatened
or endangered by federal and state governments. Therefore, future development projects would be subject
to CEQA review and potentially significant impacts to biological resources would be analyzed. However,
adoption of the housing element itself would have no impact on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
Identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The housing element designates adequate sites for potential future housing development to
meet the RHNA allocation. The City of La Quinta contains a variety of unique habitat types, including
blowsand habitat, mesquite hummocks, alluvial habitat, desert dry wash, and rocky slopes that potentially
support a wide variety of sensitive plant and animal species, some of which have been listed as threatened /
�
or endangered by federal and state governments. Mesquite hummocks are a native plant community that ` -
consists of large clumps of honey mesquite formed over sand dunes or level terrain. Mesquite hummocks
are generally associated with high soil moisture or natural springs. However, adoption of the housing
element itself would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological Interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant. There are a number of water bodies in the City: the Whitewater River, La Quinta
Evacuation Channel, and Coachella Canal being the most prominent. The housing element designates
adequate sites for potential future housing development to meet the RHNA allocation. It is unlikely that
housing development would result in direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of any federally
protected wetlands. However, future development or subsequent zone changes would be subject to CEQA
review. Adoption of the housing element itself would have no adverse impact on federally protected
wetlands. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or Impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant. The City hosts a wide variety of state and federally protected sensitive plant and
animal species. Future development projects would be subject to CEQA review and potentially significant
impacts to biological resources would be analyzed. However, adoption of the housing element itself would
have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 35
3. Environmental Analysis
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy, or ordinance?
Less Than Significant. The City hosts a wide variety of state and federally protected sensitive plant and
animal species. Future development projects would be subject to CEQA review and potentially significant
impacts to biological resources would be analyzed. However, adoption of the housing element itself would
have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less Than Significant. The City of La Quinta Iles within the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP), which replaced the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and the
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat. Implementation of the draft housing element would require
amendment to the zoning map and the zoning ordinance to accommodate the unmet RHNA allocation.
However, the vacant and underutilized areas identified in the draft housing element are already designated
as residential or commercial uses, and increased development density proposed by the draft housing
element would not convert land designated for natural open space to urban land uses. Additionally, each
development project would be required to comply with the applicable habitat conservation implementation
plan. Impacts would be less than significant and. no mitigation measures are necessary.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined In
§ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element identifies underutilized and vacant sites for potential
future development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Underutilized
parcels in the City may contain substandard historic structures. Although the recycling of such properties is
an opportunity to create a positive aesthetic impact, each future development would be reviewed to
determine impacts to historical resources. If necessary, appropriate mitigation measures designed to protect
historic structures would be implemented. Impacts to historical resources due to the adoption of the housing
element would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant. The City of La Quinta contains one of the densest concentrations of archaeological
sites anywhere in Calffomia, because it straddles the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla, a naturally occurring
freshwater lake formed by overflow from the Colorado River. The cultural resources element of the general
plan indicates that 372 archaeological sites, both prehistoric and historic, have been identified and recorded
In and around the City. Development of housing projects has the potential to disturb potentially significant
archaeological resources. However, the proposed project itself would not involve ground -disturbing activities
and would not adversely affect archaeological ,resources. The proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change to archaeological resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 36 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant. Paleontological resources are nonrenewable, with potential significance tothe area's
natural history. Five soil types occur in the City and its planning area, each with a different history and
potential sensitivity for paleontological resources: Mesozoic granitics, Pleistocene older alluvium and terrace
deposits, Lake Cahuilla beds, recent alluvium, and recent dune sand. Of these soil types, Pleistocene older
alluvium and terrace deposits and Lake Cahuilla beds are expected to be highlysensitive for paleontological
resources. Each development that occurs as anticipated by the draft housing element would be considered
on an individual basis during subsequent CEQA review to determine potential impacts to any paleontological
resources. impacts to paleontological resources due to the adoption of the housing element would be less
than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact. Any future development that occurs as anticipated by the draft housing element update would
be subject to subsequent review under CEQA—on a project -by -project basis —to determine 'rf any human
remains exist. Moreover, any required general plan amendment, specific plan, or specific plan amendment
would be subject to Native American consultation under Senate Bill (SB 18). However, adoption of the
housing element would not disturb any human remains and there would be no impact.
3.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, ///��NII���
Injury, or death Involving: l r� ,
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo C�
Earthquake Fault Zoning map, Issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact According to the city's general plan master environmental assessment, no active or
potentially active faults are known to occur within the city of La Quints or its planning area. Additionally,
California Department of Conservation's California Geological Survey lists cities affected byAlquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones and the City of La Quinta is not included in the list. Therefore, adoption of the
housing element would have no impact and no mitigation measures are necessary.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant. No active or potentially active faults are known to occur within the City. However,
two of southern California's most active faults, the San Andreas and San Jacinto, are in the vicinity and
would likely generate the most severe ground shaking. The Elsinore Fault, approximately 30 miles
southwest of the City, also has the potential to affect the region. The San Andreas Fault is the closet
major fault system to the City, approximately three miles northeast of the City, and has the potential to
generate a magnitude 7 earthquake. The San Jacinto Fault system is about 10 miles southwest of the
City and is capable of producing a 6.5 to 7.5 magnitude earthquake. Any future development that occurs
in conjunction with the proposed project would be required to adhere to the most recent seismic
standards in the California Building Code (CBC) adopted by the City of La Quinta and would be subject
to CEQA review. Impacts to seismic ground shaking due to the adoption of the housing element would
be less than significant.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of la Quinta • Page 37
3. Environmental Analysis
III) Seismic -related ground failure, Including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or sift deposits that lose their load -
supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Liquefaction is largely limited to lands
containing groundwater (within 50 feet of the ground surface) and sandy, silty soils. Modified Marcell!
intensities of VII or higher are believed to be required for liquefaction to occur. According to the City's
general plan, much of the eastern portion of the planning area contains groundwater within 30feet of the
ground surface and is susceptible to liquefaction. Lands in the northern and central portion of the
planning area may also be subject to potential liquefaction hazards; however, groundwater is generally
more than 30 feet below the surface in these locations. The Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains and
their slopes are underlain by bedrock and not susceptible to liquefaction. Any future development that
occurs under the draft housing element would be subject to future CEQA review and consideration of
potential soil -related impacts. Impacts to seismic ground failure due to the adoption of the housing
element would be less than significant.
Iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant. Rock slides and landslides can be expected to occur on steep slopes in the
south-central portion of the planning area and western region of the City. Developments at the base of
the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains, where bedrock is intensely fractured or jointed, are
particularly vulnerable to seismically induced rockfall. Manufactured slopes may also be subject to failure
if not engineered to resist seismic groundshaking. Therefore, adequate building setbacks are necessary
to provide a protective buffer between development and unstable slopes. Each development project
occurring within the City limits is required to prepare a site -specific geotechnical study and comply with
the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In addition, the City's hillside conservation zone ordinance limits
development in areas with slopes greater than 20 percent, and defines permitted land uses in areas with
slopes less than 20 percent. Adoption of the housing element would result in upzoning of some vacant
and underutilized lands in the City limits to accommodate additional lower income housing units per
RHNA allocation. However, these areas are already zoned residential and subject to standard
environmental review process when development occurs. Therefore, site -specific landslide impacts
would be addressed at the time of development and the adoption of the proposed housing element
would not adversary impact the slope stability. Impacts to landslides due to the adoption of the housing
element would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant. The Coachella Valley is highly vulnerable to wind erosion. The extreme aridity of the
region and the coastal air masses that are funneled through the San Gorgonio Pass create strong winds that
transport large quantities of sand through the valley. The northern portion of the planning area is most
susceptible to blowsand. Future developments anticipated by the draft housing element would involve land
disturbance that would result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. However, future development projects
would be required to prepare erosion control plans and/or incorporate best management practices to
minimize potential erosion and sedimentation impacts. The vacant and underutilized lands identified in the
draft housing element are already zoned residential and the adoption of the housing element would not
increase the area of disturbance. Impacts to soil erosion due to the adoption of the housing element would
be less than significant.
Page 38 •The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant. Rocks and sediments that underlie the City include granite associated with the Santa
Rosa Mountains, lacustrine (lake) deposits from former bodies of water in the Coachella Valley, alluvium
(stream deposits) shed from local mountains, and blowing sand deposits. Granite (gr) functions as the
foundation for regional soils. The Santa Rosa Mountains consist of hard crystalline granite. Granitic outcrops
are found in steep hills and slopes in the south-central and western portions of the City. Although these rocks
are generally stable, they can pose a rockfall hazard to areas that are adjacent and downsiope. Quaternary
conglomerate (Qc) and quaternary terrace (Qt) deposits occur on top of the granite foundation, along the
margins of the valley. Surface outcrops of quaternary terrace deposits are found immediately south of Lake
Cahuilla. The next layers of sediment that compose the valley floor are interbedded quaternary lake and
alluvial deposits (QI/Qal). These units consist of deposits from ancient Lake Cahuilla and other large lakes,
imbedded with alluvial (stream -deposited) deposits. Sand -dune deposits (Qsd) primarily occur immediately
south of Highway 111. Ground subsidence is the gradual settling of the ground surface with little or no
horizontal movement. Earthquakes can cause abrupt changes in the elevation of the ground surface,
depending on the intensity and duration of ground shaking and the density of subsurface soils. Ground
subsidence is also associated with the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater.
The draft housing element identifies opportunity areas for housing development and strategies to achieve the
regional housing needs production goals. The proposed project is the draft housing element, not the
individual, subsequent housing development projects or required zone changes needed to implement the
respective projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any housing construction; future
development that occurs under the draft housing element would be subject to CEQA review, consideration of
potential soil -related impacts, and any necessary improvements to ensure long-term geotechnical stability. evo
Impacts related to soil due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant. Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or increases.
Structures built on these soils may experience shifting, cracking, and breaking as soils shrink and subside or
expand. The lacustrine deposits of ancient Lake Cahuilla and other large lakes that once existed in the
Coachella Valley contain significant amounts of clay. Asa result, expansive soils constitute a potential hazard
in areas near Lake Cahuilla. Any future development that occurs under the draft housing element would be
subject to future CEQA review and consideration of potential soil -related impacts. Necessary improvements
to ensure long-term geotechnical stability would be required. Impacts related to soil due to the adoption of
the housing element would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. Although individual septic tanks are being used in some areas of the City, future residential
developments that occur in conjunction with the draft housing element would be required to connect to the
local sewer system provided by Coachella Valley Water District. Future developments that occur in
conjunction with the proposed project would utilize the local sewer system. Therefore, no significant impacts
would result from septic tanks or other onsite wastewater disposal systems.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta 0 Page 39
3. Environmental
17 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Crate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant. -The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future residential
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Common household
items such as fertilizers, paint, chlorine products, and other cleaners and solvents may be considered
hazardous or toxic. However, these items would be used in small amounts and would not require routine
transport, use, or disposal in large quantities that could result in a significant hazard. Use of hazardous
materials adjacent to residential uses is minimal and any regular use in large amounts would be subject to
subsequent CEQA review and regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Into the environment?
Less Than Significant. Future developments anticipated by the draft housing element may be located in the
vicinity of sites where hazardous materials are contained.
Releases of hazardous materials may occur during a natural disaster. Likewise, improperly stored containers
of hazardous substances may overturn or break, pipelines may rupture, and storage tanks may fail.
However, future development projects would be subject to CEQA review and analyzed for the potential
release of hazardous materials into the environment Impacts associated with hazardous materials due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Leas Than Significant. The proposed project consists of an updated determination of housing needs in the
City. The proposed project would not directly emit hazardous emissions and would not involve the handling
of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. There are schools in the City limits, but the updated housing
element would not result in hazardous air emissions within one -quarter mile of these schools. Impacts
associated with hazardous materials due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than
significant
d) Be located on a site which is Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would It create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less Than Significant. No known hazardous materials sites are listed for the City. However, a project -
specific records search would be required through the City's environmental review process to confirm the
absence of any known hazardous material site. Impacts associated with hazardous materials due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result Ina safety hazard
I" people residing or working In the project area?
Less Than Significant. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is approximately 3,000 feet north of the City of La
Quinta, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is approximately 3.5 miles east of the City. The City is not
Page 40 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
in the airport influence policy area. Impacts from airport -related hazards due to the adoption of the housing
element would be less than significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the City of La Quinta; therefore, the proposed project would not
result in any significant safety hazards from activity related to a private airstrip/airport. The project would not
cause safety hazards and no impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant. An emergency operations center (EOC) is the base of operations during emergency
situations and is considered a critical facility. The La Quints Civic Center building has been designated asthe
City's primary EOC, and the Senior Center has been designated as an alternative EOC. The Riverside County
Administrative Centers in Riverside and Indio, which have been designated as the county's EOCs, and the
county's mobile EOC may also be employed to provide assistance during an emergency. Adoption of the
draft housing element would not impair operation of EOCs or physically interfere with the emergency
response plan. Adoption of the housing element would have a less than significant impact on emergency
response plans.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed CO
with wiidlands? IVVV�
No Impact. According to the County of Riverside General Plan, the City of La Quints and its vicinity have low
wildfire susceptibility. The City is built out with urban uses and does not contain wildland vegetation. The
project would not create any hazards arising from wildland fires, and therefore no impact would occur.
18 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. As these potential sites
are developed, wastewater would be discharged into the local sewer system and onsite drainage would flow
into the City's existing storm drain system. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations underthe National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. Future development would be
required to comply with the NPDES program and the standards under the Colorado River Basin Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Region 7). Additionally, through the City's development review process, future
projects would be evaluated for potential water quality impacts. Where needed, future development projects
would be required to prepare water quality plans and/or incorporate best management practices (BMP) into
their construction operations to reduce potential water quality impacts. Impacts to water quality due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 41
3. Environmental Analysis
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. The
City's primary domestic water sources are irrigation canal water and groundwater. The anticipated
development under the draft housing element update would increase water consumption in the City as well
as increase dependence on local and imported supplies of groundwater. However, the proposed project is
the draft housing element, not the individual, subsequent housing development projects or required zone
changes needed to implement the respective projects. Therefore, although the subsequent housing
development may have adverse impact on groundwater supplies, the proposed project would have no
impact on the water supplies. Any future development would be subject to CEQA review and potential
impacts to groundwater supply and recharge would be analyzed. Impacts to groundwater due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site.
Less Than Significant. The development discussed by the draft housing element could require substantial
alteration of drainage patterns. None of the housing sites identified in the draft housing element are located
within the vicinity of or would after the course of a stream or river. Considering the arid condition of the area
soils, substantial erosion impact is anticipated. However, future development projects would be subject to
CEQA review and would adhere to the City's standard practices designed to prevent erosion and siltation
during the construction phase. Impacts to the drainage pattern due to the adoption of the housing element
would be less than significant.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
Less Than Significant. The development discussed by the draft housing element could require substantial
alteration of drainage patterns. None of the housing sites identified in the draft housing element are located
within the vicinity of or would after the course of a stream or river. The majority of the City is built out and
served by an established storm drainage system. Future developments may involve changes to the existing
drainage network. However, any future development would be subject to CEQA review and potential
drainage patterns and surface runoff impacts would be analyzed. Therefore, impacts due to the adoption of
the housing element are less than significant.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Law than Significant. Approval of the housing element would result in increased residential density in some
vacant and underutilized lands in the City limits. Increased areas of impervious surfaces in the City limits
would create additional sources of potentially polluted runoff. However, future development would be subject
to CEQA review and would comply with the City and NPDES regulations regarding stormwater pollution
prevention measures during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts from runoff water due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
Page 42 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Construction activities
and long-term operation of the future development have the potential to degrade water quality through an
increase in water pollutants, including sediments. Future projects would be evaluated on an individual basis
for their potential to degrade water quality, and projects must comply with any applicable water quality
standards and regulations. Impacts to water quality due to the adoption of the housing element would be
less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Less Than Significant. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), some areas of
the City are in the 100-year flood zone. However, potential development as anticipated under the draft
housing element would be evaluated on a project -by -project basis and would be required to complywith the
City's building codes and regulations. No mitigation measures are necessary.
h) Place within a 100•year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant. See 3.8g.
I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death involving flooding,
Including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. According to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the City of La Ouinta is not in the dam
hazard zone. Adoption of the draft housing element would not expose people or structures to significant
inundation impact due to the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would resultfromthe proposed project No
mitigation measures are necessary.
p Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by
earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a
seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank,
dam, or other artificial body of water. Flood control and reservoir facilities that experience seiching could
pose a threat to nearby development by failing and inundating developed lands. Lake Cahuilla and recharge
basins southeast of Lake Cahuilla have the potential of seiching. However, each development project would
be subject to site -specific environmental review and, if near Lake Cahuilla or recharging basins, additional
analysis based on issues such as distance, intervening development, and topography would be provided.
La Quints is approximately 90 miles from the nearest coastline; therefore, a tsunami does not pose a hazard
to the City. No impact is anticipated.
Mudflows are landslide events in which a mass of saturated soil flows downhill as a very thick liquid. Granite
soil functions as the foundation for regional soils, especially near steep hills and slopes. Since granite soils
have low potential for saturation, it is unlikely that housing development would be adversely impacted by
mudflows. Future development projects would be evaluated on an individual basis and would be required to
comply with the City's building codes and regulations. Impacts to water quality due to the adoption of the
housing element would be less than significant.
:o'
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 43
3. Environmental
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Adoption of the draft housing element would result in increased housing capacity on vacant and
underutilized sites through rezoning for greater density. However, identified vacant and underutilized sites
are already zoned residential and the adoption of the draft housing element would not itself result in the
actual housing development. Therefore, it would not physically divide a community and no impacts are
anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant. The project is an update to the draft housing element of the City's general plan, and
would become the new housing element upon approval by the City Council. The City of La Quinta is not
within the coastal zone, and so is not subject to a local coastal program. Implementation of the draft housing
element would require amendment of the zoning map and the municipal code to accommodate the unmet
portion of the RHNA allocation. The housing element also proposes program and policy changes to create
development standards for residential -above -commercial development. However, the adoption of the draft
housing element would not itself result in housing development Future housing development as identified in
the draft housing element would be subject to project -specific CEQA review, including an evaluation of
conflicts with any applicable policies, programs, and regulations. Impacts associated with the adoption of the
draft housing element with respect to consistency to land use plans, policies, and regulations, therefore,
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c). Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quints lies within the Coachella Valley Multiple Speck
Habitat Conservation Plan. The City is also part of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan and a portion of the City is included in the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat.
Implementation of the draft housing element would require amendment to the zoning map and the zoning
ordinance to accommodate the unmet RHNA allocation. However, the vacant and underutilized areas
identified in the draft housing element are already designated as residential uses, and the increased
development density proposed by the draft housing element would not convert any natural open space area
to urban uses. Additionally, each development project would be required to comply with the applicable
habitat conservation implementation plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
a10 MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant. According to the City of La Quints General Plan, a small area southwest of Lake
Cahuilla is designated as mineral recovery zone 2 (MRZ-2), indicating that significant mineral deposits are
present. This site once functioned as a sand and gravel mine, but has since been converted to a residential
golf course development. In addition, the Santa Rosa Mountains lie within mineral recovery zone 3 (MRZ3),
Indicating the presence of mineral resources, the significance of which cannot be determined from available
data. However, Santa Rosa Mountain is designated as open space and would not be impacted by the draft
Page 44 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
housing element. No additional construction is proposed in areas designated as potentially containing
mineral resources. In addition, future development would be required to go through the CEQA process and
any impacts would be assessed at that time. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less Than Significant. See 3.10a.
all NOISE
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Future construction
and operation activities would increase noise levels throughoutthe City. However, future development would
be evaluated on an individual basis and would comply with City, federal, and state guidelines on vehicle
noise, roadway construction, occupational noise and noise abatement, and insulation standards. Impacts
from noise due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less Than Significant. it is possible that groundborne vibration or groundborne noise would occur during
the construction phase of future development projects anticipated by the draft housing element Update.
Although groundbome vibration and groundbome noise are common results of the construction phase, each
development would be subject to CEQA review and consideration of potential groundborne vibration and
groundborne noise impacts. Impacts regarding noise due to the adoption of the housing element would be
less than significant.
c) A substantial permanent Increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
No Impact. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future development that could
accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Traffic related to the future developments
would result in a long-term increase in ambient noise levels. However, depending on the size of each
development, this increase may be noticeable to some people but may not be substantial or significantly
impact surrounding sensitive uses. Future development would be subject to CEQA review and consideration
of potential noise impacts. Therefore, the impacts regarding noise due to the adoption of the housing
element would be less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No Impact. See 3.11c.
0
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 45
3. Environmental Analysis
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the'project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less Than Significant. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is approximately 3,000 feet north of the City of La
Quints, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is approximately 3.5 miles east of the City. There maybe a
potential for future projects to be exposed to excessive noise levels. The projects would be required to go
through the CEQA process and comply with the airport land use plan. Impacts regarding excessive noise
levels due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working In the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the City of La Quints. Future development in La Quirda would not
be exposed to excessive noise levels due to a private airstrip. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Iciyilliff;X10PftLol:G1 /�7;L�IrFiPI
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
Infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant. The proposed project consists of an updated assessment of housing needs in the
City, and involves both changes to and continuation of policies and procedures the City uses in addressing
those needs. The project identifies sites in the City suitable for the development of housing and involves
other efforts to facilitate the development of housing in the City. The draft housing element discusses the
City's housing production goal and how the City would achieve the regional housing needs production
goals. The City's RHNA housing goals are consistent with the existing general plan and SCAG regional
growth projections for the City of La Quints. The draft housing element itself would not involve any
development projects and would not directly result in the construction of any housing units.. However,
implementation of the housing element would require zone changes to allow development of higher density
housing than is currently permitted for some of the areas identified. Project -specific developmentto meetthe
goals identified in the draft housing element, however, would be subject to CEQA review, including an
assessment of population and housing impacts. Adoption of the housing element, therefore, would have a
less -than -significant impact and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant. Adoption of the draft housing element would not displace any housing, and would
not involve demolition of substantial numbers of existing housing units or other structures. However, any
future development projects proposed in accordance with the draft housing element would be subject to
CEQA review. Therefore, the adoption of the housing element would have a less -than -significant impact.
Page 46 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project itself would not displace any people and would not involve demolition of
any housing units or other structures. Any future projects proposed in accordance with the draft housing
element would provide housing to meet the RHNA housing goals for the City. No impacts would occur.
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant. Fire protection service is provided to the City of La Quinta by the Riverside County
Fire Department. The fire department maintains three fire stations: Station 32 at 78136 Frances Hack Lane,
Station 70 (PGA West) at 54001 Madison Street, and Station 93 (North La Quints) at 44555 Adams Street.
Station 32 would be related to a new 7,500 square feet facility in 2010. New development anticipated to
achieve the draft housing element goals would increase fire protection service needs in the City, and may
require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. Each future development
would be subject to CEQA review and evaluation of potential impacts to the fire department. Adoption of the favol
housing element would not result in direct impacts to fire protection services, and therefore impacts would au
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant. The City contracts with the County of Riverside to provide police services to the City.
The Riverside County Sheriffs Department provides patrol officers, motorcycle officers, school resource
officers, community service officers, investigators, gang task force members, a narcotics task force, a special
enforcement team, a traffic reconstruction unit, and a community policing officer. The patrol division for the
La Quints Police Department covers an area of approximately 35 square miles and provides service to an
estimated population of 44,000 residents. Uniformed patrol officers are assigned as the initial responders for
all calls for service within the City of La Quinta. In 2008, the patrol division responded to 30,548 calls for
service or approximately 83 calls for service per day, with an average response time of 4 minutes and 58
seconds for priority one calls. New developments anticipated to achieve the draft housing element goals
would increase police protection service needs in the City, and may require improvements to existing
facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. Each future development would be subject to CEQA review
and evaluation of potential impacts on the police department. Impacts to police protection due to adoption of
the housing element would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Schools?
Less Than Significant. School services are provided by the Desert Sands Unified School District for
students west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 48, and by the Coachella Valley Unified School District
for students east of Jefferson Street and south of Avenue 48. Development of additional housing would
increase the demand on schools; therefore, additional facilities and staffing would be necessary to
accommodate the growth. Future development would be subject to CEQA review and impacts on school
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 47
3. Environmental Analysis
facilities would be considered. Impacts to schools due to adoption of the housing element would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant. Adoption of the draft housing element would result in additional demand on park sto
accommodate the growth. Future developments would be subject to CEQA review and impacts on local park
and recreational facilities would be considered. Impacts on parks due to adoption of the housing element
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element designates adequate sites for potential future
development that could accommodate any unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Future development
would be subject to CEQA review and impacts on other public facilities would be considered. Impacts on
other public facilities due to adoption of the housing element would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
& 14 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Less Than Significant. The range of parks and recreationallacilities in the City includes parks, trails, and
community center facilities. The proposed project consists of an updated assessment of housing needs in
the City and changes to the policies and procedures the City uses in addressing those needs. The project
Identifies sites in the City suitable for the development of housing and involves other efforts to facilitate the
development of housing in the City. The draft housing element itself would not involve any development
projects and would not directly result in the construction of any housing units. Future developments
anticipated by the draft housing element would be subject to CEQA review and would either be required to
pay residential development fees and in -lieu fees to the City for the development and maintenance of park
facilities or provide improved parks. If fees are necessary, the amount would be determined in conjunction
with the City's Community Services Department during the City's approval process for those projects.
Impacts to parks and recreational facilities due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than
significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant. Approval of the housing element would not impact any recreational facility; however,
implementation of the housing element is reliant on future development assumptions. Future development
would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in the City. The Quimby Act allows local
governments to exact the dedication of parkland or in -lieu fees or both from developers based on a standard
of three acres per thousand population. The provisions of the Quimby Act apply only to neighborhood and
community parks and do not include regional parks. The General Plan indicates that the City needs an
additional 185.2 acres of parkland at general plan buildout Therefore, future projects would be subject to
CEQA review and would either be required to pay residential development fees and in -lieu feesto the Ckyfor
the development and maintenance of park facilities or provide improved parks. If fees are necessary, the
Page 48 & The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
amount would be determined by the City during the City's approval process for those projects. Impacts to
recreational facilities due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
115 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less Than Significant. The proposed project consists of an updated assessment of housing needs in the
City. Future development to meet the housing goals would result in an increase in vehicle trips that would
have the potential to affect traffic service levels and result in congestion at intersections in the City. Some of
the areas identified to potentially accommodate future housing would require zone change to facilitate
increased housing density. As with specific development proposals, zoning changes are discretionary
actions and subject to CEQA review. The development proposals and any required zone changes would be
required to evaluate potential traffic impacts in comparison to applicable level of service standards for the
City of La Quinta and neighboring jurisdictions. Roadway and circulation improvements proposed as part of
the entitlements and projects would also be reviewed. It should be noted that the rezoning actions would be
considered as part of the City's General Plan update, which would include review of potential traffic impacts
due to all proposed land use changes. Therefore, any impacts associated with traffic due to the adoption of
the housing element would be less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant. Development anticipated by the draft housing element could contribute to
cumulative countywide traffic impacts. However, any future projects would be evaluated for potential traffic
impacts through the CEQA process, and appropriate mitigation measures may be required. It should be
noted that the rezoning actions would be considered as part of the City's General Plan update, which would
include review of potential traffic impacts due to all proposed land use changes. Therefore, impacts
associated with traffic due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Result Ina change in air traffic patterns, including either an Increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The draft housing element itself would not involve building any structures and thus would not
result in any changes to air traffic patterns or in any substantial safety risks related to aircraft traffic.
Additionally, future development anticipated under the draft housing element would comply with the airport
land use plan and would not result in changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant. The increased amount of traffic and turning movements associated with the
increased housing development would increase hazards to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The draft
housing element itself would not involve building any structures. At the time of a zoning change or
development proposal, each project would be evaluated through the City's environmental review process.
Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be required. Adoption of the housing element would
have a less -than -significant impact and no mitigation measures are necessary.
M
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 49
3. Environmental Analysis
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant. Any future development that is anticipated under the draft housing element would be
required to conform to traffic and safety regulations that specify adequate emergency access measures.
However, because adequate emergency access is impossible to determine with any precision without
specific details regarding each development, any future development would be evaluated to determine
adequacy of emergency access on a project -by -project basis. Impacts regarding inadequate emergency
access due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less Than Significant. Development of residential dwelling units is anticipated under the draft housing
element. Future development would be evaluated to determine adequacy of parking and would be required
to comply with City parking standards. Therefore, impacts associated with parking due to the adoption of the
housing element would be less than significant.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than Significant. Public transit service is provided to the City of La Quinta by the Sunline Transit
Agency, and there are existing bicycle routes and shared routes within the City. The City is also developing
golf cart routes and design guidelines. The project itself would not have any significant impact on facilities for
alternative transportation, such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. However, any future development would
comply with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. Impacts to adopted
policies, plans, or programs due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable. Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than Significant. The CVWD provides sewage collection and treatment service for the City.
Wastewater collected north of Miles Avenue is conveyed to the CVWD water reclamation plant (WRP) No. 7
at Madison Street and Avenue 38. Wastewater from the remaining area is conveyed to the WRP No. 4 on
Avenue 63, between Fillmore and Pierce Streets. Wastewater treatment at the CVWD facility is required to
meet applicable regional water quality control board standards. Through the City's environmental review
process, future development would be evaluated for potential impacts to wastewater treatment facilities.
Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts. Impacts to
wastewater treatment due to adoption of the housing element would'be less than significant.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant. The City's sewage is diverted to two water reclamation plants, WRP No. 7 and WRP
No. 4. WRP No. 4 is a 7-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) treatment facility in Thermal and is planned for
expansion in the near future to 9.9 mgd. WRP No. 7 Is a 5 mgd secondary treatment facility with a current
tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd. CVWD plans to expand its tertiary treatment capacity to 7.5 mgd. The
draft housing element identifies adequate sites for potential future development that could accommodate any
unmet portion of the RHNA through 2014. Additional residential development in the City would increase the
wastewater treatment demand in the City and could require expansion or construction of wastewater
Page 50 • The Planning Center September 2009
3. Environmental Analysis
conveyance and treatment systems. Each development proposal would be required to prepare a site -specific
evaluation to demonstrate the adequacy of the existing sewer system in coordination with CVWD. Anyfuture
projects would be required to consult with CVWD to estimate the level and type of demand to determine the
significance of impacts to existing and planned levels of service and to develop measures to avoid or reduce
potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant. The CVWD operates and maintains regional stormwater management facilities
extending from Cathedral City to Salton City, including the City of La Quinta. The backbone of the CVWD
stormwater system is 25 miles of naturally occurring Whltewater River bed. Becausethe river spreads across
the lower valley during flooding, it was channelized. It is the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
downstream from Point Happy in La Quinta near Highway 111 and Washington Avenue. The riverbed and
24.5-mile channel are fed by several smaller channels, dikes, and levees designed and built to collect rapidly
moving floodwater as it pours from the adjacent mountains onto the valley floor. Within CVWD's boundaries
there are 16 stormwater protection channels. These and other facilities have a length of 133 miles.
Existing storm drain lines would be utilized by future developments proposed by the draft housing element.
Future development could increase the amount of stormwater runoff over the long term as a result of
increases in impervious surfaces, which may require alteration to existing stormwater drainage facilities in the
area. However, any future project would be subject to CEQA review and consideration of any potential
impacts on stormwater drainage facilities. Impacts to stormwater drainage facilities due to the adoption of the
housing element would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. evo
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant. The principal water supplies of the Coachella Valley are local groundwater and
Colorado River water imported through the Coachella Canal. According to the CVWD's 2005 urban water
Management Plan, by 2015 CVWD is projected to receive approximately 60 percent of its water from the
Coachella Canal, 22 percent from the groundwater, 12 percent from the State Water Project, and
approximately 6 percent from recycled and desalinated sources. The draft housing element would allow
increased residential density in the City and therefore generate additional water demand. However, adoption
of the housing element itself would not result in actual construction. Future development would be subject to
CEQA review and would need to demonstrate water availability. Impact on water supplies due to the
adoption of the housing element would be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant. The CVWD provides wastewater treatment for the City. The City's sewage is diverted
to WRP No. 4 and WRP No. 7. Future development would be required to comply with the CEQA process to
determine the type and significance of impacts to existing and planned levels of service and to develop
measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant, if possible. Impacts on
the capacity for wastewater treatment due to the adoption of the housing element would be less than
significant.
2008 Ls Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 51
3. Environmental Analysis
f) Be served by landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste
disposal needs?
Less Than Significant. The City of La Quints contracts with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services for solid
waste hauling and disposal. The predominant receiving landfill lathe Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill at 16411
State Route 79 in the City of Beaumont, Riverside County. Other landfills in Riverside County used by the City
are the El Sobrante Landfill in Moreno Valley and Badlands Sanitary Landfill. The Lamb Canyon Sanitary
Landfill has a permitted maximum disposal capacity of 3,000 tons per day and is scheduled to dose in 2023.
The additional residential density allowed by the draft housing element would increase solid waste disposal
needs. However, the proposed project would not result in actual construction. Therefore, impacts regarding
solid waste due to the adoption of the housing element are less than significant and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant. Any future development would comply with federal and state laws regulating solid
waste disposal. No adverse impact would occur, and no further analysis of this issue is required.
& 17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The proposed project is located in the City of La Quinta. Adoption of the draft housing element
itself would not result in the actual physical development of residential units. Therefore, no significant
biological or historical impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Does the project have Impacts that are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves the implementation of the draft housing element for
the City of La Quints. The draft housing element is a policy document designed to assist the City in future
planning and would not result in the actual development of residential units. Through the City's
environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated for potential cumulative
impacts at the time of actual zone change or project development. Therefore, no significant cumulative
impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or Indirectly?
Less Than Significant. The draft housing element is a policy document designed to assist the City in future
planning. Through the City's environmental review process, future development projects would be evaluated
for potential cumulative impacts. Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be required to
reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Page 52 • The Planning Center September 2009
4.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highways Mapping System.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic-highways/index.htm.
California Geologic Survey (CGS). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. California Department of
Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Jurisdiction Profile for City of La Quinta.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/J urProfi le2.asp?RG=C&J U RI D =238&J UR= La+Quinta.
Active Landfills: Profile for Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0007). http://www.ciwmb.ca
.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfi I I/LFProfile 1. asp?COID=33&FACI D=33-AA-0007.
La Quinta, City of. 2002, January. Draft Comprehensive General Plan.
. 2001, March. Draft Master Environmental Assessment.
Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Facility INformation Detail (FIND). l/��tI��
http://www.agmd.gov/webappl/pubinfo/mapviewer.aspx. 51VIO
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). GeoTracker. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov. VV
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 53
4. References
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 54 • The Planning Center September 2009
S . List of Preparers
JoAnn Hadfield • BS, Urban Planning, University of Utah
Director, Environmental Services . BS Coursework, Civil Engineering,
California State University, San Diego
Elizabeth Kim • BS, Environmental Analysis and
Associate Planner Design, University of California, Irvine
N1S, Urban and Regional Planning,
University of California, Irvine, 2001
M!
2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Initial Study City of La Quinta • Page 55
S. List
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 56 • The Planning Center September 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
UPDATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
26" day of July, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed
General Plan Amendment 2008-118, for the Housing Element Update (hereinafter,
"Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 2"d day of November 2004, adopt Resolution 2004-128, approving a
comprehensive update of the La Quinta General Plan Housing Element for the City,
pursuant to Sections 65580 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and,
WHEREAS, it is recognized that said General Plan Housing Element, being
the current effective Housing Element for the City, requires revision and update to
assure compliance with current State laws and regulations,
WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains an assessment of
housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints to meeting those needs
as required by Section 65583(a) of the Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a statement of the
community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies to achieve the objectives of the
element as required by Section 65583 of the Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element contains a program which
sets forth an annualized schedule of actions to implement the policies and achieve the
objectives of the Housing Element as required by Section 65583 of the Government
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City's unique population characteristics, economic
conditions, housing conditions, residential density objectives and Redevelopment
Agency financial resources were considered in the preparation of the General Plan
Housing Element update; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element has been submitted to
the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment;
and,
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
General Plan Amendment 2008-118
La Quinta Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
WHEREAS, the City has considered the findings made by the Department
of Housing and Community Development and other entities and persons that have
provided written and oral comment to the City and the Department of Housing and
Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, Said General Plan Amendment has complied with tribal
consultation requirements as set forth in Government Code Section 65352 (SB 18
requirements) ; and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the
requirements of The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Planning Department has conducted
an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-599), and determined that the
Housing Element will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a
recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment updating the Housing
Element:
1. The General Plan Housing Element update is internally consistent and consistent
with the other elements of the General Plan, and reflects updated information
regarding the City's current and anticipated conditions. The General Plan
Housing Element is compatible with land use designations in the Land Use
Element and other elements of the General Plan. Revisions to land use standards
as proposed in the General Plan Housing Element will need to be studied as part
of the 2009 General Plan Update process.
2. The General Plan Housing Element update will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting
programs and policies are designed to improve the preservation and
development of housing resources.
3. The General Plan Housing Element update addresses changes in specific
circumstances and changes in general conditions since the adoption of the
previous Housing Element, as well as changes in State housing law.
4. The City is required by State law to update its Housing Element on an
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
General Plan Amendment 2008-118
La Quinta Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
approximately eight -year cycle and the General Plan Housing Element update
has complied with this mandate.
5. The City has considered all comments made by the Department of Housing and
Community Development and has made revisions to the draft General Plan
Housing Element update in response to the comments received from the
Department of Housing and Community Development.
6. The updated General Plan Housing Element substantially complies with the
provisions of California's Planning and Zoning Law, as codified under California
Government Code sections 65580 et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows: I
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan
Amendment, incorporating the General Plan Housing Element update (Exhibit
"A"), for the reasons set forth in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 26`" day of July, 2011, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Planning Commission Resolution 2011-
General Plan Amendment 2008-118
La Quinta Housing Element Update
July 26, 2011
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
ATTACHMENTS 1
*'
7V.
a
N
o
4
c
3
V
o
^
rn
M
T+
lip
c
O
�
Pd
fa
E
o
3f
o
0a
c
F1
c
J
a
o
p
C
OD
-p
N
�O
,
N45
Ln
v
J
p
O
X�
�
Q
'�
i
cm om%
■c
4
z
faO
L
r�
C)
C
c:N
.fo
(y
CL
L
U)
�
cn
W
3
J
O
N
66
Z
ATTACHMENT 2
Accommodating the RHNA
RHNA 1
1,7,89
796
1,741
4,327
Constructed/Approved
576
569
4,530
5,675
Balanee
1,213
227
0 (+2,789) 1,440
. •. tq Allow Residential
Vacant RL
0
0
39
39
Vacant RM
0
0
128
128
Vacant CP/CR
0
190
191
381
Vacant VC
0
52
52
104
Underutilized RM
0
274
410
684
Underutilized RMH
0
196
196
392
Underutilized VC
0
50
1 51
ill
Second Units/Guest Houses
500
0
0
500
Subtotal
500
762
1,067
2,339
Additional Residenti'�17C-apacity obtained -through Affordable
Housing Overlay
Vacant RMH
280
0
0
280
Vacant CP/CR/CN/CC
773
0
0
773
Underutilized RM
344
0
0
344
Underutilized RMH
394
0
0
394
Underutilized CN/VC
187
0
0
187
Subtotal
1,978
0
0
1,978
Subtotal Capacity for Balance of
RHNA
2,478
762
1,067
4,317
Total Capacity
3,054
1,331
5,597
1 9,992
Note: Figures subject to rounding. Assisted projects on vacant and underutilized lands could also have the potential to provide mousing for
extremely low income households should the eligibility range include households earning 0 to 30 percent of the AMI.
The number of constructed and approved projects represents active projects in the City of La Quinta that
have been constructed after January 1, 2006 or are expected to be constructed during the 2006-2014
planning period. Some of the units restricted to very low income households may be inhabited by
households earning 0 to 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), known as extremely low income
households.
2 The affordability levels of future second units/guest houses is an estimate based on a rents survey and
City policies. For example, if all of the units are guest houses they will be affordable to extremely low
income households since they must be provided free of rent, per the Municipal Code
ATTACHMENT 3
SITES PROPOSED FOR SPECIFIC REZONING AND AHO: -- ---- —
➢ Vacant Site #2 - a 21.4 acre parcel on the south side of Avenue 58, sharing the west
boundary of Andalusia. Current GP land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM
➢ Underutilized Site #U1 - a 4.9 acre parcel on the north side of Darby Road, east of
Palm Royale Drive. Current GP land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM with
AHO
➢ Underutilized Site #U2 - a 4.8 acre parcel on the south side of Darby Road, east of
Palm Royale Drive (TT 31087). Current GP land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed:
MDR/RM with AHO
➢ Underutilized Site #U4 - a 6.1 acre parcel on the north side of Avenue 52, east of
Jefferson Street (Price's Nursery). Current GP land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed:
MDR/RM
➢ Underutilized Site #U8 - Eleven parcels comprising approximately 19.6 acres, along the
east side of Dune Palms Road between Westward Ho and the Whitewater Channel
(RDA holdings and existing mobile home park). Current GP land use / zoning: MDR/RM.
Proposed: MHDR/RMH with AHO
SITES WITH AHO TO BE APPLIED:
➢ Vacant Site #3 - an 11.7 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and
Jefferson. Current GP land use / zoning: NC/CN.
➢ Vacant Site #4 - a 3.0 acre parcel on the east side of Washington and south of
Avenue 47. Current GP land use / zoning: CC/CC.
➢ Vacant Site #5- a 15.7 acre parcel on the north side of Highway 111, west of Dune
Palms (Mannino property). Current GP land use / zoning: RC & CP/CR & CP.
➢ Vacant Site #6 - an 11.0 acre parcel within the 11 La Quinta Center, norh side of
Highway 111 between Washington and Adams. Current GP land use / zoning: RC/CR.
Vacant Site #16 - 15.7 acres in two parcels, within the Washington Park Center,
northeast corner of Washington and Avenue 47. Current GP land use / zoning: RC/CR.
➢ Vacant Site #17 - 20.2 acres along east side of Adams, south of Nissan and Hyundai
dealers. Current GP land use / zoning: RC/CR.
➢ Underutilized Site #U3 - a 7.5 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and
Washington (La Paloma south %z). Current GP land use / zoning: MDR/RM
➢ Underutilized Site #U9 - an 8.5 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and
Jefferson. Current GP land use / zoning: NC/CN
➢ Underutilized Site #U10 - a 5.1 acre parcel north of Tampico and adjacent to Embassy
Suites. Current GP land use / zoning: VC/VC
RTATE OF CALIFORNIA-RDSINESS TRANSPORTATION ANO HOUSING AGENCY FDMUND G_ BROWN JR. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suite 430
O. Box 952053 - L� 9/1
1
P.Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 tl(916) 323-3177 / FAX (916) 327-2643
www.hcd.ca.gov i MAY 13 2011 I -
i CITY OF LA QUII:TA I
May 10, 2011
Mr. Les Johnson
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
Dear Mr. Johnson:
ATTACHMENT 4
RE: Review of the City of La Quinta's Revised Draft Housing Element Update
Thank you for submitting La Quinta's revised draft housing element received for review
on March 18, 2011 along with draft revisions received May 5, 2011. The Department is
required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant
to Government Code Section 65585(b). Conversations with you and Mr. Wally Nesbit,
City Planner, facilitated the review.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's October 12, 2009 review. For example, the element now identifies
adequate sites demonstrated by Program 1.5 to establish an Affordable Housing Overlay
(Overlay) applied to approximately 128 acres of CC, CN, CP , RC and VC residentially
zoned sites identified in Tables C-1 and C-2 by July 1, 2012 to accommodate La Quinta's
regional housing need of 1,213 units affordable to lower -income households. The
Overlay will allow multifamily uses by -right at minimum densities of 20 units per acre.
In addition, Programs 2.7 and 3.5 commit La Quinta to provide additional incentives and
encourage lot consolidation, reduce fees and expedite processing to facilitate multifamily
development affordable to lower -income households. Program 2.5 specifically commits
the City to develop collaborative partnerships with developers to encourage and facilitate
the development of housing affordable to lower -income households, including financial
assistance to support projects to maximize leveraging of private, State, federal and local
resources. As a result, the revised element will comply with State housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when these revisions are adopted and submitted to
the Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g).
Mr. Les Johnson
Page 2
The Department especially appreciates the hard work and dedication of Mr. Nesbit in
preparation of the housing element and throughout the course of its review and looks
forward to receiving La Quinta's adopted housing element. If you have any questions or
need additional technical assistance, please contact Jennifer Seeger, of our staff, at
(916)322-4263.
Sincerely,
AlenA.mpora
Assistant Deputy Director
cc: Wally Nesbit, Planner, City of La Quinta