2012 09 11 PCak -o City of La Quinta
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.org
OF ft1ti9
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2012-015
Beginning Minute Motion 2012-006
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of,the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 24, 2012.
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 ................... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-121, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2012-622
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location............ City -Wide
Request ............. Consideration of a Recommendation to the City Council
Regarding the Following; Certification of an
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2010111094),
Approval of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction
Plan, and Adoption of the General Plan Update.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval - GPA 2010-121 - Resolution
2012-
B. Item ................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
Applicant........... Michael Despras - Lavender Bistro
Location............ 78-073 Calle Barcelona
Request ............. Consideration of a Village Use Permit for the Expansion of
an Existing Storage Building at Lavender Bistro.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval - VUP 2012-046 - Resolution
2012-
C. Item ...................CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-144
Applicant........... LMLQ Properties, LLC
Location............ 47-474 Caleo Bay Drive - Northeast Corner of
Washington Street and Lake'La Quinta Drive
Request ............. Consideration of an Amendment to a Conditional Use
Permit to Expand Restaurant Operations and Additional
Seating.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval - CUP 2012-144 Resolution
2012-
D. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
Applicant........... Crown Castle — Susan Makinson
Location............ Public Right -Of -Way — Jefferson Street and Avenue 52
Roundabout
Request ............. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for a Single -Pole
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at the Southeast
Corner of the Jefferson Street and Avenue 52
Roundabout.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval — CUP 2012-142 - Resolution
2012-
E. Item ................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
Applicant........... Crown Castle — Susan Makinson
Location............ Public Right -Of -Way — Avenue 50 and Heatherglen
Request ............. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for a Single
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Within the Public
Right -of -Way Near the Intersection of Avenue 50 and
Heatherglen.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution
Recommending Approval — CUP 2012-143 - Resolution
2012-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
There are no Business Items scheduled for this meeting.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meeting of August 7, 2012.
B. Commissioner Alderson is scheduled to attend the September 18,
2012, City Council meeting.
C. Follow-up regarding Conditional Use Permit 2003-075, Amendment 2,
Milan Institute Expansion.
IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS:
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be
held on September 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
Request ............. Consideration of Site, Architectural and
Landscaping Plans for the La Quinta Retirement
Community.
Action ............... Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Minute
Motion Recommending Approval, with Conditions
— Minute Motion 2012-
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS:
A. Planning Commission Update
B. Discussion of Joint Meeting Items.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee will be
adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 3, 2012, at 10:00 a.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 Architectural and Landscaping Review
Committee meeting of Wednesday, September 13, 2012, 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
September 6, 2012.
DATED: September 6, 2012
CAROLYN WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 24, 2012
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta
order at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chairp
PRESENT: Commissioners
*Chairperson s
ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT
II. PUBLIC COM
III. CONFI
IV. CONSENT
V. PUBLIC
OF
None
ing
im ts, or
to a,. ove the
at 7:12 p.m.
7:04 p.m.
Commission was called to
Weber, Wright and
P'Johnson, ing Manager
Executive Secretary Carolyn
it was moved by Commissioners
of July 10, 2012, as submitted.
A. Conditiona se Permit 2011-138: a request by Crown Castle — Susan
Makinson for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Single
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) at Eisenhower Park located on the
southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima.
Planning Director Johnson presented the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Planning Department.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Weber asked if there was a rendering provided for the
potential second and third arrays.
Staff said yes and presented a slide showing the full impact of the
additional arrays.
Commissioner Weber asked if the relo of the pole was to provide
an opportunity for easier installs a e to the proximity of the
existing brick utility building.
Staff said yes and explain It there was inside the existing
utility cabinet for the appl t to utilize, if the desired. This had
been confirmed with Comm Servl . If they ose not to, the
utilities could be p t adjacent tion whicki uld minimize
having a pedestal middle of". rk. w
Commissioner WebNa the cant had previously done
installatio intheCite
f
Staf this the fir fey ware of.
y{Y
Commis M. r on ask for a little background on Metro PCS.
on woul n 1 `'st carrier. They are a smaller carrier
but the y ha
resence" the Valley. Staff added there was still
the potent f ad two additional carriers to this pole.
Staff sa
applicant.
one w ilkinson asked this carrier had other towers or cell
in th -itv of La Quinta.
might want to direct his question to the
Commissioner Alderson asked if there had been any correspondence
from the neighbors.
Staff said there had been no written correspondence. They did have
an adjacent neighbor Ito the south, across Colima) come in and inquire
about the application. Staff tried to contact them about tonight's
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
meeting but were unable to reach them. So, unfortunately, they were
not in attendance. One thing that was not previously mentioned was
the discussion occurring with Crown Castle as to why it should be
placed at this proposed location. Crown Castle had another option
within the right-of-way. This type of antenna system has the right to
locate within the public right-of-way without a lease. But staff and
the applicant worked to facilitate the move of this pole to the park.
The neighbor expressed favorable suppon ; have it located within the
park to minimize the aesthetic impact,,."" ;,,/
Commissioner Alderson asked if
were resolved.
Staff had made several at s to contact but had not heard
back from them.
nMa
Commissioner Alderson asked` "; t moval of t y*;. went light; if
its removal would*#Oe the par without lightin or any period
of time.
Staff res ded the ting g w not be deactivated until
then ,``' as in ed nevv� ight was ready to be
There b no r ques s of staff, Chairperson Barrows asked
R,Me we :' ..... of %kapplicant.
Mr. St GarbWon behafff Crown Castle, 15530 Lodosa Drive,
Whittier 60 roduced himself and said he urged the Planning
a,pmmission uph r: ha staff's position. He then said he was
able to a er any questions the Commission might have.
kinson asked where the current Metro PCs locations
were.
Mr. Garcia responded there were three macro sites (towers) within the
City of La Quinta. There were also many other sites built throughout
California; northern and southern. They were one of the five licensed
carriers in California; Verizon, AT & T, Sprint, T-Mobile; and Metro
PCs.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
Commissioner Alderson asked if the exhibits showed the entire tower
or were there going to be attachments to it; i.e., tree limbs, faux palm
fronds.
Mr. Garcia said the exhibit was correct there were no attachments.
He said most. of their installations were placed on existing utility poles,
or street light replacements just like the one pictured. Their
installations were smaller in profile 400er in height and lower
powered.
Commissioner Alderson asked
Design Option One and Desigry_.
Mr. Garcia explained tha epe
Some cities preferred a sln1 ca
One. Option Two was desig
three carriers. It to each im
want Option One As
opportunity to build m ca
Commission or the it 'hev
Their pYa
including
would
agr
on pole.
ent b
nc as to
light ture
to the City
the differences between
upon the City required.
d that utilize Option
from ones .. ier to two or
11 city to decide hether they
>mpany, they appreciate the
i t if it's a preference by the
one carrier.
be responsible for the
to 'ntain it, but this would be delineated
etro PCS and the City of La Quinta.
operate, and maintain the facility;
However, if the City had a preference for
or any other aspect of that deployment
The responsibilities would be outlined in
Commis eber asked if the City had a preference would the
applicant t defer to the City.
Mr. Garcia said that was correct.
Commissioner Weber went on to explain the reason for his concerns;
including the improper maintenance of monopalms and the lack of care
of the fronds and surrounding trees. He asked if staff had any
comments on the maintenance.
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
Staff said they still needed to complete all of the terms of the use
agreement. The City was cognizant of the fact that upon occasion
the existing light gets damaged and wanted to make sure the terms of
the lease agreement allowed for prompt and expedient response
should it not operate. In addition they were concerned about a quick
response to aesthetic markings that may appear upon the pole.
Overall, they wanted to make sure ther s the ability for that to be
quickly remedied and resolved shou re be any issues with the
light not operating due to vanda ' otherwise; as well as any
graffiti that might be established ems"; ""
Commissioner Weber s
agreeable to cosmetic an
promptly, but otherwise
maintenance and aestheti,
Staff said they anti
City would have th
operate and_ functi,
pole �
uld all
Comm
thought
issues being
Aicant-,,will be
nt would be
;d by the City
isible for the
at was direction it would go that the
make that the light continues to
well `LL' responsibility for graffiti
he o of the other functions
e th6Z." " onsibility of Crown Castle.
°cked out and there was a condition
would predicate all that being worked
'_ve forward with the building permit.
the structure was grounded.
Garcia I&I
e of know, but that it did meet the electrical
establiby the City as well as the national codes. It would
{essea Public Works building permit process.
followed on the grounding of the unit.
Chairperson Barrows asked for clarification with regard to
maintenance; specifically in reference to Condition no. 9, which
described the perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements
including landscaping, access drives and sidewalks. She asked if that
was the applicant's responsibility.
5-
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
Staff responded that Condition No. 9 was a standard boiler plate
condition. It was all -encompassing and would obviously not be
required beyond installation. They would not have to maintain the
landscape of the park as that was the City's responsibility; as well as
the sidewalk, etc. Between Conditions No. 9 and 17 the maintenance
issues should be fully covered. The most important thing to remember
was the agreement would be definitive with regards to maintenance
and repair and addressing any concerns yO_. aesthetic modifications.
Chairperson Barrows said she u
but just wanted to make sure
covered.
Commissioner Wilkinson I
moving the controls to the
Mr. Garcia said ti,
to locate -it in the
by the City.
Staff
could
if it
d if the
i box C
work 1
ICIW.-
Lion pos
a �
there was a use agreement
f maintenance was fully
a problem with
,bar mentioned.
e City and the `utility provider
and as well as that preferred
Commission that they
that existing facility.
Mr. Gar aid ical "` 'us that the meter was allowed to be
;
from n .about 100 feet; which gave them a
0 4y'' ibili place a st location.
�m
There bein fu questions of the applicant, Chairperson Barrows
asked if ther ` cas an blic comment.
public comment, Chairperson Barrows closed the
irtion of the meeting and opened the matter for
Commissioner Weber commented on the following points:
• The adequacy of the coverage map.
• The improvement of the signal in that area.
• The aesthetics of the unit.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2012
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-014 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2011-
138 as submitted with the addition of the following condition:
19. That the required facility's services shall be located either within
or near the existing on -site utility cabinet.
Unanimously approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN
A. None.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the
B. Commissioner
2012, City Co
IX: DIRECTOR
A. Update
R IM O i s
There%Ilkinso
xtre
is dark on Ad
p.m. on July 24,
Respectfully submitted,
17, 2012.
back on the August 7,
report which was presented to the
taff commented that a new format
business, it was moved by Commissioners Wright
is regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the
be held on August 28, 2012; since the Commission
2012. This regular meeting was adjourned at 7:54
2.
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
IRE
STAFF REPORT PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-121
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2012-622
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH#2010111094), APPROVAL OF THE
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND REDUCTION PLAN,
AND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010111094) WAS PREPARED
UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2012-622. THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND CIRCULATED,
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-_recommending City Council
certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report, adoption of the Greenhouse Gas
Inventory and Reduction Plan, and updated General Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The General Plan serves as the primary guiding policy document for the City and
contains all of the Elements required under state law. As such, the General Plan is the
single most important document adopted by the City. Any recommendations made by
the Planning Commission regarding the General Plan will be presented to the City
Council for their consideration. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution recommending City Council approval of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report, Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan, and Draft General Plan.
The current General Plan was adopted on March 20, 2002. General Plans are typically
renewed on a ten-year cycle. Due to a number of changed factors since then,
including new state legislation and the economic slowdown, the City Council directed
staff to proceed with an updated General Plan. While the land use designations and
policy direction of this update are generally consistent with the current General Plan,
adjustments have been made to streamline and simplify the document, as well as to
accommodate recent legislative changes. The notable adjustments are as follows:
• Two new Elements have been added to the General Plan update, Sustainable
Community (Attachment 1 pg. II-133) and Economic Development (Attachment
1 pg. II-163).
• The land use categories have been simplified and consolidated (Attachment 1
Table II-1, pg. II-2).
• A few minor changes to existing land use designations have been made from
the current General Plan map, such as the accurate designation of existing
conservation lands, pocket parks, water district facilities, recent amendments to
the General Plan, and adjustments required by the recently adopted Housing
Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-18).
• The boundary area of the General Plan update now matches the City's Spheres
of Influence (Attachment 1 Exhibit II-1).
• An area study or master plan will be required for the eastern Sphere of Influence
prior to any future annexations (Attachment 1 pg. II-18 & Policy LU-1.4).
• The target population and build -out projections have been more accurately
revised to accommodate recent changes in the housing market and reflect data
provided from the 2010 U.S. Census (Attachment 1 pg. II-12).
• The Land Use and Sustainable Communities Elements enable a mixed -use
overlay to be developed in the Zoning Ordinance, and identify new development
concepts to be provided for in the Village and Highway 111 corridor
(Attachment 1 pg. II-14 & II-143).
The Housing Element, adopted by the City Council in August of 2011, has been
incorporated into the General Plan update (Attachment 1 pg. II-193).
• The Circulation Element is supported by a new city-wide traffic model that is
consistent with the Riverside County model. The Element also incorporates
"Complete Streets" and provides updated roadway classifications (Attachment
1 pg. II 31►.
`J
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impact is anticipated with adoption of the Draft General Plan. An
analysis to guide and improve long-term fiscal policy has been provided within the
Economic Development Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-163).
ANALYSIS
Population Projections
The 2010 US Census estimated the City's population at 37,467 with an average 2.53
persons per household. The draft General Plan estimates the population within the
current City limits to be 79,956 persons at build out with 100% occupancy of all
housing units. When La Quinta's current seasonal vacancy rate of 27.5% is applied to
build out, the population of the City isreduced to 57,968. In 2010, the estimated
Sphere of Influence population was 2,264. The draft General Plan identifies the
population of the Sphere of Influence upon build out at 54,396. The draft General Plan
identifies the total population in both the City and Sphere at build out to be 134,352
persons.
Compliance with State Law
A number of aspects of the General Plan have been refreshed to comply with changes
in state law since 2002:
• California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32,
requires that all cities prepare an inventory of greenhouse gases and adopt a
plan to reduce the emission of those gases to 1990 levels. As a result, the
General Plan update is accompanied by a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and
Reduction Plan (Attachment 3) which measures the City's emissions levels and
recommends policies for implementation which have been estimated to achieve
the required goals.
The Circulation Element takes into account California's Complete Streets Act of
2008 (AB 1358) by incorporating designs which accommodate and enable safe
access for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and
transit riders.
• The General Plan update accommodates the Sustainable Community and
Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) through the new Sustainable
Community Element and by integrating supporting transportation, land -use, and
housing policies throughout the General Plan.
• The addition of the new Sustainable Community Element allows streamlined
CEQA exemptions for certain infill, transit -oriented, -and walkable communities
under environmental quality legislation enacted in 2011 under SB 226.
Land Use Summary
The draft General Plan does not significantly change the allocation of land in the City.
The attached Table 1 (see Attachment 2) compares the land use allocation in the
existing General Plan with the proposed General Plan. The differences fall into a few
limited categories:'
• Lands previously designated Low Density Residential that have since been
developed as golf courses have been changed to Open Space Recreation, which
has reduced the residential acreage and increased the Open Space Recreation
acreage.
• Lands designated Commercial and Low Density Residential has been changed to
High Density Residential, either for specific projects or for consistency with the
newly adopted Housing Element.
• Lands designated Low Density Residential in Section 5, at the south end of the
City that have been bought by public agencies for conservation under the Multi -
Species Plan have been changed to Open Space Recreation.
• Lands annexed into the City since 2002, including and in particular lands south
of Avenue 58 and west of Monroe have increased the overall acreage of land
within the City limits.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan
The California Warming Solutions Act of 2006, referred to as Assembly Bill 32 (or AB
32), in conjunction with the Sustainable Community and Climate Protection Act of
2008, referred to as Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), requires all cities to reduce their
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by no later than 2020. In accord with
these laws, the Planning Department has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and
Reduction Plan (Attachment 3) which analyzes emissions levels and contains
recommended policies intended to help the City reach its target goal. While most GHG
emissions are generated by vehicles and power generation, there are a number of
measures which can be applied on a city-wide level relating to building construction,
energy efficiency, transportation planning, and land use. When applied together, these
recommendations will help the City comply with the legislation's target goals. The
Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan serves as an appendix to the draft
General Plan and supports the energy efficiency and conservation goals, policies, and
programs found within the Sustainable Community Element.
4
Sustainable Community Element
The new Sustainable Community Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-133) helps the City
develop responsibly and efficiently through the conservation of resources, the
enhancement of the built environment, encouraging transportation options that do not
rely as much on the automobile, and improve community health. It contains a number
of concepts and programs which are interconnected with State Building Codes,
Regional Water Quality Plans, public health initiatives, other General Plan Elements,
and the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan.
Economic Development Element
A new Economic Development Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-163) was prepared in
light of recent economic events and contains long-term strategies to maintain the
City's current economic base and to help improve growth and revenue. The Economic
Development Element contains an analysis which determines the costs and revenues
associated with the future build out of the City. It takes into account existing and
potential sources of revenue and is intended to support the City's annual Economic
Development Plan.
Traffic and Circulation
The update to the Circulation Element (Attachment 1 pg. II-31) reflects the evolution
of land use and development in the City, the Sphere of Influence, and neighboring
communities. The Element is supported by extensive traffic and transportation
modeling. Based on the projections, a number of physical improvements have been
identified at key intersections and roadway segments to assure that future traffic
operations can provide an acceptable level of service. These recommendations will be
incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program. Some measures include a
priority for roundabouts over signalization at specific intersections, strategies to
maximize alternative modes of travel, the implementation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs, and the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
With the recommended physical improvements and management strategies identified in
the Circulation Element, it is expected that most components of the City's circulation
network will operate at acceptable levels of service upon General Plan build out.
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, an Environmental
Impact Report (Attachment 4) was prepared for the General Plan update (State
Clearinghouse No. 2010111094). All of the impacts identified from the proposed
General Plan are able to be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception
of air quality and traffic and circulation, for which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be considered by the City Council.
5
In regards to air quality, emissions associated with operation of land uses at build out
of the general plan will exceed established thresholds, even when mitigated, and are
therefore significant and unavoidable. These emissions result from daily emissions in
the city at build out, including electricity generation, natural gas usage, vehicular
exhaust, construction activity, and emissions generated by individual businesses and
residences.
In regards to traffic and circulation, even with the proposed mitigation programs,
management strategies, and physical improvements identified in the Circulation
Element, up to six roadway segments and four intersections may operate at level of
service (LOS) E or F at build out, which fall below City standards, and are considered
to be significant and unavoidable impacts (Tables 2 and 3 below). With these
exceptions, most components of the City's circulation network will operate at
acceptable levels of service upon General Plan build out.
Table 2
Intersections with the Potential to Operate at LOS E or F
General Plan Build Out
Intersection Projected Level of Service (LOS)
AM PM
Washington St. @ Fred Waring Dr. F F
Washington St. @ Miles Ave D F
Miles Ave @ Adams St. D E
Madison St. @ Avenue 50 E F
Table 3
Roadway Segments with the Potential to Operate at LOS E or F
General Plan Build Out
Roadway Segment Projected Daily Level of Service (LOS)
Washington St.: Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr. E
Washington St.: Fred Waring Dr. to Miles Ave @ Miles Ave F
Washington St.: Highway 111 to Avenue 48 E
Washington St.: Avenue 48 to Eisenhower Dr. E
Madison St.: Avenue 54 to Airport Blvd (Ave 56) F
Harrison St.: Airport Blvd. (Ave 56) to Avenue 58 F
PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW
Public Outreach Campaign
The City conducted an extensive community outreach effort for the General Plan
update. The public outreach campaign began with a kick-off workshop to garner input
19
held in April of 2010, stakeholder workshops for residents and businesses in the
Village and Highway 1 1 1, and presentations before homeowner associations, the local
Rotary Club, and at the annual City Picnic. A website was prepared, www.lg2035.org,
to keep the public informed and apprised of the project's ongoing progress and to
allow public access to the draft General Plan and supporting documents.
Public Notification
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was posted and
released for comment on November 24, 2010. A scoping meeting for the NOP was
advertised and held on December 8, 2010. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was
posted with the State Clearinghouse on July 10, 2012. The Notice of Availability
(NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was advertised in the Desert
Sun newspaper on July 12, 2012. The 45-day public comment period for the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ran through August 27, 2012. All General Plan
documents have been posted online for public review on their respective release dates.
The General Plan Update was subject to review by Native American Tribal
organizations, under SB 18 requirements. One request for consultation was received
from the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians during the 90-day tribal consultation request
period, but there was no follow-up to our response from that organization. Comments
were also received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
The public hearing for the proposed Environmental Impact Report, Greenhouse Gas
Assessment Inventory and Reduction Plan, and General Plan Update were advertised in
the Desert Sun newspaper on August 31, 2012. The public hearing notice was
published as 1 /8 page legal advertisement.
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
During the 45-day comment period, the City received written responses regarding the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 5)'from the following agencies: Native
American Heritage Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, City of Coachella, City of Indio, Coachella
Valley Water District, Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, Riverside
County Planning Department, the State Clearinghouse, Hoffmann Land Development,
and the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. A formal
response to comments will be prepared in conjunction with the Final Environmental
Impact Report and presented to the City Council.
Communication from the Public
During the course of the General Plan update, staff received comments from three La
Quinta residents (Attachment 6): Mr. Dick Storbo, Mrs. Neeta Quinn, Mr. Michael L.
7
Bailardo, and one developer, Mr. Marvin D. Roos (resulting in a minor correction to
Circulation Exhibit II-2). Any additional comments received following the preparation of
this report will be provided to the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing.
Prepared by:
jwAnd JMogensen, AICP
l Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft General Plan Update
2. Table 1, A Comparison of Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use
Allocations
3. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan
4. Draft Environmental Impact Report
5. Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
6. Communication from the Public
Attachments 1, 3, and 4 were provided to the Planning Commissioners at the
beginning of the public comment period on July 12, 2012.
111
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2010111094) AND APPROVAL OF
THE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND REDUCTION
PLAN PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND
ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED GENERAL PLAN
e
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2010-121
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on
the 111h day of September, 2012, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the proposed General Plan Amendment 2010-121, for an update to the La Quinta
General Plan (hereinafter, "Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 201h day of March 2002, adopt Resolution 2002-44, approving a
comprehensive update of the City of La Quinta General Plan, pursuant to Sections
65000 et seq. of California Planning and Zoning Law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on
the 2ntl day of August 2011, adopt Resolution. 201 1-071, approving the Housing
Element of the La Quinta General Plan, which is not being amended at this time;
and,
WHEREAS, an update of the General Plan has been drafted which
reflects the values and principles of the City of La Quinta and contains the goals,
policies,' and programs deemed necessary to responsibly guide the future growth
and development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City's unique population characteristics, economic
conditions, development patterns, environmental setting, natural and cultural
resources, transportation network, financial resources, community health, and
public safety, as well as the interests, concerns, and well-being of the people of
the City of La Quinta were all considered in the preparation of the General Plan
update; and,
WHEREAS, said General Plan update has complied with tribal
consultation requirements as set forth in Government Code Section 65352 (SB 18
requirements); and,
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2010111094) has
9
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
General Plan Amendment 2010-121
Environmental Assessment 2012-622
La Quinta General Plan Update
September 11, 2012
been prepared for this project as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, a Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan has been
prepared for the General Plan Update in accord with the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all
environmental documentation comprising the EIR, and has found that the EIR
considers all potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, fully complies
with all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgment of the
Planning Commission and the City; 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 Amendment updating the General Plan of the
City of La Quinta:
1 . The elements of the General Plan, as proposed, are internally consistent and
reflect updated statistics and information regarding the City's current
conditions and anticipated future growth.
2. The proposed General Plan Update will not negatively impact the public
welfare, insofar as its policies and programs consider and address Geologic
Hazards, Noise, Air Quality, Flooding and Hydrology, and other
environmental and manmade hazards, in order to minimize and prevent these
potential hazards for the health, safety, and well-being of the residents and
visitors of the community.
3. The proposed General Plan Update is compatible with the historic and
anticipated land use patterns in the City, and will continue to support the
orderly and responsible development of the City in the future.
4. The land uses proposed on the Land Use Map are suitable for the lands on
which they are proposed, insofar as the majority of the City's developable
lands are generally flat, and those lands with significant slope and
environmental resources are proposed for preservation as Natural Open
Space.
10
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
General Plan Amendment 2010-121
Environmental Assessment 2012-622
La Quinta General Plan Update
September 11, 2012
5. The Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan is consistent with the
requirements of California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as
codified under California Health and Safety Code sections 38500 et seq.
6. The update is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and
State housing law, as revisions to land use standards as identified in the
current Housing Element have been studied and included as part of this
General Plan Update process.
7. The General Plan Update will not create conditions materially detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting programs and
policies are designed to protect, improve, and enhance the health, safety,
and well-being of the people of the City of La Quinta.
8. The General Plan Update complies with the provisions of California's
Planning and Zoning Law, as codified under California Government Code
sections 65300 et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case; and,
2. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council certify the
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan Update; and,
3. That is does hereby recommend adoption of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory
and Reduction Plan prepared for the General Plan Update; and,
4. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the General
Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element, by adopting the General
Plan Update consisting of the maps, text, and appendices which are
incorporated into and part of this Resolution by reference herein, 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 11`h day of September, 2012, by the
following vote, to wit:
11
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
General Plan Amendment 2010-121
Environmental Assessment 2012-622
La Quinta General Plan Update
September 11, 2012
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
12
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 1
Existing General Plan Land Use Allocation, City Limits
Existing General Plan
Proposed General Plan
General Plan Designations
Develop-
ad
Un-
developed
Total
Developed
Un
developed
Total
VLDR Very Low Density
up to 2 du/ac
261
198.2
459.2
4,006.0
1,583.7
5,589.7
LDR Low Density up to 4
du/ac
3,202.50
3,096.90
6,299.40
MDR Medium Density up
to 8 du/ac
1,063.90
324.2
1,388.10
1,292.4
373.6
1,666.0
MHDR Medium -High
Density up to 12 du/ac
14.5
69
83.4
HDR High Density up to
16 du/ac
0.6
86.7
87.3
Total Residential Acreage
4,542.40
3,775.00
8,317.50
5,298.4
1,967.3
7,265.7
M/RC Mixed Commercial
87.9
309
397
385.6
184.0
569.6
CC Community
Commercial
24.2
93.7
117.9
NC Neighborhood
Commercial
61.8
50.8
112.5
CP Commercial Park
64
64
0 Office
39.9
39.9
TC Tourist Commercial
206.2
145.3
351.5
206.6
138.9
345.5
VC Village Commercial
64.4
68.8
1 133.2
77.1
12.9
90.0
Total Commercial Acreage
444.5
771.5
1,216.00
669.3
336.8
1,005.1
MC Major Community
Facilities
178.3
13.1
191.3
252.7
193.8
446.5
P Park Facilities
601.3
128
729.3
4,392.2
867.0
5,259.2
G Golf Course Open Space
3,125.30
986.7
4,111.90
OS Open Space
1,246.20
4,258.70
5,505.00
2,171.6
4,761.7
6,933.3
W Watercourse/Flood
Control
468.9
132.8
601.7
Street Rights of Way
1,764.6
191.1
1,955.7
Total Other Acre age
5,619.90
5,519.30
11,139.20
8,581.1
6,013.6
14,594.7
Grand To
13
ATTACHMENT 5
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
sls cAPn*L aALL, WW W4
8140FIAM M CA 95814
(way+
Fait (VII) ssT-0is0
Web 8119 www.nahC Ca -SW
eesdwepsew Co
July 17, 2012
Mr. Andrew Mogensen, AICP, City Planner
City of La Quintla
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
�a rLul
JUL 2e 2012
CITY OF LA QUINTA
I?LANNING DEPARTMENT
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of Calftmia
'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources
pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court
in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3d 604).
This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American
historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested
Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law
also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code
§6097.9. This project is also subject to California Government Code Section 6535213, at seq.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA CA Public Resources Code
21000-21177, amendments effective 3118f2010) requires that any project that causes a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes
archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect requiring the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment
as's substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within
an area affected by the proposed project, including ...objects of historic or aesthetic
significance.' In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess
whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential
effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency
request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the
proposed project.
The NAHC °Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the
California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in
the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act
pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ).
Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid
unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway.
Culturally affiliated tribes and 'individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural
significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you
14
make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American
contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to
obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public
Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order
that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information.
Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as
defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code
§5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal
parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to
pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and
Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources.
Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes
and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351).
Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list,
should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and
4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 at seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-
3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types
included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also,
federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175
(coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for
Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interiors Standards include
recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects
and to "research' the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.'
Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be
considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected
under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for .
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the
federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or
not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APES and
possibility threatened by proposed project activity.
Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 6097.98, California Government Code
§27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent
discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery
of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicatedcemetery.
To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing,
relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their
contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built
around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative
consultation tribal input on specific projects.
Finally, when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are
prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a).
15
If you have any qu t ns about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to
me at (916) §53-625,
Cc: State IIfia righouse
Attachment ativ American Contact list
1 16
waCHAOM Mh
Rod Balam
Robb lore
mew
JamLYoo
MOSCO a
STAFF
Director
Ed Coopor
MWGuadn
Rund Brady
Barbera Senfm
Caudymminsh oar r
40mazana,l apw.
PeV 9MI32
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
15, 2012
Mr. Andrew Mogensen, Principal Planner
City of La Quirta Planning Department
P. O. Box 1504
78-495 Cane Tampico
La Quints CA 92263
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quints General Plan
Update (SCH # 2010111094)
Mr. Mogensen:
k you for providing the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with a CD
of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan
de. We have reviewed the document and offer the following comments.
On page III-99 of the Draft EIR, Bermuda Dunes Airport is variously referred to as a "private
airfieWora'privateairstrip.' This is anincorrect classification. Bermuda Dunes Airport should
the described as a "privately -owned public use airport.' As a public use airport, Bermuda Dunes
Airport is subject to permitting requirements of the State of California Department of
Transportation Division of Aeronautics. Another distinction between a public use airport and a
private airstrip is that Airport Lend Use Commissions are required to prepare Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plans for the environs of public use airports. A handwritten annotated copy of page
III-99. is attached hereto, and we would recommend that the Final EIR incorporate the
recommended changes.
portion of the City of La Quinta located northerly of Fred Waring Drive and westerly of
Iferson Street is within Compatibility Zone D and Is proposed for a land use designation of Low
insity Residential (0 to 4 dwelling units per acre). This land use designation is not consistent
h Countywide compatibility criteria for Compatibility Zorre D; however, as this designation
lects an existing land use (a recorded tract map), a finding of consistency could still be made
the Airport Land Use Commission.
The current boundaries of the City of La Quinta Ire outside the Airport Influence Area for
Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, but the sphere of influence extends into this area and is
included primarily in Compatibility Zones D and E. Small portions of Compatibility Zones C and
B1 extend into the area directly southwesterly of the Airport Boulevard/Harrison Street
intersection. This area is within the community of Vista Santa Rosa, where the Commission has
indicated a willingness to consider special policies if large expanses of open area can be
preserved in perpetuity. (Please see the attached letter from the Airport Land Use Commission
to the Riverside County Planning Department regarding this issue.)
tto Section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code, "prior to the amendment of a
plan ... the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to (ALUC).° At the
ate time prior to action (ideally before Planning Commission consideration, but definitely
ity Council action), the new General Plan should be submitted to the Airport Land Use
Won for a consistency review. (A copy of the'Application for Major Land Use Action 17
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION August 15, 2012
Review" form is attached, for your convenience.)
We urge your consideration of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, the 2004 Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and
the 2005 Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in proposing land
use designations for properties within the Airport Influence Areas of these two airports.
Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the State of
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, is an excellent resource that
should be consulted in your efforts to provide for a General Plan that furthers the objectives of
airport land use compatibility planning. We recommend that the chapter addressing
"Responsibilities of Local Agencies" be reviewed.
In situations where a jurisdiction's General Plan has not been determined by ALUC to be
consistent with applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, ALUC is empowered to require
submittal of all actions, regulations, and permits (such as land divisions and development of
structures with a cumulative floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater) involving land within an
Airport Influence Area for individual determinations of consistency or inconsistency. All major
land use actions, with or without legislative actions such as general plan amendments, specific
plans and specific plan amendments, and zoning changes, affecting land within the Airport
Influence Areas of Bermuda Dunes Airport and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport are
presently subject to ALUC review. ALUC reviews for conformance with ALUCP compatibility
criteria, including land use intensity, noise, and height. (Once ALUC has determined a
I urisdiction's General Plan to be consistent, only those projects involving general plan
amendments, speck plans, specific plan amendments, ordinance amendments, or zoning
changes are subject to ALUC review.)
The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachments is vital to California's
economic future. ALUCs were created by the State of California to work with local jurisdictions in
a joint effort to provide for compatible land uses in the vicinity of public use airports. ALUC staff
is available to assist the City in this effort in order to provide for a General Plan that is consistent
with adopted Compatibility Plans, and would be happy to meet with you and City staff to discuss
the General Plan and the ALUC review process at your convenience.
If you have any questions, please contact John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-
0982.
Sincerely,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
C.
(3): Page III-99 with recommended corrections
Letter to Riverside County Planning re: Vista Santa Rosa
Application for Major Land Use Action Review
cc: Nicole S. Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research
Mike Smith, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport
Daryl Shippy, Riverside County EDA— Aviation (Indio)
18
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
43-420 Trader Place • Indio, CA 92201 (760) 342-8287 • Fax (760) 342.8110
• Toll Free 1-888-343.9399
E-mail: CVmosqutto@ccvmvcd.org Website: www.cvmved.org
August 21, 2012
President ..
To: Andrew Mogensen, AICP
SHARON LOCK
Principal Planner
Palm Springs
City of La Quints
vim Preeident
P.O. Box 1504
QW HOWELL
78-495 Calle Tampico
Cathedral City
La Quints, CA 92253
AUG 2 7 2012
Cm OF LA GUINTA
_ ^UINNINO DEPARTMPI
Secretary
DOUGLAS WALKER
Subject: Comments regarding Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Palm Desert
Impact Report EIR for the City of La p po (D ) Quints General Plan Update, State
Treasurer
Clearinghouse No. 2010111094
ROBERTCOX
La Quints
Dear Mr. Mogensen, -
STEVEN HERNANDEZ
Coachella -
Thank you for the opportunity to express the position and concern of the
ALBgar KECK
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District (hereafter, the District)
county at Large
regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of La Quinta
KARL BAKER JR
General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2010111094).
Desert Hot Springs
The District is a non -enterprise independent special district accountable to the
BRUCE UNDEn Wells Dr. P.H.
Indian Wells
citizens of the Coachella Valle charged with the protection of public health
Y, g P
through the control of vectors and vector -borne diseases within its boundaries. We
SAM TORRES
operate under the California Health and Safety Code Division 3; Sections 2000-
Indio
2910 (known as the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District Law). Our
CHARLES RICH
activities include the prevention and control of mosquitoes, filth flies, eye gnats,
Rancho Mirage
and the red imported fire ant. The General Plan Update may result in increases in
BRANKA B. LOTHROP, Ph. D.
these vector populations and impact the ability of the District to control vectors.
General Manager
Specifically, the expansion of La Quinta into its Sphere of Influence to the south
and east will increase the likelihood that residents encounter vector and nuisance
insects in agricultural and wetland habitats.
Mosquitoes
Within the urbanized areas of La Quinta, as well as the rest of the Coachella
Valley, mosquitoes breed in storm drain systems, neglected swimming pools,
poorly designed or damaged landscape irrigation systems, and other containers
that hold water for at least 96"hours. The most important vector species are the
encephalitis mosquito and the southern house mosquito. These species can vector
(transmit) West Nile virus, western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis
encephalitis to humans. Additionally, West Nile virus and western equine
19
encephalomyelitis can infect horses, which is of interest to La Quinta due to its numerous
equestrian trails.
The General Plan Update indicates that the number of dwelling units in the planning area will be
increased to 53,103. The current number of dwelling units that are occupied year-round is 14,820
of the 23,489 available. If the current year-round occupation rate is kept constant at 63%, then
19,648 dwelling units could be expected to be unoccupied. If the current number of seasonal,
recreational, and occasional use homes remains the same (27.5% according to the 2010 U.S.
census), then 14,603 homes will be vacant for at least part of the year.
The District conducts aerial photography to determine if pools are neglected. In April 2012, we
identified 245 pools in La Quinta as possibly being neglected, or approximately 1% of the
dwelling units present. With an increase in dwelling units, we might expect this to reach 530
pools at build out. We currently see that approximately half of the pools on our possibly
neglected list require treatment and follow-up inspections.
Storm drains, catch basins, dry wells, and detention basins are also commonly used as breeding
sites for mosquitoes within the urban environment. Given that 2,084.5 acres of street rights of
way are proposed to be built under the Preferred Plan, we expect that more storm drains will be
built. We applaud La Quinta's commitment on page V-4 to be a Full Service Community. We
agree that "storm drains ... [are] maintained in good working order and of adequate service level
to address existing and future needs" is an important Guiding Principle and a task that ensures
effective use of mosquito control products.
As the agricultural areas of the Sphere of Influence are built, residents are likely to encounter
floodwater mosquitoes known as Psorophora. These mosquitoes are not vectors of disease;
however, they are active day and night and are very painful biters. The addition of residents in
the area will result in additional service requests, increasing our workload.
Filth flies and eye gnats
As the area within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence is developed from agricultural property into
dwelling units, we expect to receive more requests for control of filth flies and eye gnats. Most
flies lay eggs in decaying plant or animal matter as can be found in agricultural practices. We
have seen the development of homes in traditionally agriculture areas result in unhappy
homeowners who are not pleased with the presence of adult flies. We can and do recommend
methods of preventing breeding sources of flies, but properties that are zoned for agriculture do
have potential for fly breeding even when practicing standard and acceptable agricultural
practices as defined by the California Health and Safety code.
Red imported fire ants (RIFA)
While the red imported fire ant (RIFA) is not a vector of disease, it is an invasive species within
the Coachella Valley that produces a very painful sting. People may experience localized pain or
swelling and in some cases, anaphylactic shock. In urban areas, they build mounds close to
buildings, in school yards, athletic fields, golf courses, and parks. In agricultural areas, they can
build mounds near water sources and drip irrigation systems, feed on seeds and budding fruits,
and sting livestock. La Quinta already has several golf courses that are infested with RIFA, and
20
further creation of green spaces will likely result in the spread of the insect into the currently less
urbanized Sphere of Influence.
We applaud the City of La Quinta's commitment to using desert landscaping techniques as well,
as the development of educational programs and demonstration gardens to inform the public and
businesses of water efficient techniques and sustainable practices. Reducing water use,
particularly wasted water that flows into stone drains, will result in decreases in vector
populations. We encourage the city to work with us and future developers to use vector
prevention strategies when building storm drains and choosing landscape options.
Sincerely,
Jeiuu er Henke, M.S.
Environmental Biologist
jhenke@cvmvcd.org
cc: Branka B. Lothrop, Ph.D., General Manager
Jeremy Wittie, M.S., Scientific Operations Manager
21
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
(909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov
F-Mailed• August 24, 2012 August 24, 2012
planningoa-quinta.org
Mr. Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta AU' -
P.O. Box 1504
78-495 Calle Tampiw
La Quinta, CA 92253 1':u sl'fld; 3;)CYN Mt
Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIRI
for the City of La Ouinta General Plan Update Proiect
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) staff appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The following comments
are intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the
Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) as appropriate.
Based on a review of the Draft EIR the AQMD staff is concerned about the project's
regional construction and operational air quality impacts. Specifically, the lead agency
has determined that the project's construction and operational emissions will exceed the
AQMD's CEQA significance thresholds for NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5
emissions impacts. Therefore, the AQMD staff recommends that the lead agency provide
additional mitigation measures to minimize the project's significant air quality impacts.
Further, the AQMD staff request that the lead agency provide additional information and
clarification in the Final EIR on the project's Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission
Reduction Plan and GHG significance determination presented in the Draft EIR. Details
regarding these comments are attached to this letter.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the SCAQMD with
written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR.
Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any
22
Mr. Andrew Mogensen
August 24, 2012
other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specia8st CEQA
Section, at (909) 3%-3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.
Sincerely,
v.
Ian MacMillan
Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter -Governmental Review
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sonices
Attachment
lld:DG
RVC120713-03
Control Number
23
Mr. Andrew Mogensen
August 24, 2012
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
l . Based on a review of the Draft EIR the lead agency has determined that the proposed
project will achieve its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 10% below 2005
levels by 2020 and 28% below 2005 levels by 2035. Based on information presented
on page IV-7 of the GHG Reduction Plan the lead agency established BAU using
historical growth rates (2005 baseline data) within city limits. As a result, the lead
agency applied this same growth rate to land area outside of city limits and in the
project's sphere of influence (SOI). However, it does not appear that the land outside
of the lead agency's jurisdiction and in the SOI (see Figure 1-5 of Draft EIR) has a
growth potential that is consistent with the growth rates assumed in the BAU analysis.
Specifically, it does not seem appropriate to allocate the same growth rate to land in
the city limits boundary and land in the SOI boundary given the existing lower
density rural designation within the SOL Therefore, the AQMD staff requests that in
light of a recent court oiling regarding BAU analysis' the lead agency demonstrate
that the BAU analysis properly captures the growth potential in the city's sphere of
influence and provide clarification about the use of this rate to establish the project's
BAU emissions value.
Regional Plan Censistenc
2. The lead agency indicates that the population, housing and employment growth rates
in the GHG Reduction Plan were provided by the Southern California Association of
Government (SCAG). However, the lead agency does not provide any quantitative
analyses or measures to demonstrate that the project is consistent with the recent
Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) adopted by the SCAG. Therefore, the final
CEQA document should provide a quantified analysis demonstrating consistency
with the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/SCS.
Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts
3. The lead agency's operational air quality analysis demonstrates significant air quality
impacts from all criteria pollutant emissions including NOx, SOx, CO, VOC, PM 10
and PM2.5 emissions impacts. These impacts are primarily from mobile source
emissions related to vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. However, the
lead agency fails to adequately address this large source of emissions. Specifically,
the lead agency requires nominal mitigation measures in the Draft EIR that lack
emission reduction targets and specificity relative to the mobile source emissions.
Therefore, the lead agency should reduce the project's significant air quality impacts
by reviewing and incorporating additional transportation mitigation measures from
the greenhouse gas quantification report2 published by the California Air Pollution
Control Officer's Association and by revising mitigation measures 1 through 6 on
Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley et al., v. County of Riverside et al. (Villages of Lakeview,
April 2012)
' California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association. August 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. Accessed at: http,//www capcoa orplwp-content/uploads/2010111/CAPCOA-
24
Mr. Andrew Mogensen 4 August 24, 2012
page III-35 of the Draft EIR to provide specific emission reduction targets in the Final
EIR. Further, the lead agency should be mindful of significant mobile source
reductions that are needed in the near future for the South.Const Air Basin to achieve
Federal Clean Air Standards by 2023 and 20303.
u. -:t,t i M
4. The lead agency determined that the proposed project will exceed the CEQA regional
construction significance thresholds; therefore, AQMD staff recommends that the
lead agency provide the following additional mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15.126.4.
• Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery
trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model
year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks
that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx and Plot emissions requirements.
� See page six (6) of the Powering the Future Document accessed at:
http://www.agmd.ROY-/Dubinfo/imagesfcovff-spread.*p
25
Gf iiV/E�Gli
�111 Li►
ATE
Established in 1918 as a public agency
R Coachella Valley Water District An 2Ci2
�STRI� j CITY OF LA OUINTA `
"LANNING DE_P_ARTMFNT
Directors: - Off eis:
Peter Nelson, Resident - Div. 4 Steven B. Robbins, General Manager -Chief Engineer
John P. PoweB, A. Vice President - Div. 3 Julia Fernandez. Board Secretary
Patricia A. Larson - Div. 2
Debi Livesay - Div. 5 Redwine and Sherrill. Attorneys
Franz W. De IOotz - Div. t August 22, 2012
File: 1150.14
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
Subject: Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the City of La Ouinta General Plan Update
Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) the opportunity to review
the Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the La Quinta
General Plan Update. CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water,
irrigation/drainage, regional stormwater protection and groundwater management services to a
population of almost 300,000 throughout the Coachella Valley in Southern California.
At this time, CVWD submits the following comments regarding the DEIR:
1. Where applicable throughout the DEIR, references should be made to the 2010
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (approved in January 2012), the
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Thomas E.
Levy Groundwater Recharge Facility.
2. Pace M-9 Environmental Summary Matrix: Under the "Existing Conditions" heading,
"Hydrology" is misspelled.
Please revise first sentence under "Hydrology" to state: "Analysis and design of
regional flood control structures is the responsibility of CVWD ".
Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Hydrology" to state "... the
Bear Creek System, the East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2,Guadelupe Dike,
and Dike No. 4. "
In reference to the second paragraph under the "Project Impacts" heading, please note
that the portion of the Coachella Valley Stonnwater Channel within the Planning Area
is not a "levee ", and most of this section has slope protection.
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta 2 August 22, 2012
3. Page M-10, Environmental Summary Matrix: In the last sentence of the third
paragraph under the headings "Existing Conditions" and "Water Resources/Quality",
please revise to read:. "CVWD estimates the annual overdraftfor for 2010 to be 7, 457
acre-feet. "
4. Page II-12: Please revise the third paragraph to read "...which drains an approximate
1, 069-square-mile watershed at Indio... " or "... which drains an approximate 1, 525-
square-mile watershed at the Salton Sea... ".
In the last paragraph, please replace "Whsewater River" with "Wasewater River
Stormwater Channel
5. Page 11-13: Under the heading "Domestic Water Resources", please revise the second
sentence to the following: "It uses wells to extract groundwater which naturally
recharges from mountain runoff`. Natural recharge is supplemented by replenishment
programs supplying supplemental water to the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Recharge
Facility near Dike No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot Groundwater Recharge
Facility near Martinez Canyon
Under the heading "Whitewater River Subbasin", please revise the last sentence of
the first paragraph to state "...Lower Whiewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. " In
the first sentence of the second paragraph, please revise to read "...groundwater use
in the Whsewater River Subbasin has been steadily increasing to a point where
demand has exceeded natural supplies. "
6. Pa eg II_20: In the third sentence of the first paragraph under "Domestic Water", please
revise to read "... and south and east of the Planning Area at the Thomas E. Levy
Groundwater Recharge Facility near Dike No. 4 and at the Martinez Canyon Pilot
Groundwater Recharge Facility near Martinez Canyon. "
In the last two sentences of the paragraph under "Wastewater Services", please replace
"Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant " with "Water Reclamation Plant No.4 ".
7. Page III-104: In the first sentence of the paragraph under "Regional Stormwater
Management", please revise to read: "Analysis and design of regional flood control
Structures is the responsibility of CVWD ". Please revise the second to last sentence
to read "... include the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, Whiewater River
Stormwater Channel, the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the Bear Creek System, the
East La Quinta Channel System, Dike No. 2, Guadalupe Dike, and Dike No. 4. "
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta
August 22, 2012
Please revise the first four sentences in the first paragraph under "Whitewater
River/Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel" to read: "The Whitewater River, which
flows into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel in the Planning Area, is the
principal drainage course in the City, extending through the Coachella Valley for 50
miles, with an average cross-section of 350 feet. The Channel is generally dry, but
may be inundated during storm events. Most of the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel sections within the City have reinforced slope protection; the remaining
portions are protected by unreinforced earthen berms. "
Please revise the first sentence of the second paragraph to read: "The aforementioned
reinforced slopes and remaining unreinforced earthen banks are classified by FEMA
as "Provisionally Accredited Levees", indicating that they provide protection from
the 100 year flood. "
& Page III-105: Please revise the last sentence under `Bear Creek System" to read:
"CVWD has applied for FEMA accreditation of the Bear Creek Channel System
including the training dike, and is awaiting receipt of the formal accreditation letter. "
In reference to the last sentence of the paragraph under "Oleander Reservoir", the
Standard Project Flood elevation is projected to be 54 feet at the reservoir; please
verify 44-foot elevation associated with the 100-year flood.
9. Page III-106: In reference to the first two sentences of the first paragraph under
"Dikes", please note that the dikes were constructed to protect agricultural lands.
Also, the Eastside Dike is not located within an area covered by the City's General Plan
Update.
10. Page III- 110: Please revise the first two sentences of the first paragraph under "Levee
Failure and Seiching " to read: "There are several major stormwater or irrigation
facilities located in the Planning Area including the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel, Coachella Canal, and Lake Cahuilla. "
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please replace "sand levees" with
"banks " or "levees".
11. Page III-238: Please revise the second sentence'of the third paragraph under "Existing
Conditions " to read • "Although Colorado River water is one of the Coachella Valley's
main sources of water, it has elevated levels ofsalinity. This water has been cited as
contributing to the elevated salinity levels found in the Valley. "
12, Page III-239: Please revise the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Thermal
Subarea" to read: "... increased pumpage has lowered groundwater levels in the lower
portion of the Whitewater River subbasin. "
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta 4 August 22, 2012
Please revise the first sentence of the third' paragraph to read: "The upper and lower
aquifer zones of the Thermal.subarea...
Please revise the first sentence under "Regional Water Supply and Demand" to read:
"The Coachella Valley's principal domestic water source is groundwater. "
13. Page III-240: Please revise the first and second sentences under "Regional Water
Supply" to read: "Domestic water is provided in the City and most of the sphere by
CVWD. Groundwater is the primary source for this water supply."
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, please add "Area ofBenefrt" after
"Subbasin ".
Please revise the last sentence of the third paragraph to read: "...the annual balance
in the Area ofBenefrt for 2010 was estimated to be -7, 457 acre feet. /09" And please
add this sentence: "The cumulative overdraft for the Area of Benefit through 2010 is
estimated to be 4,497,609 acre-feet 109" .
Under "Historic and Current Consumption", please add "Area of Benefit" after
"Subbasin ".
14. Page III-241: Please revise the title of Table III-50 to "Coachella Valley Water
District Annual Water Production Within the Lower K%itewater River Subbasin Area
ofBeneft. "
Under "Domestic Water Facilities", please update data to include the following:
"CVWD has 102 active wells, 59 reservoirs, and in 2011 delivered 102,805 acre-feet
of water to a population of 286, 240. "
15. Page III-243: Please replace "... and the Mission Creek subbasins... " with "... and
the Mission Creek Subbasin Areas of Benefit " in the second and third paragraphs on
this page."
16. Page III-244: Please revise the heading "Reclaimed Water/Tertiary Treated Water"
to "Recycled Water/Tertiary Treated Water". In the second sentence under this
heading, please revise to state "...of which two have facilities to treat wastewater...'
and add this sentence after the second sentence: "A third CVWD water reclamation
plant produces secondary treated water suitable for irrigation where uses are
restricted. "
17. Page III-245: In the next to last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, please
' replace "turn" with 'turf'.
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quinta
August 22, 2012
18. Page III-246: Please revise the fourth and fifth sentences of the second paragraph
under "Water Quality" to read: "In some areas, low levels of naturally -occurring arsenic
have been found. CVWD has three ion exchange treatment facilities for arsenic
removal; these are located in the Mecca and Thermal areas. "
19. Page III-247: Please revise the second and third sentences under "Total Dissolved
Solids" to read: "The secondary MCL for TDS includes an upper level of 1,000
milligrams per liter (mg1L) and a short-term level of], 500 mg1L. Based on CVWD
domestic well monitoring data for 2009, TDS levels ranged from 150 to 980 mg/L. "
Under "Nitrates", please remove the ".s" from "commons" in the second sentence of
the first paragraph.
20. Page III-248: Please revise the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on the page to
read: "The primary water quality issues in the Coachella Valley are salinity and
nitrates. " Please add "River" after "Whitewater" in the second sentence.
21. Page III-252: Please replace "reclaimed" with "recycled" in the last sentence of the
first paragraph under "Impacts to Water Supply Resources ".
22, Page III- 254: In the third sentence of the first paragraph, revise to read "...established
thresholds for domestic water... " and place a comma after "chromium-6" in the last
sentence.
In the third sentence under "Nitrates", please revise to read "... nitrate concentrations
in domestic water provided by CVWD range from "not detected" to a maximum of 40
mg/L."
23. Page III-255: Please remove the "s" from "impacts" in the first sentence of the first
full paragraph.
24. Exhibit III-10: The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel is mislabeled as the
"Whitewater River".
If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Senior Environmental Specialist,
extension 2545.
Yours ery truly,
t
Mark L.Johnson
Director of Engineering
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
August 27, 2012
Les Johnson, Planning Director
City of La Quints
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIIt) and City of La Quinta General Plan
City of La Quints
Dear Mr. Johnson:
�., OP R,y�
A
ss�• �D;
�R
Juan C. Perez. P.E.. T.E.
Director qr Trmt.vpnnation
Ci:; :. .. • r is
Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of La Quinta General Plan. We offer the following
comments.
The Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) has reviewed the Circulation Element for the City
of La Quinta General Plan. The County requests that any roadway designations within the Citys
Circulation Element that extend to the City/County boundary and the Citys sphere of influence and that
differ from the County's designations be coordinated with County staff. Specifically the RCTD has
compared the City's Circulation Element to the County's current Circulation Element and the Circulation
Element the County will be proposing in its own update to the County General Plan. The RCTD is
primarily concerned with potential conflicts regarding the proposed designations an Harrison Street
(former SR-86) and Avenue 62 within the Citys CirculationElement .
Based on discussions with City staff, the County understands that Harrison Street was modeled for the
City's General Plan as an 8 lane divided facility and that the Citys traffic model demonstrated the need for
a facility of this size. The County concurs that an 8 lane facility will need to be accommodated.in the
future for Harrison Street However, as of the writing of this letter the last published version of the Citys
General Plan showed Harrison Street as a Major Arterial Highway (6 lanes divided within 128 feet of right-
of-way). The County requests the City incorporate a cross-section for an 8 lane divided highway into the
City's General Plan and that the designation of Harrison Street would be changed to that cross-section.
The County requests that the Citys cross-section would generally conform to the attached cross-section.
The City is proposing that Avenue 62 be designated as a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes undivided
within 102 feet of right-of-way). The County has previously analyzed this roadway in the South Valley
Parkway Traffic Study and Roadway Phasing Plan dated April 4, 2007 prepared by Kimley-Hom and
Associates, Inc. The conclusions of that study indicated that the portion of Avenue 62 that falls within the
City's General Plan between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.should be planned for four lanes within
4081 Lcmun Street, x(h Floor - Rivmlde. Calirumia 925m - (951) 955-6740
P.O. &iz 1090 - River W. C lirnrnia 92502-1090 - FAX (950-955-3198
31
Les Johnson, Planning Director
Page 2
August 27, 2012
220-feet of right-of-way. The County has done additional traffic modeling of this corridor in connection
with a proposed update of the County's General Plan using the R[VTAM model. The assumptions of
model for the proposed General Plan incorporated approved Specific Plans within this portion of the
County, but otherwise did not use the proposed land use assumptions of the South Valley Parkway. The
General Plan update model analyzed the full future build -out of all unincorporated and incorporated
areas beyond the 2035 horizon, and the model has indicated that traffic volumes on Avenue 62 will
warrant at least a 6 lane divided facility at full build -out. The County continues to recommend that
Avenue 62 should be designated in such as way that sufficient right-of-way will be preserved for the
accommodation of ultimate future growth and that at a minimum will permit the construction of a 6 lane
divided facility. The County believes that a minimum of 152 feet of right-of-way should be preserved for
this roadway, especially between Jackson Street and Harrison Street
The County has adopted Community Design Guidelines for an area known as Vista Santa Rosa (VSR). The
boundaries of this community include the unincorporated portions of the City of La Quinta's General Plan,
covering the City's current sphere of influence and extend further to the south between Avenue 62 and
Avenue 66 on the north and south and between Monroe Street and Harrison Street on the west and east
The County requests that the City would cooperate with the County in preserving the VSR community
identity within its full boundaries. The County desires that this area remain intact through inclusion within
the sphere of influence of one city and that future planning would consider all portions of this community.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the La Quinta General Plan and ER. We appreciate your
consideration of these comments:
Riverside County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 8'" Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Sincerely,
�it��
Farah Khorashadi, P.E.
Engineering Division Manager
RF:FK:rg
Attachment — Standard No. 87 -8-Lane Expressway"
cc: Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportation and Land Management
Patricia Romo, Deputy Director
32
CITY OF INDIO
100 CHIC CENTER MALL • fNDIO CA 92201
760.391.4000 � FAX 760.391.4008 WWW.INDIO.ORG
August 24, 2012
Andrew Mogensen, AICP
Principal Planner
City of La Quints
P.O.Box 1504
78-495 Calls Tampico
La Quints, CA 92253
AUb27Z012 �.
iCITY OF LA QUINTA -
I.
" a'LcNNING DFPe TME!v 1
RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE CITY'OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
Mr. Mogensen,
As requested by you we have reviewed the duly 2012 City of La Quints General
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), including the
TransportationJTraffic portions prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research as
well as Appendix H to the Draft EIR, the May 14, 2012 of the City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by
Iteris.
While the Draft EIR mentions that several roadways and intersections are shared
with other jurisdictions and while the Draft EIR suggests that cooperation and
communication with adjacent jurisdictions is needed, there has been no
meaningful communication with our City Traffic Engineer (Mr. Tom Brohard)
during the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis (other than an introductory
call from Iteris indicating that their work on this project had begun). In fact, the list
of organizations, persons, and documents consulted shown in Section IX of the
Draft EIR does not list or identify any persons or documents from the City of Indio
or any other municipality. Rather than preparing their Draft EIR in a vacuum, the
City of La Quinta consultants for this project should have, discussed various
recommendations with the City of Indio and others, particularly those involving
33
Page 2 of 5
adding lanes within the City of Indio, to mitigate significant traffic impacts caused
by intensified land use in the City of La Quinta and its sphere of influence.
The following comments pertaining to streets and intersections shared with La
Quinta are submitted to you for consideration and for inclusion in the City of Indio
comment letter on the La Quinta General Plan Draft EIR:
1) Existing Conditions — Regional Roadways — The discussion of State Highway
111 as a Regional Roadway beginning on Page III-204 of the Draft EIR
should be modified to indicate that the State relinquished this roadway
several years ago to the local cities and the only portion of State Highway 111
that remains in the Coachella Valley is in the City of Palm Springs. The
Highway 111 discussion should also be moved into the discussion of Local
Major Highways beginning on Page III-205 of the Draft EIR.
2) Roadway Segment Analysis -for General Plan Buildout — Table III-48
beginning on Page III-221 of the Draft EIR contains some significant spikes in
future traffic volumes from block to block. These increases do not appear to
be reasonable as the adjacent properties are mostly developed at this time.
The following Year 2035 ADT forecasts on roadways shared with the City of
Indio require further validation:
a. Jefferson Street from Avenue 48 to Avenue 50 — In this segment, 2035
ADT volumes are 7,000 higher south of Avenue 48 and 18,000 higher
north of Avenue 50 than the adjacent segments.
b. Highway 111 from Dune Palms Road to Jefferson Street - In this
segment, 2035 ADT volumes are 10,000 higher east of Dune Palms
Road than the adjacent segment to the west.
c. Avenue 48 from Dune Palms to Jefferson Street - In this segment,
2035 ADT volumes are 16,000 higher east of Dune Palms Road than
the segment to the west.
d. Avenue 50 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street - In this segment,
2035 ADT volumes are 14,000 higher east of Jefferson Street than the
segment to the west.
3) Intersection Impact Analysis — Table III-49 beginning on Page III-226 of the
Draft EIR provides AM and PM Peak Intersection Analysis with 2035 buildout
volumes during the peak season. The table should be expanded to indicate
and more clearly disclose the additional lanesitraffic control measures that
are required, particularly those additions in other jurisdictions including Indio.
From Exhibit III-21 to achieve LOS "D' or better, the following additional lanes
are needed according to the Draft EIR at the intersections that are shared
between La Quinta and Indio:
a. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive — 50% Indio; 50% La Quinta —
Add westbound right turn lane in Indio.
34
Page 3 of 5
b. Jefferson Street and Hiohwav 111 — 75% Indio; 25% La. Quinta —Add.
Riga
left hi lane and im southbound thru lane in La Quinta;
add 4d' northbound thru lane in Indio.
c. Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 — 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta — Add 2nd
eastbound left turn lane in La. Quinta; add 2nd westbound left turn lane
and 2"d westbound: thrur lane in Indio.
d. Madison Street and Avenue 50 — 75% Indio; 25% La Quinta — The
proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the
Indio/La Quinta Project Development Team (PDT) working together on
the improvement of Madison Street to eliminate the possible need for a
third northbound thru lane in Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to
reflect the ultimate intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July
24, 2012. These lane additions in the City of La Quinta now include a
2nd eastbound thru lane and an eastbound, right turn lane. Lane
additions in the City of Indio now include a 2nd southbound left turn
lane, a second southbound thru lane, and a southbound right turn lane;
a 2nd northbound left turn lane, a 2nd northbound thru lane, and a
northbound right turn lane; and a 2nd westbound thru lane and a
westboundright turn lane. A.traffic signal will also be installed at this
intersection.
e. Madison Street and Avenue 52 — 25% Indio; 75% La Quinta - The
proposed lane additions in the Draft EIR have been modified by the
Indio/La- Quinta PDT working together on the improvement of Madison
Street to eliminate the possible need fora third northbound thru lane in
Indio. The Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the ultimate
intersection geometry approved by the PDT on July 24, 2012. These
lane additions in the City of La Quinta now Include two southbound left
turn lanes, a second southbound thru lane, and a southbound right turn
lane; a 2nd northbound' left turn lane and a 2nd northbound thru lane.
Lane additions in the City of Indio now include a 2nd westbound thru
lane. A traffic signal will also be installed at this intersection.
f. Monroe Street and Avenue 52 — 50% Indio; 25% La Quinta; 25%
County — Add 2 e"� astbound thru lane in. La Quinta; add 2nd
southbound left turn lane, 2nd southbound thru lane and southbound
right turn lane in Indio; add 2nd westbound thru lane in Indio; add two
northbound left turn lanes,, a 2nd northbound thru lane; and a
northbound right turn lane in the County.
4) Intersections Potentially Worse Than LOS "D" - The underlying analysis in the
Draft EIR is very conservative, having bumped up the October traffic counts
by 10 percent to reflect higher volumes in January, February, and March. This
baseline increase of 10 percent effectively translates to a drop in LOS from
"D" to "E" at these intersections. Constructing costly additional improvements
to maintain LOS "D" for the highest traffic volumes during three months of the
year, when these intersections will operate at LOS "D" or better for the other
35
Page 4 of 5
nine months of the year, is not justified during these difficult economic
conditions.
Since our Circulation Plan Update in 2008, the City of Indio allows LOS "E"
under certain conditions (see attached). Many other jurisdictions in California
also allow LOS "E" under these or similar conditions. For intersections shared
with the City of Indio, especially those where Indio has jurisdiction over 75
percent of the intersection, the City of La Quinta should reconsider its LOS
"D" standard and also allow LOS "E" under certain conditions. Mitigation
measures necessary to achieve LOS "E" should be identified and more
clearly disclosed in separate tables and figures, together with identification of
improvements that are required within the City of Indio. According to the Draft
EIR, intersections shared between the Cities of La Quints and Indio that may
operate at worse than LOS "D" include:
a. Jefferson Street and Hiahwav 111 — Only 25% of this intersection is in
the City of La Quinta, with 75% of the intersection within the City of
Indio. While adding a third SB left turn lane may be feasible, adding
fourth northbound and southbound thru lanes on Jefferson Street will
require additional right of way in the City of Indio. Both cities have
constructed what are typically considered the maximum practical
improvements at Jefferson Street and Highway 111 including dual left
turn lanes, three thru lanes, and separate right turn lanes with green
arrow overlaps on each approach. Further widening of the intersection
which necessitates purchase of right of way and could result in other
environmental impacts is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In
accordance with the attached policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore
be acceptable if they should occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the
peak season (January thru March) at Jefferson Street and Highway
111 in the City of Indio.
b.
c. Madison Street and Avenue 50 - Only 25% of this intersection is in the
City of La Quinta, with 75% of the intersection within the City of Indio.
The revised lane configurations approved by the Indio/La Quinta PDT
will result in LOS "D" or better operating conditions in Year 2035.
Further widening of the intersection which necessitates purchase of
additional right of way and could result in other environmental impacts
is not acceptable to the City of Indio. In accordance with the attached
policy, LOS "E" conditions will therefore be acceptable if they should
occur at buildout in Year 2035 during the peak season (January thru
March) at Madison Street and Avenue 50 in the City of Indio.
36
Page 5 of 5
Please feel free to contact us at 760-391-4120 with any question you may have.
Thanks,
ails Na ai
Assistant Planner
City of Indio
Community Development, Department
Planning Division
37
CITY OF COACHELL.A
1515 SixrH Srw=.Er, COACHF:LLA, CA1.111oamA 92230
PHDNE (760) 398-3502 . FAx (760) 398-8117 . www.eoACHN ia.oiea
August 27, 2012
AIJ'J ( tt;2;
Mr. Andy Mogensen, AICP
City of La Quinta Planning Department
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta CA 92253
Subject: La Quinta General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Andy:
The City of Coachella would like to thank your staff and consultants for including the City of Coachella,
throughout your process, in the La Quinta General Plan Update. We had the privilege of meeting with
you during the early planning stages and discussed items of mutual concern. We are excited to see the
latest documents that are now approaching the public heating process. Upon closer review of the
documents, the City of Coachella would like to register the following comments regarding the draft
documents.
1) The Preferred Alternative Land Use Plan (Exhibit 1-5) shows the entire geographic area bounded by
Jackson Street, Airport Boulevard, Harrison Street and the Coachella City boundary as "Low Density
Residential" except for two areas of "Community Commercial' at SW corner of Van Buren and
Avenue 53, and on the west side of Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 60
(north of Avenue 54). The City is concerned about this blanket designation for the following reasons.
a) The preferred land use plan deviates from the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Concept Plan
(VSRLUCP) with respect to the clustering of densities at the Village Center near Coachella
Valley High School. The City of Coachella believes that "Medium High Density Residential",
"High Density Residential", "Village Center" and "Community Center" uses identified in the
VSRLUCP at Calhoun Street and Airport Boulevard are beneficial to the long term quality of life
in the area. The City of Coachella would encourage the creation of a neighborhood center similar
to what is envisioned in the. VSRLUCP in order to reduce vehicular trips for the commercial
needs of nearby residents, and to have a cluster of density near the existing High School to
promote walking routes to school.
b) The intersection of Van Buren Street and Avenue 52 in Coachella has approximately 160 acres of
undeveloped land designated for General Commercial uses. Commercial land developers have
studied this intersection as a future node for regional commercial and medical office uses. This
area has the potential to become a significant employment center. The City of Coachella is in
favor or designating the land north of Avenue 53 and east of Calhoun Street to include "Medium
Density" and "High Density" Residential uses to cluster homes near this future employment
center.
An.h�rrrr¢rive zlctr�an/t:quril Oppnr7imrly llnlilnyer
W.
Letter to City of La Quints.
August 27, 2012
Page 2
2) The proposed roadway diagram for Harrison Street south of Airport Boulevard is shown as a Major
Arterial consisting of six lanes with a'raised median. Please note that the City of Coachella has
approved a policy document for Harrison Street between Avenue 54 and Highway I I I ("Harrison
Street Corridor Study') that calls for a de-emphasized roadway with four lanes of travel and parallel
parking on the street. It is our desire to shift regional traffic onto Van Buren Street and Calhoun
Street as future north -south arterial streets within Coachella. In addition to anticipated future
commercial uses and possible expansion of the Augustine Casino, the Van Buren and Calhoun Street
corridors will provide connectivity between planned community parks at Van Buren and Avenue 49
(Rancho Las Flores) and at Avenue 50 and Calhoun Street (La Colonia Park). The City of Coachella
would encourage policies that would require a transitioning section of Harrison Street between
Avenue 58 and Airport Boulevard to reduce the number of lanes for north -bound traffic into
Coachella.
3) The draft Circulation Element diagram as shown in Exhibit III-18 identifies the major roadway
arterials on the traditional section lines throughout La Quinta's sphere of influence (i.e., Avenue 54,
Airport Boulevard, Jackson Street; Van Buren Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60, etc.). While a
majority of Coachella's arterials have not been developed, we see this as an opportunity to enhance
connectivity by including the Y2-mile connecting roadways as much as possible into the General Plan
network. Accordingly, the City of Coachella will be including Avenue 53, Avenue 55, Avenue 57,
Avenue 59, and Avenue 61 into the Circulation Element. Similarly, we will be including Calhoun
Street, Frederick Street and Shady Lane as north -south arterial streets to distribute the traffic in a
manner that would allow all arterial streets to be no larger than a four -lane roadway. The City of
Coachella would encourage smaller block distances between arterial streets to discourage highway -
type arterials and encourage pedestrian -friendly streets that provide access to local commercial and
public uses within identifiable neighborhood centers. The City has an over -arching goal to improve
the health of our residents through the built environment by promoting walkable communities,
improving opportunities for short distance non -motorized travel, and improve access to parks and
recreational uses.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment and we look forward to sharing our draft General Plan
documents with you and your stab as they become available. Please contact me at (760)398-3102 if you
have further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely.
Luis Lopez) O
Development Services Director
Xc: David Garcia, Jonathan Hoy
39
Aug.27. 2012 4:14PM
No.1353 P. 2
H O F M A. N N
LAND DEVELOPMEN'll-
C O M P A N Y"
City of La Quinta
Plann Ing Department
Attention: Andrew Mogensen
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
Gentlemen,
AU_ ; `l 12
Ptcen �y n -act: r.ari
August 27, 2012
Re: Comments on General Plan Update -Draft E.I.R.
Attached is a commentary and a number of questions and concerns about the Circulation
element portion of the.Draft E.I.R. which was prepared by Endo Engineering the Traffic
Engineering consultant for the Travertine project.
Hofmann Land Development Co is representing Travertine Corporation in its effort to entitle
and eventually develop the Travertine property in South La Quinta. A variety of constraints
have been Identified in analyses performed by Travertine which are likely to modify the scope
and type of development of the subject property from that which is shown on the General Plan
Update and the previously approved Specific Plan and other entitlements. Of particular
concern to the property owners is the planned road network and the ability to deliver all of the
road segments identified in this E.I.R. and prior City circulation documents given these
constraints. Madison Street Extension, Jefferson Street extension and Ave 62 Extension all serve
and extend through the project under current General Plan scenarios.
We have made numerous requests to staff to work with us to review and analyze the
modification and/or the possible deletion or conversion to emergency access of one or more of
these roads as part of this General Plan Update. Staff has advised that such review and analysis
Is not timely and should be undertaken later as part of a Specific Plan review of the Travertine
property. We have respected this requested, as it has been our understanding that the City
intends to review and apply the circulation element flexibly in this area of the City
understanding that among other things, it is not in the public Interest to construct roads that
are unnecessary or oversized. The Endo Engineering analysis of the report reveals that this
southerly area of the City was not extensively studied and much detailed information is lacking
when compared to the analysis performed in other areas.
For the above reasons we request that a written statement be included in the policy document
confirming that circulation will be flexibly interpreted in the Southerly Jefferson/Avenue
OFFICE: 3000 OAKROAD* M-M 360. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 • PHONE 925/478-2020 • FAx 925/977-1689
MAIL: P.O. BOX 907 • CONCORD, CA 94522
40
Aug, 27, 2012 4,10FM
No.1353 P. 3
5g/Madison/Avenue 62 area and further that an acknowledgement of this be included In the
EIR Circulation analysis.
We also seek clarification of a related statement in the General Plan Update regarding all
weather crossings as found on II-53 of the Update. Jefferson and Madison streets are correctly
Identified as all—weather crossing where they extend over Dikes 4 and 2. The further southerly
extension of Jefferson, if constructed, may not bean all weather facility.
Although this may not be a direct Draft EIR comment, but we note that financial modeling
referenced in the Draft General Plan Update notes that the City has relied upon an assumption
of 500 Hotel units in the Travertine project. It remains Travertine's desire to accommodate an
element of Transit occupancy tax generating land use in the project. The 500 hotel unit
assumption used for the property Is a gross overstatement of the potential for this property
and should not be used in the City's financial projections, land use or other assumptions. The
City's own experience In successfully integrating Hotel uses In Its central location is a credible
citation for decreasing this assumption. We recommend and request that a more reasonable
125 to 150 room maximum Hotel- like facility located in the Travertine development be used in
this document and in other financial assumptions:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents.
Hofmann Land Development Company
David T. Lennon
41
Aug.27. 2012 OOPM
No.1353 P. 4
August 27, 2012
Mr. David Lennon
Hofmann Land Development Co.
P.O. Box 758
Concord, CA 94522
SUBJECT: Comments on the La Quinta 2035 General Plan Circulation Element Update
Traf "te Impact Analysis and DEIR Related to the Travertine Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Lennon;
Endo Engineering has reviewed the "City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update
Traffic Impact Analysis"(TIA), dated May 14, 2012, by Iteris, Inc and DEIR. The traffic analysis
reviewed was downloaded from the City of La Quints. 2035 General Plan Update website as
Appendix H of the "Draft EIR for the City of La Quinta General Plan" (dated July 2012) prepared
by Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. The 45-day DEIR review period ends on August 27,
2012. Our review focuses on those aspects of the traffic impact analysis that may affect the
Travertine Specific Plan.
The three potential access routes to the Travertine Specific Plan are Madison Street, Avenue 62, and
Jefferson Street. The future traffic volumes and levels of service along these routes upon General
Plan buildout must be provided to determine if they are consistent with current development plans.
For example, the travel demand for Madison Street, between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, is important
to identify so that the roadway can be appropriately sized. Given the cost of the bridge required to
construct this roadway connection, a realistic future traffic projection is needed for this roadway
segment. Without this projection, it is difficult to appropriately size the other access roadways that
will serve the Travertine Specific Plan.
The classification of Jefferson Street, north of the Travertine site, will need to be considered when
the Travertine Specific Plan is amended in the future. In view of the topographic constraints to be
overcome to construct this roadway, an appropriate classification must be identified to provide
sufficient but not excess capacity. However, this roadway was not evaluated in the TIA and no
fume traffic projection was provided for Jefferson Street, between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62.
Another critical issue the City has been struggling with for many years is the magnitude of future
regional travel demands on Avenue 62, Monroe Street, and Madison Street associated with the
South Valley Parkway Implementation Program. The TIA does not provide volumes on many of
these streets that would be necessary to identify the future regional through -traffic volumes in this
area. Based upon the projected peak hour traffic volumes at Intersection 37, regional through traffic
utilizing Avenue 62 appears to be minimal.
28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330
Phone: (949)362-0020 E-Mail:endoengr@eox.net
42
Aug.27. 2012 4:10PM
No.1353 P. 5
General Comments on the General Plan Update and DEIR
1. As shown in General Plan Exhibit IX-10, OR Exhibit 111-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, future
traffic projections ate not provided for several General Plan roadway segments that am critical
to the development of the Travertine Specific Plan. Future traffic projections are needed for.
(1) Avenue 62, west of Madison Street; (2) Avenue 58, west of Madison Street; (3) Jefferson
Street, north of Travertine; (4) Madison Street, north of Avenue 62; and (5) Avenue 60, west of
Madison Street.
Section 6.3 of the TiA (Page 52) indicates that the growth in raw LQTAM volumes between the
yyeear 2009 and the year 2035 was added to the existiug 2A hour volumes from CVA(3 to obtain
forecast year 2035 daily volumes. However, future traffic projections were not evaluated £or
some General Plan roadway segments that were includedm the CVAQ "Traffic Cgruus
Report". Z7or exanaplo, CVAG provided existing daily traffic count data for three segments
along Airport Boulevard (oast of Madison Street, east of Momne Street, and east of Jackson
Street). Future traffic projections Were not provided in the TIA for thane roadway segments.
It can be seen from General Plan Exhibit I1-10, EIR Exhibit III-20, and Table 10 of the TIA, that
numerous master planned roadway segments were not included in the CVAG "Traffic Census
Report" and therefore have no future traffic projection. Without fauna traffic projections, the
adequacy of the master planned roadway classifications for many General Plan roadway
segments, particularly those in the developing areas of southeast IA Quints, cannot be verified.
Future traffic projections are necessary for all of the General Plan roadway links to ensure that
future traffic studies properly address General Plan buildout traffic conditions. Will year 2035
LQTAM dailyy traffic projections be made available to enable future traffic studies to evaluate
General Plan buflilout traffic volumes? As a minimum, "imam, the raw LQTAM volumes for the year
2009 and the year 2035 should be provided for those roadway links where no count data was
provided in the CVAG "Traffic Census Report".
2. In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 12 of the TIA refers readers to Appendix A for the traffic
count data used in the traffic study. Appendix A of the TIA was not provided on the City
website and should be made available for review.
3. In Appendix H of the DEIR, page 32 of the TIA references the %QTAM Model
Documentation and Validation Report" (dated February, 2011) prepared by Iteris, Inc. This
report is critical and should be provided on the City website or at a minimum made available
upon request. Based upon the existing CVAG counts and the portion of the land in southeast
La Quinta that has been developed to date, it appears that the future traffic projections along
Madison Street are substantially higher than expected. The rationale for the additional future
traffic is not provided in the TIA. Consequently, the calibration of tha model in this aces is of
particular interest and should be reviewed.
Specific Comments Related to the Travertine Spetyk Pion
The'lravertine Specific Plan was oiiginaRy roved in 1994 with a total trip generation of 27,300
daily trips and included the development of 2700 dwelling units,10OPM square feet of retail, and a
500-room hotel. Access to the Travertine Specific Plan was planned via three streets, the primary
access from Madison Street, and minor access from Avenue 62 and from Jefferson StoeeVAvenue
58.
In 2008, a proposed amendment to the Travertine Specific Plan included 1 AM dwelling units and a
500-room hotel generating 17,390 daily trips. The amended proposal represented a 39 percent
2
43- -
Aug.21. 2012 4:11PM
No.1353 P. 6
decrease in dwelling units, and a 36 percent decrease in total trip generation. From a capacity
perspective, the Travertine Specific Plan area could be served by two two-lane roadways, ox one 4-
lane roadway. In view of the high cost of constructing off site roadway improvements to provido
access to the pxnject site, it is critical that the access be appropriately sized. Therefore, the access
stn is of Madison Sttee[, 7efferson Street, and Avenue 62 neaz fhe Travertine Specific Plan need to
be earefrtlly evaluated w ensure that a sufficient, but not excessive capacity is provided.
Madison Street
4. In Exhibit 5 of the TIA, the existing turning movement volumes for the intersection of Madison
Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) appear to be too high, unless the volumes represent
primarily construction traffic. The six existing homes accessed via Avenue 60, west of Madison
Street, should not generate 66 morning peak hour and 43 evening peak hour trips on this
segment of Avenue 60. Furthermore, the primary traffic movement associated with these
residents should be to/from the north, not to and from the east via Avenue 60. Traffic count
data from 2008 that shows 18 vehicles in the morning peak hour and 6 vehicles in the evening
peak hour on this leg of Avenue 60, Given the questionable existing traffic count data, the
existing turning movements at this intersection should not be used as the basis to project the
future taming movements. Doing so results in unrealistically high projections for Avenue 60,
west of Madison Street. It also results in more northbound vehicles on Madison Street turning
left into a relatively small low -density residential area via Avenue 60 than continuing
northbound through the intersection toward the commercial and employment opportunities in
the more developed portions of La Quiuta.
5. General Plan Exhibit II-2 and EIR Exhibit 111-18 incorrectly identify Avenue 62 as a modified
2-lane divided secondary arterial between Madison Street and Monroe Street. however,
Figure 4 of the TIA correctly shows that Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe
Street, is a 2-law undivided Modified Collector Street.
6_ General Plan Exhibit H-2 and EIR Exhibit III-18 incorrectly identify Monroe Street, between
Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, as a four -lane undivided Secondary Arterial. This segment of
Monroe Street is currently classified as a Modified Secondary Arterial A (which is a two -late
divided roadway with a lower capacity that a four -lane undivided roadway).
7. General Plan Exhibit II-2, EIR Exhibit III-18, and the TIA Figure 4 identify Madison Street,
extending between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 as a Modified Secondary Arterial A. However,
all of the future base maps in the TIA incorrectly show a break in Madison Street where it
crosses the dike, south of Avenue 60. The future base maps should show that Madison Street
will be connected between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62.
8. TIA Figure 6 shows an existing bicycle route passing through the intersection of Madison
Street and Avenue 62. The intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 62 does not currently
exist. Therefore, a bicycle route through this intersection does not currently exist. On the
City's website, the "City of La Quints. Bike Map" only extends south to Avenue 60. Therefore,
it does not show an existing bike route extending through the intersection of Madison Street
and Avenue 62.
9. General Plan Table 1I-12, EIR Table I11-48, and Table 10 of the TIA show Madison Street
(between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd.) witit a projected future traffic volutes of 47 529 vehicles
per day. This future projection is much higher than expected, based on development trends and
trip generation studies in this area.
Since the land south of this point is neazly 50 percent
developed and the CVAG pork season daily traffic count for Madison Street is currently less
than 10,000 vehicles per Y.
it appears unlikely that the General Plan buildout daily volume will
exceed 30.000 ADT.
44
Aug.27. 2012 4:11PM
No.1353 P. 7
The major specific plans in this area have been developing at approximately 50 percent of the
densities permitted under the existing entitlements_ In addition, the trip generation studies of
developments such as PC1A West and Trilogy have identified trip -generation rates consistent
with age -restricted senior residential developments. The trip generation of residential
developments in this area has been approximately 30 percent of the trip ggeneration rates
associated with traditional single-family residential dwellings. Extensive traffic counts at the
access points to PGA West have identified a trip generation rate that is 35 percent of the
traditional single-family residential trip generation rate, oven though PGA West is not an age -
restricted community.
Was the trip generation assumed in the modeling for development in this area based upon the
enttlemarm, census data, or the actual development that has occurred? How did the calibration
run for existing development compare to the existing traffic volumes for Madison Street,
between Avenue 54 and Airport Blvd? The calibration inn probably shows existing traffic
projections much higher than the existi4 traffic count data. This would indicate that both the
residential development intensities and trip -generation rates assumed for this area in the model
were too high.
10. Figure 11 of the TIA shows year 2035 turning movement projections at the intersection of
Madison Street and Avenue 60 (Intersection 32) that are not reasonable for this location. They
indicate that approximately one-half of the northbound traffic on Madison Street turns west at
Avenue 60. The northbound left -tam volume (from Madison Street onto Avenue 60) is
projected to exceed the northbound through volume during the evening peak hours. At this
intersection there should be very little traffic making a northbound left -arm movement since the
west log of Avenue 60 only serves a very small low -density residential development area.
11 _ Figure 13 of the TIA shows enhanced intersection treatments at Intersection 32 required
because the traffic volume assigned to Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, was unrealistically
high. There is minimal development planned west of Madison Street (low -density residential
uses) with access to Madison Street opposite Avenue 60. Furthermore. Avenue 60, west of
Madison Street is constructed as a local street with 36 feet of pavement that would not
accommodate the four lanes of through traffic and dual eastbound left -tam lanes shown in
Figure 13. There is a large development planned west of the existing Andalusia development,
but its future access to Madison Street is planned midway between Avenue 60 and Avenue 58,
not at Avenue 60.
12. Page 40, 41, and 50 of the TIA, describe enhancedmrprovements recommended for Intersection
32 (Madison Street and Avenue 60). See Comment 10 and 11. This recommendation should
be revised because the assumptions in the model for this intersection are not correct.
Avenue 62
13. General Plan Table 11-12, EIR Table 1II48, and Table 10 of the TIA show a future volume of
9,624 vehicles pet day for Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street. However,
Figure I I shows that very little peak hour traffic is projected on Avenue 62, immediately west of
Monroe Street (only 90 evening peak hour trips or approximately 1,100 daily trips). This
seems to indicate that essentially all of the 9,62a veh-a 11 per day were assigned to Avenue 62
from adjacent future land uses located south of Avemme 62 and Gaveled west to Madison Sheet
then north to Avenue 60. The Keck property is located south of Avenue 62 and west of
Monroe Street. It is our understanding that future development plans for the Keck property
included access primarily to Monroe Street, south of Avenue 62. Only minimal emergency
access was planned from the Keck pprroo to Avenue 62, west of Monroe Street. The location
Of the node connectors from the KeckProperty to Avenue 62 and/or Monroe Street were not
4
45
Aug. 27. 2012 4:11 PM No. 1353 P. 8
documented in the TIA or DEIR. However, a nodal connection should not be assumed between
the Keck property and Avenue 62.
14. General Plan Table H-12, EIR Table I1148, and Table 10 of the TIA incorrectly identified
Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, as a 4-I me Modified Collector with a
daily capacity of 28 AOO vehicles per day, rather than a 2-lane Modified Collector with a daily
capacity of 14,000 vehicles per day. If the traffic network in the model incorrectly assumed the
speed for a four -lane roadway for Avenue 62, between Madison Street and Monroe Street, it
would attract more future traffic than the correct two-lane Modified Collector designation
resulting in a fintam volume projection that is unrealistically high.
15. Figure 11 of the TIA shows a morning plus evening peak hour volume for Intersection 37
(Monroe Street at Avenue 62) of 26 in the eastbound direction, and 3 in the westbound
direction. How was this traffic distribution determined? The atypical directional split seems to
imply that all vehicles are going eastbound on Avenue 62 past Monroe Street in the peak hours
and essentially no vehicles return in the westbound direction on Avenue 62 in the peak hours.
16_ Figure 12 of the TIA shows the future lane geometries for Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at
Avenue 62) with two westbound through approach lanes opposite a single westbound exit lane
on Avenue 62 serving a peak hour westbound through volume of only 3 vehicles per hour. As a
Modified Collector, Avenue 62 will only provide one through lane in each direction between
Monroe Street and Madison Street.
17. Figure 12 and 13 of the TIA show that Intersection 37 (Monroe Street at Avenue 62) will have a
traffic signal in the future, but the volumes shown on Figure 11 for intersection 37 would not
meet traffic signal warrants. The westbound right -turn volume should not be included as part of
the westbound approach volume because of the recommendation for an exclusive westbound
right -turn lane and the right -turn movement does not conflict with the large southbound left -cum
movement.
18. The mitigation assumed for Intersection 37 was not appropriate to mitigate the impact at this
intersection. Table 8 of the TIA shows Intersection 37 operating at LO5 B during the evening
peak hour. Footnote 3 states that signalization of the existing lanes was assumed for this
intersection_ This footnote is not correct because the text referencing Table 8 states that the
analysis is based upon the future lane configurations shown in Figure 11 and the future
�ach lanes in Figure 11 are not the same as the existing approach lanes at Intersection 37.
signals would not be installed because signal warrants are not met by these volumes.
Jefferson Street
19. The TIA did not provide any future traffic projections or level of service analysis for Jefferson
Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62 (at Madison Street). In order to understand how the
TIA addresses future development in the Travertine Specific Plan area, it is critical to at least
provide year 2035 traffic volumes and identify the trip generation assumed for Section 5 and the
surrounding development areas.
Other Comments
20. As discussed in Comment 13, the LQTAM appears to project approximately 9A00 daily trips
on Avenue 62 generated by the future development of the Keck property (located south of
Avenue 62 between the dike and Monroe Street). Based upon the LQTAM projections, future
traffic will access the Keck property by crossing the dike and using Madison Street to Navel
to/from the north. If this is the case, the fudrre traffic generated by the development of the Keck
property would comprise a sizeable portion of the traffic utilizing the future Avenue 62 crossing
10.
Aug. 27. 2012 4:11 PM
No.1353 P. 4
of the dike as well as the future bridge needed to extend Madison Street from Avenue 60 to
Avenue 62. Consequently, the developers of the Keck pro erty would be responsible for
ppaying their feir-share percentage of the construction of the d crossing and the extension of
Madison Street. It was our understanding that plans for the Keck property take access
primarily from Monroe Street (south of Avenue 62). The last Keck property plans that we saw
did not have an access designed to take advantage of future roadway improvements to Avenue
62 and Madison Street on the west side of the dike. If the Keck Property takes access primarily
from Monroe Street and only takes emergency access to Avenue 62, the traffic assignment to
Avenue 62 and Madison Street should be eliminated in the model. This may also reduce the
problematic traffic volume on Madison Street; south of Avenue 54, but may increase the
demand on Monroe Street, north of Avenue 62.
21. The documentation provides no way to detemnine the trip generation assumed for the Travertine
Specific Plan or the'surrounding land uses located south of Avenue SS and west of Monroe
Street. Without this information, the Travertine development cannot verify that the modeled trip
generation for this area is consistent with current development plans.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the La Quinta General Plan Update TEA and DEAL.
Since thew documents will be critical in properly evaluating the future traffic r'mpacts associated
with the Travertine Specific Plan, it is vital that the information presented in the (}eacral plan be
correct and accurately reflect the future developments. Obtaining a clear understanding of the
LQTAM will enable us to accurately identify the ararlation needs of the Travertine Specific Plan as
well as the needs of cumulative developments and regional through traffic.
ENDOENOOaM MO
Gre
Prmcrpal .
_47___
µMar r'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
GOVERNOR ;6
August 28, 2012
Andrew Mogensen
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Subject: General Plan Update
SCH#: 2010111094
Dear Andrew Mogensen:
AUG g 12012
CITY
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On
the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document. The review period closed on August 27, 2012, and the comments from the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for
draft environmental documents; pursuant to the California Environmental Q=hty Act. Please contact the
State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
Sincerely,
S organ
Director, State, Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 loth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 48
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.ca.gov
--------------—------�Q�stmenLP_etails Rensfr�.--------------___
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2010111094
Project Title General Plan Update _
Lead Agency La Quints, City of
Type EIR .Draft EIR
Description Update of the La Quinta General Plan, to encompass all mandated Elements, and add a Sustainable
Community and an Economic Development Element, The Update will include modifications to the
Land Use Map, but will not significantly change land use patterns in the City. The Update also
Includes planning and land use designations for the City's Sphere of Influence. A Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan is also being proposed, in conjunction with the General Plan.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Andrew Mogensen
Agency City of La Quinta
Phone (760)777-7126 Fax
emall
Address P.O. Box 1504
City La Quinta State CA Zip 92253
Project Location
County Riverside
City La Quinta
Region
Lat/Long 33°6.63"Nl116°31`0"W
Cross Streets City-wide
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways Hwy I I I
Airports Jacqueline Cochran
Railways
Waterways Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
Schools
Land Use
Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood
Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; PopulationMousing
Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil
Eroslon/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water
Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; Landuse
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Cal Fire; Office of Historic Preservation;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency
Management Agency, California; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Department of Housing
and Community Development; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 7; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission;
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Date Received 07/1212012 Start of Review 07/12/2012 End of Review 08/27/2012
Note: Blanks in data fields result from, insufficient Information provided by lead agency.
Co of Riverside EPD Fex:951-955-1811 Aut 27 2012 16:42 P.02
RIVERi .Q ,A t� TY
I PLC z� P,fl,►
ftwoor,
Mel lo,randum .
DATE: AA 27, 2012
TO: City La Quints PI
ning Depa
ant
FROM: Rive rsjda County Ph
inning Depa r
ient
RE: City a I Le Quints G
eneral Plan J
p0ate
Dear City of La Q Ants,
Thank you for the opportunity tc
The County of Riirerside has to
review the � "
n notice t.13
s General Plan Update and associated E
a significant portion of unincorporated OWerslde
R.
County
is included within t}te Sphere
of Influence c
f the City of La Quinta, namely the �ista
Santa Rasa
Community to this east of the C1
ty of Le Quirt
The Vista Santa Rosa commun
Initiated by Qou'rr�y4.•ry" staff, the community
y has been)
c
subject of an intensive and collaborative
ncils within this area, and other stakelrol
lannino effort
ere engaged
within the 4ommtdty.
i
The Vista Santa I�2osa Design
in ,tanuorx 2()09 after cgmple
uidelines w
ion of this
adopted by the Ftiverside County Board'
adopted
effort and are available at fbe
f Supjrvisors
followirig link:
The Courtly of Rlverelde rer
Vista Santa Rosa community.
Into the Cily's updated Gene
Please feel free
;to contact
Stnoarely,
XC: Carolyn
Frank C
a that cc
reference
Ian and a
with any
Director
REAI
i
f consideration of the comprehensive identity for the
detailed within the Design Guldelines, lip incorporated
>r associated planning documents.
ions or concerns at (951) 955.684� Ir via email at
RlversMe Otfl• 4080 Lemon t,12th FI Desert Office • 38888 El Cerrito l�oed
P.O.9ox 1 Riverside, Cat mia 925024 Paim omit, CalUomla 92211
(951) 00 • FM (9 ) g56.1811 ' • (760) 063-WM • Fax (780) M3d666
PlsnNnq. Forme... PreservingOur PasN
I 1 r:
50
ATTACHMENT 6
Mrs. Neeta Quinn
La Quanta, CA 92263
(760) 772-3630
cnquinn@aol.com
August 27, 2012
Andrew J. Mogensen, AICP
Principle Planner
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92247-1504
RE: 2035 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
SEA X4 :"
ci�yci;,_ vrctiw.a
Planning DepcyMnnt
My husband and I wish to present to you our written opposition to the recently announced 2035
La Quinta General Plan update. We are aware that this"sustainable" plan is part and parcel of
the United Nations Agenda 21, which President George H.W. Bush signed in 1992, at the Earth
Summit, on behalf of the United States. Since Agenda 21 was "soft laud' and not a treaty,
Congress had no role to perform.
In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order #12852, creating, and advancing, the
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The federal government gave more
than $5 million to the American Planning Association to write "Growing Smart: Legislative
Guidebook," aka "Sustainable America," in order to bring UN Agenda 21 to the United States.
The cabinet agencies of the Executive Branch of government were charged with implementing
this "global to local program," advancing Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policy in the U.S.
Smart Growth was the result, taking root and now exerting increasing influence in communities
across America. In 2011, President Obama implemented Executive Order #13575, which
established the White House Rural Council, initiating Sustainable Development for the rural
areas. Were you aware of this?
Because other cities are opting out, I presume we are not required by any law to enact or follow
this Agenda. We do not need our city council, public servants, to plan our lives; planning
whether we live in stacked or packed housing, or deciding whether we drive a car or ride a bike.
It is our choice, not the city council or planning department's "plan" deciding what type of
"healthy" lifestyle we shall have. We do not want to conform to the views and dictates of
Planners. We, as individuals, do not want to take a back seat to the collective, in the process of
implementing Sustainable Development.
51
PAGE TWO
La Quinta General Plan
Agenda 21
La Quinta can opt -out of this. As stated before, other cities have ... to name a few in California:
Alameda, Carson, Danville, Eureka, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lake Elsinore, Lawndale,
Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Cucamonga, Sacramento, San Rafael,
Stockton, and Temecula. Other cities across this country from Alaska to the Mid -West, to
Tennessee, to Washington, are saying no to this insidious infiltration into the American way of
life.
We cannot allow the government to take control of all land use, to lower our standard. of living,
or allow our cities to be remade by redevelopment We cannot allow our freedom of choice to
be taken from us, nor our right to own private property. We shall decide where we live. We
shall decide what, where, and when we drive. We shall decide when we want to ride a bike.
We do not need the council or unelected planners engineering or planning a "healthy frfestyle."
Sustainable Development is restructuring our lives and is targeting our children through an
educational regime: It calls for the need to "enlist and empower children and youth in reaching
for sustainability." It expressly calls for the elimination of private property and the freedom that
private property supports. We are afraid it could cause irreparable harm to our economy and
our society. by the "implementation of your economic growth for social stability' presenting a
dimming future for us and our posterity, taking away our individual freedom of choice.
Please understand your role in the community, as a• public servant, is to administer government
in a manner that protects individual liberty. We are Americans first, and the government ?—it
Is "of the Peoplel" People who can say yes or no —who can be Americans first, and choose to
do the right thing. It has long been known that liberty is tied to the institution of private property.
"Private property and freedom. are inseparable." ---George Washington
You cannot allow the United Nations, or ICLEI, to instruct you on how to control our growth and
development. it is none of their business. This General Plan must not be implemented, and
the City of La Quinta must opt -out of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. You can choose to
do the right thing. Do your own.homework. and research and you will see the truth.
1 52
PAGE THREE
La Quinta General Plan
Agenda 21
Attached is a flyer that we will be distributing to our local residents and businesses. We, the
citizenry, have been asleep, unaware of the damage that is being done to our country and our
cities, by our elected representatives who were entrusted to protect our rights. We are awake
now, and will take an active role in our community to stop this Agenda that violates our
constitutional rights. We will also inform our neighboring cities and towns as well.
Most Sincerely,
Neeta Quinn
Encl.
cc: City of La Quinta Mayor Don Adolph
Council Members: Kristy Franklin, Terry Henderson, Linda Evans, Lee Osborne
Briannestande.com
greg/burton@thedesertsun.com
gseverson@jm.com
Nicole.brambila@thedesertsun.com
devineboetto@yahoo.com
Lincolnclubcv.com
Palm Springs Patriots Coalition
East Valley Republican Women
Concerned Citizens of La Quinta
CV Young Republicans
hanraport@verizon.net
LawrencePonce84@gmail.com
Robert@integraladv.com
RSylk77@aol.com
Fspevacek@la-quinta.org
dianeadolph@aol.com
David Wilson/ 943knews.com
53
IMPORTANT INFORMATION YOU DID NOT KNOW
LA QUINTA'S 2036 GENERAL PLAN FOLLOWS THE GUIDELINES OF THE UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN —KNOWN' AS U.N. AGENDA FOR THE 218r CENTURY. NOTE: THIS IS NOT
STATE -MANDATED.
On page 11-134 of the La Quints 2036 General Plan, "Sustainable Community," the pianners/wrkers quote
the United Nations definition of sustalnability as... 'left opmeM that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future peneradons to meet their own needs " However, they did not
tail you that quote Is from a 1987'UN report entitled "Our Common Future;' by Chalmman Gro Harlem
Brundtland, former Director -General of the World Health Organization, and! Vice President of the World
Socialist Party. Using the framework provided by the Brundtland Commission, the United Nations is
seeking to have Implemented in your local town or city Its agenda —Agenda 21.
(Reference Link: Seepage 3 et www.entomtagedghtcom/amhieve/artickWI100commonlsm.htm)
• Continuing on page 11434, it states... "There are three primary contributors to sustainable development
the economy, the environment, and the." Actually "equity" Is the term used in the text, not
People. "Equity" means to restructure human nature and to enforce that restructure by shining our
system of Justice from one that adheres to the principle of equal justice and unalienable rights to one that
Implements the concept of "social lustice." Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of ICLEI, has said that "individual
rights will have to take a back seat to the collective" In the process of implementing Sustainable
Development. (see www.freNtoma&mea es.org —Undwstenwng Sustainable Development Agenda 21)
• Quoting Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit... "Current lifestyles and
consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat Intake, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are "NOT SUSTAINABLE." At this
Summit, Agenda 21 was signed by then President George H.W. Bush, along with 178 other world leaders.
• Sustainable Development is the UN's Agenda 21 program for global control and restriction over your daily
life, Including your private property, Individual rights, and civil liberties.
For detailed documentation regarding the "real' General Plan for La Quints and other cities and towns across
America, refer to the below websnes. Please do your own homework and research.
www.fnwdornadvocates.org
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda.com www.lightonthedesertorg
Because Agenda 21 represented son law and not an actual binding treaty (i.e. hard law), it did not require the
ratification of the U.S. Senate or approval from Congress, instead It was Implemented by President Bill Clinton in
1993, wherein he signed Executive Order 012852, creating and advancing the President's Council on Sustainable
Development (PCSD). The federal government gave more than $5 million to the American Planning Association to
writ®' "Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook," aka "Sustainable America" to bring UN Agenda 21 to the United
States. Smart Growth was the result, now taking root and exerting Increasing Influence in our towns and cures .
across America.
54 _i
Monika Radeva
From: Dick Storbo <dstorbo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 12. 2012 4:39 PM
To: Planning WebMail
Subject: General plan 2035 comments
To whom it may concern.
Thank you for the workshop on 7/11. It was great to talk to the planning staff who worked so hard on this plan. I
discussed several ideas during the workshop and was encouraged to write them down and email them to you.
First of all I wanted to congratulate the city on some big successes this past year:
1. The increased police patrols in the cove and the reduced crime statistics.
2. The abandoned house rehab and resale/rent to low income residents program. This program is a great example of
out -of -the -box thinking that solves several problems at once.
3. The fitness center
I know that money is tight but please try to keep these programs going as they benefit so many, and are a wise
investment in the city's quality of life.
GOALS
The following are some ideas that I believe should be part of the cities master plan goals:
1. Reduce sprawl
2. Reduce car traffic and encourage alternative means of transportation.
3. Create a downtown identity for future development in Old Town.
(Some of these may be partially addressed by the proposed mixed use zoning change, but may not go far enough)
IDEAS
1. Create an architectural zone in the Old Town area that establishes unified colors, materials, and style consistent with
the existing Old Town and La Quinta resort for all new or renovated buildings. This would solidify the image of La Quinta
architectural and give visitors a visual indicator that they have arrived in downtown La Quinta, instead of the current
image of a sprawling town with no center.
2. Convert the Old Town main street to a pedestrian mall that can be connected to the Civic center campus, Fritz Burns
and LQ Community Park via pedestrian parkways. In this way pedestrian -friendly circulation can be the secondary
signature element of downtown La Quinta.
3. Advocate for evening farmers' market once a month in Old Town with outdoor eating and music, especially when the
weather starts getting hot.
4. Add speed bumps on the loop around the LQ Community Park to reduce car speeds. This loop has become a short cut
for many drivers who speed through the area.
5. Make walking, bicycle and golf cart paths safer.
55
a. Reduce speed limits for traffic next to paths, or create striped buffer zones on certain streets, or separated paths from
the street.
b. provide street paths with no parking on one side of the main east west streets in the Cove. Such as Montezuma and
Sinaloa. This would narrow the streets and slow traffic.
c. Provide curb bulbs and shelters at bus stops, instead of forcing bus patrons to stand In people's yards waiting for a bus
in the Cove. I
6. Provide community garden space with watecon abandoned homes that need to be torn down. Rent plots at nominal
cost to local residents.
7. Fritz Burn pool is under-utilized. Find ways of keeping it open year'round by partnering with NGO's.
8. Building Code ideas:
a. Provide incentives for commercial and residential new and retro-fit of energy and water conservation.
b. Adopt universal accessibility standards for new residential construction (e.g. accessible entries, backing for grab bars
in bathrooms, and wider doorways).
c. Adopt landscape standards with xeriscaping, native and drought resistance, and minimal lawns.
d. Revise rooftop equipment and solar panel standards as part of the city's green initiative.
--- Eliminate visibility restrictions and height limits.
--- Allow residential wind generators.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. My wife and I really love living here and want to Quinta to be the best it can
be.
Regards,
Dick Storbo
56.
From: Les Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:49 AM
To: 'Roos, Marv'
Cc: David Sawyer; Andy Mogensen; John Criste ocriste@terranovaplanning.com); Nicole Criste
Subject: RE: 1901--Avenue 62 Status
Marvin,
In reviewing the Draft General Plan in comparison to what I previously identified to you regarding
Avenue 62 between Madison and Monroe Street, I found the following:
• The Draft General Plan identifies a Modified Secondary Arterial (see Exhibit II-3, Page II-44),
which is a two lane roadway with a 14' wide median and an 8' shoulder to accommodate
bicyclists and golf carts/NEV's.
• The Draft GP Modified Secondary Arterial applies not only to this roadway segment but also to
Jefferson extended and Madison south of Avenue 60, thus "standardizing" the roadway network
serving the Travertine area. This was also done in an effort to minimize the number of street
cross sections identified in the GP. That being said, it was not our intention to increase the ROW
width for the subject roadway segment of Avenue 62 by 10 feet.
• The Draft GP provides a general description of all major roads, including Avenue 62 (see Page H-
77). In light of your inquiry and the discovery that this road segment is not accurately
represented in the Draft GP, we will be proposing additional language to the roadway
.description identifying a reduced ROW width to a maximum of 74' for Avenue 62 between
Madison and Monroe Streets.
• 1 also wanted to point out to you a new policy being introduced in the Draft GP that will allow
the Public Works Director to permit modifications to roadway design standards and
specifications, which would further strengthen the subject roadway segment being a 74'
ROW. Please refer to Circulation Policy CIR-1.4 on Page II-119.
• the potential for Avenue 62 west of Trilogy being minimized to an EVA is still a viable option for
future consideration, which is predicated upon what the land plan actually ends up being for the
land within the Travertine and Section 5 areas.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that our intent is to maintain the ROW for this roadway segment at a
maximum of 74' and that we will be introducing language to clarify this matter. If you should have any
questions or would like to discuss further, please give me a call. Thanks, Marvin.
Les Johnson
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
(760) 777-7071
On Aug 10, 2012, at 6:42 PM, "Roos, Marv" <MRoosnu msaconsultinginc.com> wrote:
In reviewing the current GP update online, it appears that Avenue 62 is now being shown as an 84' right
of way with 4 lanes west of Monroe. Is that accurate or am I reading it incorrectly?
Marvin D. Roos
Director of Design Development
MSA Consulting, Inc.
57
From: Les Johnson [mailto•Lj-ohn5on@la-quints oral
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Roos, Mary
Subject: RE: 1901--Avenue 62 Status
Marvin,
Attached are the two exhibits from the GPA
ROW +. A footnote was also added to allow for consideration of an even narrower road and ROW, if
necessary. This was added to allow some design flexibility with the dike crossing in an effort to minimize
impact upon Mr. Keck's property. We do not anticipate any additional public meetings regarding Avenue
62 unless it is associated with the Travertine project.
Regarding Jefferson Street, we are expecting it to be constructed in accordance with the General
Plan. Ulrich recently shared with us new hydrology information that identifies the potential for significant _
drainage/debris flow at the north end of the Travertine site. This could result in a costly all-weather road
design which has resulted in Hoffman Land Co. exploring other access, options. It is my understanding
that the latest hydrology information is under review and has not been accepted by CVWD or the City. To
date, we have not received any information from Hoffman Land Co. requesting reconsideration of
Jefferson or Madison. Hoffman, Land Co. has previously discussed at length with staff the potential of
Avenue 62 being reduced in width and limited to non -motorized and emergency vehicle access from the
easterly dike approach west. As I believe you are already aware, the Fire Department wants to see, at
minimum, Avenue 62 constructed as an EVA connection over the dike in order to provide emergency
services access to the Travertine project.
I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if you should have any questions and/or
would like to discuss.
Les Johnson
Planning Director
City of La Quints
(760)777-7071
M
// /
rL
Andrew J. Mogensen
I
Principal Planner
AUb 27 2012
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
CITY OF LA OUINTA
�l cNNwr n—ADTPWRI-
La Quinta, California 92247
August 23, 2012
Dear Mr. Mogensen:
I am writing to voice my opposition to the General Plan Update that has been proposed
for the City of La Quinta. I have owned a home in La Quinta since 1988 when City Hall was no
more than a temporary building and La Quinta itself, other than the La Quinta Country Club,
La Quinta Hotel and PGA West, was merely a smattering of temporary homes, lots with trailers
parked on them and only a scattering of well maintained residences. However, new construction
was in progress throughout the City and new projects like Lake La Quinta, Rancho La Quinta,
and Traditions as well as other residential and commercial developments were on the drawing
boards. Combined, they promised to increase property values and transform La Quinta into a
desirable community for all. In other words, the saying, The Gem Of The Desert was truly the
goal of the Planning Commission back then.
After reading La Quinta's newly proposed General Plan, it didn't take me long to won-
der why there has been such a shift in goals. It sounds like we are striving to be an extension of
Indio. I suggest you look to the communities to the west of La Quinta and mimic their develop-
ment rather than what appears to be no more than a rubber stamp of the UN Agenda 21. Terms
such as sustainable development and smart growth are socialist terms and lead to paths that
have turned most European Capitols into the decayed disasters they are today. I'm sure you
aware that Agenda 21 is not a law. It is merely a series of suggestions that do not have to be
adopted. Many cities throughout California and the country who desire legitimate improvement
and elevated property values for their communities have opted out. It is not too late to add the
City of La Quinta to that growing list and I urge you to do so. La Quinta has become the envy
of the other desert communities. Let's put together a plan that will keep it La Quinta The Gem
Of The Desert for generations to come.
I will be happy to provide further input and/or answer any questions you may have re-
garding my concerns. I can be contacted at the phone number printed at the bottom of the page.
Thank you for your time and consideration..
Sincerely:
Michael L. Bailardo
P.O. BOX 1392 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247-1392 - (760) 564-6730
6161
PH#B
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2012-046
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A VILLAGE USE PERMIT FOR THE
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING AT
LAVENDER BISTRO (ATTACHMENTS 1 and 2)
LOCATION: 78-073 CALLE BARCELONA — LAVENDER BISTRO
APPLICANT: MICHEL DESPRAS — LAVENDER BISTRO
PROPERTY OWNER: MICHEL DESPRAS
ARCHITECT: MICHAEL SWARTZ
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN
THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY
URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
ZONING: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
SOUTH: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
EAST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
WEST: COVE RESIDENTIAL (RC)
BACKGROUND
The Lavender Bistro restaurant has been in operation at the current site since 2008.
The site includes indoor and outdoor restaurant seating, kitchen, bar, a storage building,
VUP 2012-046 Planning Commission Staff Report 09/11/12 Page 1 of 3
and two separate parking areas for customers and staff. The site was originally
improved in 1949 as a single -story building for restaurant use. City records indicate that
the site has always operated under a restaurant use.
PROPOSAL
The applicant has submitted a Village Use Permit for the expansion of the existing
storage building, located along the site's southern property line. The applicant has
proposed to expand the existing storage building by approximately 900 square feet (28'
x 321. The storage building expansion will include improvements to match the existing
architectural elements prevalent at the site, including roof pitch, roof material, paint and
stucco (Attachment 2).
ANALYSIS
Per Section 9.200.090 of the L.Q.M.C., building expansions exceeding 10% of the
originally approved building require approval of a Village Use Permit. The storage
building expansion will increase the site's building square footage by 900 square feet or
16% over the existing building square footage.
The proposed storage building expansion is approximately 900 square feet; three times
the size of the existing storage building. The expansion of the storage building meets all
development standards, including property setbacks and height restrictions, for the
Village Commercial zoning district. In addition, the expansion will architecturally match
the existing storage building and restaurant, including roof pitch, roof materials, and
paint and stucco.
The storage building will expand over an existing dirt pad adjacent to the existing
storage building (Attachment 3). The pad will be converted into building space and will
receive additional landscape improvements that both enhance the site and screen the
building. The conversion of the pad into building space and landscape will decrease the
potential for dust control issues during the windy season.
The expansion does not increase the number of seats available at the restaurant and
has no impact to the existing parking demand at the site.
The Planning Department determined that, due to the size of the building and
architectural consistency with the existing building, review by the City's Architectural
Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) was not necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this proposal is categorically
exempt from environmental review pursuant to provisions of section 15332 (Class 32)
3
VUP 2012-046 Planning Commission Staff Report 09/11/12 Page 2 of 3
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that this is an in -fill project
surrounded by urban services and existing improvements.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
This public hearing was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 30, 2012.
All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. As of this writing, no
correspondence regarding this application has been received. Any correspondence
received hence forward to the time of the public hearing will be presented to the
Planning Commission at the hearing.
PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW
All written correspondence received is on file with the Planning Department. All
applicable agency comments have been made a part of the recommended Conditions
of Approval for this case.
FINDINGS
Findings necessary to approve the proposed Village Use Permit can be made and are
contained in the attached resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-_ approving VUP 2012-046, based
upon the Findings contained therein and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Prepared by:
V
ERIC CEJ
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Plan Set
3. Site Photographs
41
VUP 2012-046 Planning Commission Staff Report 09/11/12 Page 3 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
VILLAGE USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING AT LAVENDER BISTRO
CASE NO: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
APPLICANT: MICHEL DESPRAS, LAVENDER BISTRO
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 1 1 `h day of September, 2012, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Michel Despras, Lavender Bistro, for approval of
architectural and site plans for the expansion of an existing storage building located
at the Lavender Bistro restaurant site, located at 78-073 Calle Barcelona, more
particularly described as:
APN 770-182-002
WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning
Department has reviewed this project in compliance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The La Quinta Planning
Department has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act
in that this is an in -fill project surrounded by urban services and existing
improvements; 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 find the following facts and reasons to justify
approval of said Village Use Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan - The proposed Village Use Permit
2012-046 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a
building. expansion for an existing use that is consistent with the General
Plan designation for VC (Village Commercial) development.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code- The proposed Village Use Permit is
consistent with the requirements of the La Quinta Zoning Code, in that
the building expansion will support existing uses consistent with those
permitted in the Village Commercial district, and meets the standards of
this district.
4
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Village Use Permit 2012-046
Lavender Bistro
September 11, 2012
3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - The
proposed Village Use Permit complies with the requirements of the "Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," as
amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), insofar as it has been
determined that the project is exempt from CEQA review under Section
15332, Infill Development.
4. Architectural Design - The architectural design aspects of the proposed
building expansion are consistent with the existing architectural design
aspects at the site.
5. Site Design - The site design aspects of the proposed building expansion,
as conditioned, will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, the
surrounding area and existing building, and with the overall design quality
prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access,
and other related site design elements such as scale, mass, and
appearance.
6. Health and Safety - Approval of the proposed Village Use Permit will not
create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare, nor injurious to or incompatible with other properties or
land uses in the vicinity, insofar as adjacent properties are in the Village
Commercial district.
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 said Planning Commission in this case; and
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Village Use Permit
2012-046, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11th day of September, 2012 by the
following vote, to wit:
5
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Village Use Permit 2012-046
Lavender Bistro
September 11, 2012
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
September 11, 2012
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense council.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. ,
2. This permit shall expire on September 11, 2014, unless a building permit has
been finalized and/or a time extension is applied for and granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the
applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following
agencies, if applicable or required:
• Riverside County Fire Marshall
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Planning Department
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances
from the above listed agencies and departments. If the requirements include
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said
approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
4. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with
the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans).
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
September 11, 2012
5. The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department
for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified,
unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing.
Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is
desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement
plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies
and utility purveyors.
A. On -Site Commercial Building and Precise Grading Plan (as required by
the Building and Safety Department) 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior
to commencing plan preparation.
6. Upon completion of construction, and prior to record drawing submittal of
the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with
reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved
by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall
be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved
mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built
conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record
during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR. can make site
visits in support of preparing Record Drawings. However, if subsequent
approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said
"As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting
to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed installation. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements. Pursuant to this condition, the applicant shall
comply with the applicable lease agreements entered upon with the City of
La Quinta.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
September 11, 2012.
UTILITIES
8. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110
(Utilities).
PARKING/ACCESS POINTS
9. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed storage
building expansion area to include but not limited to garden walls,
landscaping; irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement.
Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of the City
of La Quinta.
MAINTENANCE
10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160,
and shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -
site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from its responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEE AND DEPOSITS
11. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
PLANNING
12. No outdoor lighting is approved as part of this permit.
13. The storage building expansion shall not exceed 900 square feet in area and
shall be developed to the east of the existing storage building. The expansion
shall conform to the approved plans on file with this application.
14. The storage building shall match the roof -pitch and roof materials of the
existing storage building. The expansion shall be stucco and painted to match
the existing building.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2012-046
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
September 11, 2012
15. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for approval by the Planning
Department for the area around the storage building expansion. When plan
checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director.
Final landscape plans for on -site plantings shall be approved by the Planning
Director prior to final of the building permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
16. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which
exceeds quantities listed in 2010 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of
combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building.
17. No fire -lanes, fire hydrants or any other Fire Department
appliances/equipment shall be blocked or obstructed.
10
ATTACHMENT # 1
I
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
PHONE:760.777.7125 FAX:760.777.1233
Office Use Onl
Case Number 30-Day Accepted Assigned
Deadline By To
17- -0 4 1
1 1�6-
Notes:
VILLAGE USE PERMIT
APPLICATION
SECTION A PROJECT INFORMATION
Project name:
Project description:
APN #(s): `1--1 6 — 1167, — 00" L--3
JUJ 4
Planning Deportment f'
Village Use Permit Application Paged of14
City of La Quints - Planning Department - 760.777.7125 08/11/09
PApplimbon Submittal Forms1App11ca8onslWPIVUP applica8on - 08.03.09.doc
11
Is any portion of the project located in the CVMSHCP Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto Conservation
Area: Y N (Information to be obtained from the Planning Department or the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments website at http://www.cvmshco.omIPlan Maos New htm - Figure 4-260.
Related cases:
SECTION B — STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
The purpose of this formis to provide a detailed statement outlining the day-to-day operation of the
proposed project. Any approval related to this application will be based on the information provided
and will therefore be subject to the continued operation of the proposed project consistent with the
information provided. Please be aware that any activities beyond those described here may result in
the need to amend your use permit in the future, thus it is encouraged that the information provided
be based on the ultimate operation level of the proposed use.
Description of proposed use:
Hours of operation:'
Number of employees
List any other local, state or federal licenses or permits required: N 6W�-
Types of equipment and processes used: ,�)uRlk-kr bkjL' — 5F,� 060 f
Describe any hazardous materials used, stored, or produced on -site: Nbli
Describe any other special characteristics specific to the proposed use: N 4
Village Use Permit Application Page 2 of 14
City of La Quinta • Planning Department • 760.777.7125 08/11/09
P:1Applloatlon Submittal FomislAppliwbona\VUPIVUP application - 09.03.09.doc
12
SECTION C - APPLICANT/OWNER INFORMATION
Applicant:
Owner(s):
Architect:
Applicant Certification
Lnt a4 r
Msw t.tiTL 34°I Q G M K'% L , Co �y
✓STAuPI°143 &G-MhiL—,C6M
I certify that I have read this application packet in its entirety and understand the City's
submittal and review process and the requirements for this application. I further certify that
each application item submitted as part of this application is consistent with the minimum
required contents for that item as described in Section D of this application. I understand
and agree that if during the processing of the application, it is determined the information
does not strictly meet such standards or contains errors or omissions, c/arillcation and/or
supplemental information may be required and the preparation of such Information may be
considered, in the Planning Director's judgment, an unreasonable delay and will result in a
suspension of processing time limits in accordance with the California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15109.
Applicant's Signature:
Print Name:
Owner Certification
Z-
I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that i am the property owner
of the property that Is the subject matter of this application and / am authorizing and hereby
do consent to the tiling of this application and acknowledge that the final approval by the
City of La Quinta, if any, may result in restrictions, limitations and construction obligations
being imposed on this real property.
Owner/Authorized Agent
Print Name(s):
s
'An authorized agent for the owner must attach a notarized letter of authorization from the legal property
owner. Any off -site work identified on the plans must be accompanied by a statement of authorization with a
notarized signature of the subject property owner.
Village Use Permit Application Page 3 of 14
City of La Quints - Planning Department - 760,777.7125 08/11/09
PAWppllcation Submittal Fo MpplicationslVUPwUP application • 08.03.09.doc
13
PH#C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-144
APPLICANT: LMLQ PROPERTIES, LLC
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO EXPANDED OPERATIONS AND ALLOW FOR
ADDITIONAL SEATING AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT
LOCATION
LOCATION: 47-474 CALEO BAY DRIVE - NORTHEAST CORNER OF
WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE
(ATTACHMENT 1)
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED
THAT THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS BEEN ASSESSED
AS PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-
412), AND CERTIFIED BY THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL ON
APRIL 3, 2001. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) IS NECESSARY
SURROUNDING
ZONING: NORTH:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
SOUTH:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
EAST:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
BACKGROUND:
The building site,
located at the northeast corner of
Lake
La Quinta Drive and
Washington Street,
had operated as a restaurant since
2002
before closing earlier
this year. The site
contains a single two-story building
with
approximately 6,800
CUP 12-144 Planning Commission Staff Report 9/11/12
square feet of restaurant space on the 1" floor and 2,150 square feet of office
space on the 2ntl floor. At the time of original approval of the project, in 2001, the
Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit restricting the total
number of seats available for dining due to the alternative parking method used for
the site. In addition, the applicant voluntarily agreed to restrict dinning to dinner
only and to forgo lunch dining operations. The property has since been sold to
LMLQ Properties, LLC, of La Quinta. The new owners plan to re -open the site as a
new restaurant and seek an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit to
expand business operations at the site.
PRnPOSALL
The applicant is proposing to open a new restaurant at the site to include both lunch
and dinner dining operations and to expand the number of seat available for dinner
dining (Attachment 2). Therefore, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the
existing Conditional Use Permit, to modify Condition of Approval #5 and to rescind
Condition of Approval #6 (Attachment 3).
Site Design
Building Location and Orientation
The site is located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta
Drive. The building is located along the west property line, along Washington
Street, with parking on the eastern half of the property. The building's main
entrance faces east towards the parking lot. The building contains interior dining
areas with a bar and lounge as well as two exterior dining patios. The applicant has
submitted building plans to remodel the interior of the building and to make patio
improvements. In addition, the applicant has proposed to make minor cosmetic
improvements to the exterior of the building including, landscape, painting, and
enhancement of the existing architectural features. The overall architectural theme
will remain unchanged.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation and Parking
The applicant has not proposed changes to the existing vehicular or pedestrian
paths of travel at the restaurant. The existing parking lot for the restaurant site
includes a total of 68 parking stalls immediately east of the building. The applicant
has not proposed to make modifications to the existing parking lot.
Operations
The applicant proposes to expand business operations to include lunch dining and
to expand the total number of seats available for dinner dining. The applicant would
like to serve lunch starting at 11:00 a.m. and to maintain normal dinner dining
CUP 12-144 Planning Commission Staff Report 9/11/12 Page 2 of 4
operations. The restaurant would serve lunch and dinner 7-days a week with
expanded business hours on the weekends.
ANALYSIS:
Operations
The applicant would like to expand business operations to include lunch dining. The
current Conditional Use Permit contains a condition of approval limiting the
restaurants hours of operation to between 5:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekdays
with expanded hours for the weekend. At the time of original approval the previous
restaurant owners did not propose to operate during lunch hours. Staff has reviewed
this request and found that no special circumstances at this site preclude it from
operating during normal lunch hours. Other nearby restaurants, including Louise's
Pantry and El Mexicali Cafe, operate during lunch hours and the limiting of lunch
hours is not contained in the zoning code. However, due to the limited parking
provided at the site, and at the applicant's request, the serving of lunch should be
limited to the original conditions of approval regarding parking with total seating
limited to 142 seats. Staff has recommended a condition of approval limiting lunch
seating to a maximum of 142 seats during the weekday, with unrestricted seating
for both dinner and lunch during the weekend.
Parking
The original approval of the site and restaurant included an alternative parking
method and acceptance of a methodology necessitating a total of 48 parking stalls
for the site. The site has a total of 68 parking stalls available and exceeds the
approved methodology by 20 parking stalls. The alternative parking method is in
conformance with Section 9.150.050E of the L.Q.M.C. which permits for
alternative parking requirements subject to City approval. However, the use and
approval of the alternative parking method was predicated on a total of 142 seats
available for dining and a condition of approval limiting the restaurant to 142 seats
was imposed by the Planning Commission.
The new owner of the site would like to increase the total number of seats available
for dinner dining to 260 total seats. Per the current parking ordinance (L.Q.M.0
Section 9.150.060) a total of 99 parking stalls are required for the site (90 for the
restaurant and 9 for the office); however, only 68 parking stalls exist on site. To
offset the difference the owner has secured a parking agreement with the
neighboring "La Quinta Medical Center" for the use of 50 parking stalls during
evenings and weekends when the medical center is closed (Attachment 4). These
additional parking stalls, combined with the existing on -site parking, exceed the
required parking standard set forth by the Municipal Code by providing a total of
118 parking stalls. Staff is in support of the parking agreement as use of the La
Quinta Medical Center's parking during off -hours. This will have a negligible impact
CUP 12-144 Planning Commission Staff Report 9/11/12 Page 3 of 4
on the Center and will also allow the restaurant to operate at full capacity. Staff is
recommending a condition to allow the applicant to operate under the maximum
building capacity during evenings and weekends so long as they maintain a parking
agreement with the La Quinta Medical Center.
CEQA:
The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit
has been assessed as part of Environmental Assessment (EA 2001-412) and
certified by the La Quinta City Council on April 3, 2001. The Planning Department
has determined that no new environmental analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is necessary.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 30, 2012. To
date, no comments or letters have been received. Any comments or
correspondence received following the completion . of this staff report will be
presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit can be
made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving proposed Conditional Use Permit 12-144 with
the attached conditions of approval.
Prepared by:
Eric Ceja E
Assistant Planner
1. Location Aerial
2. Application and Letter
3. Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 COA
4. Draft Parking Agreement
CUP 12-144 Planning Commission Staff Report 9/11/12 Page 4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR EXPANDED OPERATION AND ADDITIONAL
SEATING AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATION
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-144
APPLICANT: LMLQ PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the
Planning
Commission of the City
of La Quinta,
California, did, on the
11 " day
of September, 2012, hold a
noticed Public
Hearing to consider a
request
by LMLQ Properties, LLC,
to permit the
allowance of expanded
restaurant
operations and additional
seating at the
existing restaurant site,
located at the northeast corner of Washington Street
and Lake La Quinta Drive, in
the City of La Quinta, more particularly
described as:
APN: 643-200-005
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 30`" day of August,
2012, for the 11 t' day of September, 2012, Planning Commission meeting as
prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning
Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property
owners and residents within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has determined that this
Conditional Use Permit has been assessed as part of an environmental
assessment (EA 2001-412), and certified by the La Quinta City Council on
April 3, 2001. The Planning Department has determined that no new
environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be
heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings
pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said
Conditional Use Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The conditional use permit request
is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the restaurant use is designated Community Commercial (CC) which
permits restaurant uses.
61
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-144: LMLQ Properties, LLC
September 11, 2012
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The Conditional Use Permit request
is consistent with the zoning provisions set forth in the La Quinta
Zoning Ordinance, in that any parking deficiency is covered by a
parking agreement and subject to conditions of approval to maintain
the parking agreement.
3. Compliance with CEQA: The Conditional Use Permit request is in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, in that the La Quinta City Council certified Environmental
Assessment 2001-412 for the site and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been certified by the City Council; and
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The proposed Conditional Use
Permit allowances are located within an existing commercial area with
similar type commercial and restaurant uses.
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 Conditional Use Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2012-144 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 111" day of September, 2012, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
9
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-144: LMLQ Properties, LLC
September 11, 2012
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON
Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-144
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense council.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This permit shall expire on September 11, 2014, unless a building permit has
been finalized and/or a time extension is applied for and granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. The applicant shall maintain a parking agreement with the La Quinta Medical
Center (Accretive La Quinta Partners, LLC), or any future owners of the
property, for the use of a minimum of 50 parking stalls during the center's
off -hours. The nullification of a parking agreement shall limit the restaurants
operations to a maximum of 142 seats for both lunch and dinner operations.
The applicant shall provide a copy of a signed and executed parking
agreement prior to issuance of a building final.
4. The restaurant is limited to a maximum 142 available seats during lunch
dining operations. Lunch dining operations are limited between 10:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., during the weekdays, with no lunch limitations imposed
during the weekends.
5. The restaurant's dinner dining operations shall not exceed the maximum
building capacity for the building as stipulated in the building code.
f3
ATTACHMENT # 2
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
PHONE:760.777.7125 FAX:760.777.1233
Office Use f2n
Case Number Accepted Assigned 30-Day
By To Deadline
Cop 1Z--1qq
Notes:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION
SECTION A - PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: t�_�Q ne v�2es , u(3
Project ' /
Description: �Q 5� (tYfi 11� w � C e, [Jst
APN #(s):;1�',2
Site Address/
Location: WA5WJN(wiW ri ke61
I
Alt�it r.B ;ii�'
! Lfi � x476L
E PtW,rAryg?Nment �
Cis �1zz /j
General Plan: C� 0gYunn a-,< Q Zoning: l;C�MrK(ul ;,rtlaicA:
Specific Plan: AMN(- 1 Proposed Use: [ d&h & &hurxd
Proposed Phases: d rQPdL Related Cases: CL r a 601- d STc
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 1 of 9
City of La Quinta - Planning Department - 760.777.7125 02.26.10
P:1Applicaton Submittal Forms\Applicabons\CUP\CUP Application - 02.26.10.doc
10
SECTION B— STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
The purpose of this form is to provide a detailed statement outlining the day-to-day operation of the
proposed project. Any approval related to this application will be based on the information provided
and will therefore be subject to the continued operation of the proposed project consistent with the
information provided. Please be aware that any activities beyond those described here may result
in the need to amend your use permit in the future, thus it is encouraged that the information
provided be based on the ultimate operation level of the proposed use.
Description of proposed use: 14c(6.- 4',Jr,ft a?an (/ la a->E[ 4 2d_kd 4-Ap
f5A"(rua;<riI tile- L ta.A D b e!( &s dtLft_o.r
Hours of operation: /® O'm (15L iI - 5 CLO i Leo AA L(, A gk, i eeedacj s
Number of employees: 2 O ai2PAX,
List any other local, state or federal licenses or permits required:
,4
6 b5liny' LOU";?-
Types of equipment and processes used: 1) efIJ,tt_v6J— / PoigA 1
Describe any hazardous materials used, stored, or produced on -site: XjoA6C
Describe any other special characteristics specific to the proposed use:
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 of 9
City of La Quinta • Planning Department • 760,777.7125 02.26.10
F`Mppllc fion Submittal Forms\ApplicationslCUMUP Application - 02.26.10.doc
11
Owner(s):
Architect:
44- 53c
(Mailing
License #)
Applicant Certification
I certify that / have read this application packet in its entirety and understand the City's
submittal and review process and the requirements for this application. I further certify
that each application item submitted as part of this application is consistent with the
minimum required contents for that item as described in Section D of this application. I
understand and agree that if during the processing of the application, it is determined the
information does not strictly meet such standards or contains errors or omissions,
clarification and/or supplemental Information may be required and the preparation of such
Information may be considered, in the Planning Director's Judgment, an unreasonable
delay and will result in a #u pension of processing time limits in accordance with the
California Code ofRegu/ Title 14, Apc11dty�lW9.
Applicant's Signature:
Print Name:
Owner Certification
Date: (01tt 1 ol0-
I certify under the penalty of the laws of the State of California that I am the property owner
of the property that is the subject matter of this application and / am authorizing and
hereby do consent to the filing of this application and acknowledge that the final approval
by the City of L.a Quinfa, if any, may ' utf in restrictions, limitations and construction
obligations being imposed on this re r petty.
Owner/Authorized Agent Signature*: / `G�2�^`---•m ate (0 it ao t'a-
Print Name(s): FICIS V. "reos
*An authorized agent for the owner must attach a notarized letter of authorization from the legal property
owner. Any off -site work identified on the plans must be accompanied by a statement of authorization with
a notarized signature of the subject property owner.
Conditional Use Permit Application Page 3 of g
City of La Quinta * Planning Department • 760.777.7125 02.26.10
NApplication submittal FonnslApplicatlons\CUP\CUP Application -02.26.10Aoc
12
LMLQ PROPERTIES, LLC
July 19, 2012
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Council:
Attached you will find a completed Conditional Use Permit
Application and supporting documentation.
I wanted to add a letter outlining my future plans for the as yet
unnamed restaurant. The facility will be a traditional bar and restaurant.
Dinner and lounge service will have seating capacity up to 260 seats.
I hope to open at 11:00 am for lunch during the weekdays with
restricted seating of approximately 142. We would like to open on
Saturdays and Sundays by 10:00am with a 260 seat capacity.
I have leased 50 additional parking spaces from the La Quinta
Medical Center facility. This additional parking will allow our quests to
park and not have to cross any major thoroughfares. I have a copy of the
parking lease agreement with Accretive. Theses spaces will be available
for our staff, valet and guests from 5 pm on Monday thru Friday and all
day and evening on Saturday and Sunday.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or
concernease feejfTee to contact me.
Eli o cus
LMLQ Properties, LLC
Owner
78-100 Main Street
Suite 203
La Quinta, California 92253
(760)698-9039 13
ATTACHMENT # 3
RESOLUTION 2001-32
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-056
OMRI SIKLAI
APRIL 3, 2001
1. The use of the subject property for commercial uses shall be in conformance
with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Conditional
Use Permit 2001-056, Specific Plan 2001-052, Site Development Permit 2001-
690 and Environmental Assessment 2001-412, unless otherwise amended by
the following conditions.
2. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the
effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
"Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time
extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in
Municipal Code Section 9.200,080 D.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense
counsel in its sole discretion,
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, for
review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the proponent to valet
parking during all times when the restaurant is,open._Failure to -maintain a valet,
parking program shall result in revocation of the use permit for this project.
5. The restaurant shall not exceed 142 seats as specified in the Specific Plan.
6. The restaurant hours of operation shall be as stated in the Specific Plan: 5:30
P.M. - 11 p.m. on weekdays, with expanded hours on weekends.
SACity Clerk\Resolutions\cup 2001-056 cc coa.wpd
14
ATTACHMENT # 4
PARKING AGREEMENT
THIS PARKING AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of this I" day of October,
2012, is entered into by and between ACCRETIVE LAQUINTA PARTNERS, LLC, a California
limited liability company corporation ("Accretive") and a California
("Permitted User"), with reference to the following facts:
A. Accretive is the owner of certain real property, commonly known as the
La Quinta Medical Center located at 47-647 Caleo Bay, La Quints, California, which is legally
described on Exhibit A, and contains certain parking areas and parking improvements
("Accretive Property");
B. Permitted User is the owner of certain real property, commonly known as
Washington St., La Quints, California, which is legally described on Exhibit B
(the "Restaurant Property");
C. The Permitted User intends to own and operate a restaurant on the
Restaurant Property.
D. Accretive, as the owner and operator of the Accretive Property has agreed,
that as long as the Permitted User is the owner or tenant of the Restaurant Property, such
Permitted User shall be permitted to use designated spaces located on the Accretive Property as
identified in Exhibit C ("Designated Spaces") in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Permitted User and their employees, in the course of such Permitted
User's business operations in the Restaurant Property, shall have the right to use the Designated
Spaces. The Designated Spaces shall be made available immediately proceeding the La Quinta
Medical Office Building business hours of 5 pm on weekdays and all day on weekends.
2. Accretive shall charge the Permitted User $250 per month for use of 50
also reimburse Accretive for any damage caused by the Permitted User or its employees. The
Permitted User shall further reimburse Accretive for the installation of an ingress/egress path
(walkway) through the Accretive Property's landscape for Permitted User access to the Accretive
Property parking lot. The Permitted User shall review and approve the design and cost of any
walkway prior to commencement of construction.
3. The Permitted User shall at all times during this Agreement maintain in
full force and effect: (i) commercial general liability insurance, naming Accretive as an
additional insured covering bodily injury an damage to property with a minimum combined
single limit of $1,000,000; (ii) Workers Compensation as required by the laws of the State of
California with the following limits of liability: Coverage A -statutory benefits ; Coverage B-
$1,000,000 per accident and disease; (iii) Evidence of Insurance -Permitted User shall promptly
W02-SDAS111%51398614.1 4- 15
deliver copies of certificates of such insurance to Accretive. Such coverage shall provide for at
least thirty (30) days prior notice to Accretive as a condition precedent to cancellation and (iv)
and other insurance as required by Accretive's insurance policy.
4. In the event the City of La Quinta or any government agency determines
the Accretive Property violates any parking codes, whether from the Permitted Use as defined in
this Agreement or any other permitted use, this Agreement will be terminated within thirty days
of the government issue notice of violation.
5. This Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of 1) sale of all or part of the
Restaurant Property to any person or entity other than the Permitted User; 2) if the Permitted
User transfers any of the parking righting rights under this Agreement to any person or entity
who is not the Permitted User, Accretive may immediately terminate this Agreement and 3) the
Permitted User fails to reimburse Accretive for any parking costs as defined in section 2 of this
Agreement.
Executed this day of
ACCRETIVE:
Accretive Laguna Partners, LLC
a California limited liability company a California
Thomas LeBeau, President
0
Name:
Its:
2012.
W02•SD:6SB 1\51398614.1 -2- 16
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO.27892, ON FILE IN BOOK 182 PAGES 63 THROUGH 66INCLUSIVE
OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN: 643-200-004-1
Ft/
41c:j
v�
P,
€g
f#��wi
u
Z
0
3
y
s _
Mm�
a..w
gg
d
e �
aniao VINino vi eNy,
E
R
ps
0
18
PLANNING COMMISSION PH#-D
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
APPLICANT: CROWN CASTLE - SUSAN MAKINSON
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SINGLE -POLE DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE JEFFERSON STREET
AND AVENUE 52 ROUNDABOUT
LOCATION: PUBLIC RIGHT- OF -WAY - JEFFERSON STREET/AVENUE 52
ROUNDABOUT (ATTACHMENT 1)
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN, MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR)
ZONING: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). IN
THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY
URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN)
SOUTH: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH)
EAST: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH)
WEST: GOLF COURSE (GC)
BACKGROUND:
The Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 roundabout was completed in October 2002,
with street pole lighting along all sides of the intersection to improved visibility and
safety. The intersection contains a large circular planter in the middle and several
smaller landscape pockets that help direct traffic.
REQUEST:
Crown Castle International is requesting to remove an existing thirty-one (31) foot
tall street light pole at the southeast corner of the Jefferson Street and Avenue 52
roundabout and to install a thirty-seven (37) foot tall street light pole with attached
antenna and equipment cabinets along the right-of-way (Attachment 2 & 3). The
applicant is working out the details for a lease agreement with the City Manager's
Office and the applicant is registered and licensed with the State's Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) (Attachment 4).
ANALYSIS:
Chapter 9.170 of the La Quinta Municipal Code regulates the use of Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities. This section establishes setbacks and operational
standards for newly proposed towers and co -location of existing towers. The
proposed light pole configuration, which is located within the public right-of-way,
will accommodate both telecommunication equipment and lighting for the street
intersection. The proposed location of the light pole is conditioned to comply with
all standards listed in the Municipal Code's Telecommunication Ordinance and
street light standards set by the Public Works Department.
Chapter 9.170 encourages the co -location of poles and antenna equipment to
minimize adverse visual impacts and the proliferation of telecommunication towers
in the community. The total height of the light pole with attached antenna is thirty
seven (37) feet. The light pole is designed to accommodate both telecommunication
antennas and street lighting. The applicant, working with City staff, has agreed to
remove the existing light pole and replace the light pole at the same location with
attached antenna (Attachment 2, Pg. 4). The replacement of the street light pole
with an attached antenna will maintain the total number of poles at this location
(Attachment 3). This proposal will facilitate additional co -location as its single pole
design will accommodate different types of equipment and only one pole will
remain at the location. In addition, the applicant has designed the pole to
accommodate a second set of antenna, below the light mast. The potential for a
second set of antenna complies with the intent of co -locating telecommunication
equipment on a single pole.
The proposed light pole with attached antennas is thirty-seven (37) feet in height;
six feet higher than the existing light pole. The light pole's height is intended to
match the existing light standards at this intersection and to reduce antenna
interference from nearby power cables and existing homes in the vicinity. The
height is within the height limits established in Municipal Code for
telecommunication towers.
2
The light pole, as proposed, is for a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) and is the
second of four total towers that Crown Castle is proposing in the City (Attachment
5); the Planning Commission has already approved a DAS at Eisenhower Park. The
DAS or "nodes" are part of a larger network of antennas that fill in smaller
coverage gaps, such as those gaps in this portion of the City. DAS towers are
smaller, require less energy, and improve telecommunication coverage over smaller
areas than non-DAS or "macro" towers. DASs are connected to a "HUB" site via
fiber-optic cables. The HUB site for Crown Castle's proposal is located at Fire
Station #70, at the southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. The DAS
expands telecommunication networks capacity for high-speed data transmissions by
using less energy, having low interference levels, and relaying data information to
the macro -site.
The proposed height of the antennas will not cause significant radio frequency (RF)
interference with existing and approved telecommunication services in the area.
The proposed antennas will increase service options for customers within this
portion of the City. Attachment 6 provides a general visual representation of how
services are expected to increase; green areas show the greatest amount of service
improvement, while yellow and red shows areas expected to receive marginal
service improvements.
The applicant has met the intent of this code section and has complied with the
setback, operations and screening requirements set forth in this section. In addition
to the placement of antenna on the light pole, the applicant will need to place an
electrical pedestal adjacent to the pole. The pedestal will be placed adjacent to an
existing electrical pedestal and the location and size of the pedestal are compliant
with the Municipal Code.
Public Notice
This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 30, 2012, and
mailed to all affected property owners within 500 feet of site as required by
Section 9.200.1 10 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Public Agency Review
A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City
Departments on July 24, 2012. All written comments received are on file with the
Planning Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the
recommended Conditions of Approval.
3
CEQA:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt from environmental
review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California
Environmental Quality Act, in that this is an in -fill project surrounded by urban
services and existing improvements.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020.F of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions, for the placement of a single -pole DAS and ancillary
equipment within the right-of-way along the southeast corner of the Jefferson
Street and Avenue 52 roundabout.
Prepared by:
ERIC CEJ , Assistant Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Map
2. Improvement Plans
3. Photo Simulations
4. PUC Approval
5. Proposed Locations and Fiber-optic Routes
6. RF Map
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SINGLE -POLE DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM
(DAS) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE JEFFERSON STREET
AND AVENUE 52 ROUNDABOUT
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
APPLICANT: CROWN CASTLE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 11" day of September, 2012, hold a noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Crown Castle, to permit the construction
and placement of thirty-seven (37) foot tall street light pole with an attached
antenna distribution system within the public right-of-way at the Jefferson
Street and Avenue 52 roundabout, in the City of La Quinta, more particularly
described as:
APN: PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 30`" day of August,
2012, for the 11" day of September, 2012, Planning Commission meeting as
prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning
Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property
owners and residents within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the co -location of the street lighting pole and antennas will
minimize adverse visual effects of the antennas and pole structure and will
decrease the need for additional towers and equipment on the surrounding
area; and
WHEREAS, the telecommunication facility will improve
telecommunication service options within this portion of the City of La
Quinta; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be
heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings
pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said
Conditional Use Permit:
5
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-142: Crown Castle
September 11, 2012
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The design and improvements of
the proposed pole and equipment are consistent with La Quinta
General Plan (Chapter 7) that requires utilities and communication
facilities to blend in with the surrounding improvements and insures
residents have access to reliable telecommunication services such as
wireless telephones. The co -location of antenna equipment on a single
street light pole at this site will have a negligible impact on the
surrounding public thoroughfares and land uses.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The placement of the pole and
equipment are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code
(Chapter 9.90 and 9.170) in that the potential adverse visual effects
have been mitigated, and all perimeter setback requirements have been
met.
3. Compliance with CEQA: The placement and co -location of a new
street light pole for antenna and street lighting has been determined to
be exempt from CEQA, under Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill
Development), in that the site is developed as a City street surrounded
by urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, water, sanitation,
etc.).
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The proposed improvements are
located within existing public right-of-way. The proposed street light
pole, antennas and equipment do not detract from the surrounding
architectural theme and public facility improvements.
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 Conditional Use Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2012-142 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11 `" day of September, 2012, by
the following vote, to wit:
9
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-142: Crown Castle
September 11, 2012
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON
Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional
Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This permit shall expire on September 11, 2014, unless a building permit has
been finalized and/or a time extension is applied for and granted by the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. This Conditional Use Permit shall comply with the requirements and standards
of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"),
and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at www.la-quinta.org.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies, if required:
• Riverside County Fire Marshal
La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public
Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement
Permit)
• La Quinta Building and Safety Department for Building Permits
• La Quinta Planning Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances
from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when
submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
5. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall not be construed as approval for
any horizontal dimensions implied by site plans or exhibits unless specifically
identified in the conditions of approval.
6. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the
invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to
review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by
these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any
documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these
conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without
deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a
material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the
invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for
engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any
documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid
in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to
make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access
easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City
staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove
graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the
aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other
agreements as approved by the City Engineer. Pursuant to the aforementioned,
the applicant shall submit and execute an "AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE
GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY" form located at the Public Works
Department Counter prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect,' refer to persons currently certified or licensed
to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
9. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans).
10. . The proposed light or mono pole shall be designed using the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminares, and Traffic
Signals or the Caltrans standard plans and specifications. Structural calculations
or other proof that can show the proposed pole meets design requirements shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
11. The submitted preliminary site plan appears to propose minimal grading and may
not require a grading permit (see exceptions in Municipal Code Section
8.80.040). If a grading permit is required, a precise grading plan prepared by a
Civil Engineer registered in California and a Soils Report prepared by a
professional registered in California must be approved by the City Engineer prior
to the commencement of grading.
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"On -Site Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements.
Building plans and structural calculations shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Building and Safety Department.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
12. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements, the applicant shall deposit
securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds each
valued at 100% of the cost of the off -site improvements, or as approved by the
City Engineer.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
PRECISE GRADING
13. If a grading permit is required, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of
LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements).
14. If a grading permit is required, prior to occupancy of the project site for any
construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit
approved by the City Engineer.
15. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by
an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an
amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust
Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
16. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped
land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such
other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control
Plan.
17. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum
slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for
the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not
exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first
six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of
sidewalk is within six feet (61 of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to
the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen
inches 0 8") behind the curb.
UTILITIES
18. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110
(Utilities).
19. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands,
to ensure optimum placement for safety, practical and aesthetic purposes.
20. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlaying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements as required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance
thereof shall be located so as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances.
MAINTENANCE
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance).
22. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of the structure installed for this Conditional Use Permit as well as
access drives, perimeter and site landscaping up to the curb, and stormwater
BMPs if applicable, or as specified in the required lease agreement.
23. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed construction
area to include but not be limited to garden walls, landscaping, irrigation
systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement, and existing building
structures. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the satisfaction of
the City of La Quints.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LOMC Section 13.24.180
(Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts
shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and
permits.
PLANNING
25. The applicant shall secure a lease agreement with the City of La Quinta for the
placement of the telecommunication equipment within the City's right-of-way
prior to issuance of a building permit.
26. The total height of the street light pole and antenna shall not exceed thirty-
seven (37) feet measured from finished grade, and shall not exceed a diameter
greater than twelve (12) inches.
27. The new street light pole shall accommodate the relocation of the existing street
lighting improvements. Street lighting shall be incompliance with the City's
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (L.Q.M.C. Section 9.100.150) and shall minimize
light pollution on surrounding properties. The height of the light poles arm and
light fixture shall match the height and design of the existing street light pole.
The pole shall match the light source of the existing light fixtures.
28. The placement of the pole shall not interfere with the existing infrastructure and
improvements at this location. The pole shall be placed in the same location as
the current street light pole.
29. Panel antennas shall be flush -mounted and be attached securely to the street
light pole at a minimum height of twenty-five (25) feet. The panel antennas shall
be painted to match the pole, and shall not be placed higher than twenty-nine
(29) feet on the pole. All panel antennas are limited to a maximum of thirty-six
(36) inches in height. A single antenna is permitted to be placed on top of the
tower. The antenna shall not exceed a height greater than six (6) feet in height
and shall be painted to match the pole.
30. The applicant is limited to placement of a single electrical meter pedestal and
interest vault to service the street light pole equipment. The equipment pedestal
and vault shall be placed in close proximity to the street light pole and the
existing electrical cabinet along Avenue 52. The placement of the equipment
cabinet and vault shall not result in the removal of existing landscape, nor shall
it cause visual interference with pedestrian and vehicular movements at the
intersection.
13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-142
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
31. The applicant shall negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an
owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are
received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has
received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. Any future
co -locations at this site shall receive approval of a Minor Use Permit (MUP).
32. The entire facility shall be maintained in a condition consistent with the
conditions of this approval and, if the facility is not so maintained this approval
is subject to revocation or other correcting actions as determined appropriate by
the City.
14
ATTACHMENT # 1
Conditional Use Permit 2012-142
Site Location
4
1 _
1y1,, i i f • r� i' • }
%40-
3
is
�J46�.Ncj
co
Co
ooi
pp
ti
co
F
IT
i
10
Ln
ti
co
4=
u REJJ)
F
1111
4 ,
05
'oe
it
LL
0
cm
u1i
col LL
all!
I
ATTACHMENT # 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Edmund G. Brown Jr., Govemor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CA W02-3298
rs
April 9, 2012
Cord Hute
Synthesis Environmental Planning
6 Carmen Court
Novato, CA 94945
Dear Mr. Hute:
NewPath Networks, LLC. submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction (NPC) for authorization
to proceed with the construction of the La Quinta Distributed Antennae System (DAS) project.
According to the NPC, the project involves the installation of fiber optic cable, DAS antenna
nodes, and other associated equipment in the City of La Quinta, California. The NPC requests
the Energy Division to act upon NewPath's request for a determination that the project is
consistent with the activities determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Commission
(Commission).
On November 9, 2004 the Commission granted NewPath's request for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity to provide inter/intra- local access and transport area services in
California as a non -dominant interexchange carrier. On May 25, 2005, NewPath submitted
A.05-05-021 seeking expansion of its authority to include the installation of DAS antennae,
nodes, and other related equipment in California. Under D. 06-04-030, the Commission
determined that the DAS projects proposed by NewPath would fall within one or more
categorical exemptions identified under CEQA, and that further environmental review of these
proposals would not be required.
The Energy Division has reviewed NewPath's proposal to construct the La Quinta DAS project
in the City of La Qunta, California and has determined that the proposed construction activities
are consistent with the activities found by the Commission to be categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA. The Energy Division hereby grants NewPath with the authority to
proceed with the construction of the project as described in the NPC.
Sincerely,
/f�Uit
J sen Uchida
California Public Utilities Commission
Regulatory Analyst
tlp�. I
innt
'r
� r
�.— c ,.. �y lid •�
FMga�V Ei se n'o wer
1
00)
MENRAS
,rPRO�.
PH#E
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
APPLICANT: CROWN CASTLE - SUSAN MAKINSON
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SINGLE DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF
AVENUE 50 AND HEATHERGLEN
LOCATION: PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY - AVENUE 50/HEATHERGLEN
(ATTACHMENT 1)
PROPERTY
OWNER: CITY OF LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), IN
THAT THIS IS AN IN -FILL PROJECT SURROUNDED BY
URBAN SERVICES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
BACKGROUND:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
Avenue 50 is designated as a 100 foot wide, four -lane, Primary Arterial B and
Secondary Image Corridor by the City's General Plan (Attachment 2). The street
runs east -to -west and connects Eisenhower Drive to Jefferson Street. The street is
dominated by residential development, including La Quinta Country Club and
Rancho La Quinta along the north side, and La Quinta Fairways, The Estancias, and
Palmilla along the south side.
REQUEST:
Crown Castle. International is requesting to install a twenty-two (22) foot tall
telecommunication pole and equipment cabinets along the south side of Avenue 50,
west of Heatherglen (Attachment 3 & 4). The applicant is working out the details
for a lease agreement with the City Manager's Office and the applicant is registered
and licensed with the State's Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
ANALYSIS:
Chapter 9.170 of the La Quinta Municipal Code regulates the use of Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities. This section establishes setbacks and operational
standards for newly proposed towers and co -location of existing towers. The
proposed telecommunication pole is located along Avenue 50, west of Heatherglen
and adjacent to a Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) well site. Per Chapter
9.170, telecommunication poles are permitted in the right-of-way, but are subject
to the height restrictions established for roadways designated as "image corridors".
Per the General Plan, the maximum structure height allowed within 150 feet of a
designated image corridor is twenty-two (22) feet. The applicant has met this
standard and has proposed a maximum structure height of twenty-two (22) feet.
The proposed tower's height complies with the height limitation set by the
Municipal Code.
Chapter 9.170 encourages careful siting of new telecommunication poles to protect
surrounding properties from potential tower failure and visual impacts. The
applicant explored several pole locations prior to proposing the current location
west of Heatherglen (Attachment 5). The applicant has proposed to place the pole
adjacent to a CVWD well site. The siting of the pole at the proposed location will
have less of a visual impact on surrounding residential properties because . no
residential properties back to the pole's location. Although the pole is not proposed
adjacent to an existing residential property it will stand alone along the public right-
of-way. Staff has some concern, over the exact siting of the pole and has
conditioned the final placement of the pole to be subject to Planning Director
approval.
The applicant has, proposed to paint the pole beige to help soften the look of the
pole and to match the desert -tones in the area. However, staff has concerns that
painting of the pole may make the pole stand out from its surroundings and has
recommended a condition that the pole's final paint color be subject to Planning
Director approval. In addition, staff has recommended a condition that the applicant
2
plant a Palo Verde tree adjacent to the tower to screen the tower from nearby
residential properties.
The pole, as proposed, is for a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) and is the third
of four total towers that Crown Castle is proposing in the City (Attachment 6); the
Planning Commission has already approved a DAS at Eisenhower Park. The DAS or
"nodes" are part of a larger network of antennas that fill in smaller coverage gaps,
such as those gaps in this portion of the City. DAS towers are smaller, require less
energy, and improve telecommunication coverage over smaller areas than non-DAS
or "macro" towers,. DASs are connected to a "HUB" site via fiber-optic cables. The
HUB site for Crown Castle's proposal is located at Fire Station #70, at the
southwest corner of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. The DAS expands
telecommunication networks capacity for high-speed data transmissions by using
less energy, having low interference levels, and relaying data information to the
macro -site.
The proposed height of the antennas will not cause significant radio frequency (RF)
interference with existing and approved telecommunication services in the area.
The proposed antennas will increase service options for customers within this
portion of the City. Attachment 7 provides a general visual representation of how
services are expected to increase; green areas show the greatest amount of service
improvement, while yellow and red shows areas expected to receive marginal
service improvements.
The applicant has met the intent of this code section and has complied with the
setback, operations and screening requirements set forth in this section.
Public Notice
This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on August 30, 2012, and
mailed to all affected property owners within 500 feet of site as required by
Section 9.200.1 10 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Public Agency Review
A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City
Departments on July 24, 2012. All written comments received are on file with the
Planning Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the
recommended Conditions of Approval.
CEQA:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is categorically exempt from environmental
review pursuant to provisions of Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California
Environmental Quality Act, in that this is an in -fill project surrounded by urban
services and existing improvements.
3
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020.F of the City of La Quinta
Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to conditions, for the placement of a single -pole DAS and ancillary
equipment within the right-of-way along the south side of Avenue 50, east of the
intersection of Heatherglen and Avenue 50.
Prepared by:
�u
ERIC CEJ Assistant Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Map
2. General Plan Image Corridors
3. Improvement Plans
4. Photo Simulations
5. Justification Letter w/Alt. Site Analysis
6. Proposed Locations and Fiber-optic Routes
7. RF Map
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A SINGLE DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF AVENUE 50 AND
HEATHERGLEN
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
APPLICANT: CROWN CASTLE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 11 " day of September, 2012, hold a noticed Public
Hearing to consider a request by Crown Castle, to permit the construction
and placement of a twenty-two (22) foot tall telecommunication pole with an
attached distributed antenna system (DAS) within the public right-of-way
near the southwest corner of Avenue 50 and Heatherglen, in the City of La
Quinta, more particularly described as:
APN: PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on the 30`" day of August,
2012, for the 111" day of September, 2012, Planning Commission meeting as
prescribed by Section 9.200.110 (Public Notice Procedure) of the Zoning
Code, and by mailing a copy of said public hearing notice to all property
owners and residents within 500 "feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the location and height of the telecommunication pole and
distributed antenna system will minimize adverse visual effects of the pole
structure and will decrease the need for additional towers and equipment on
the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the telecommunication facility will improve
telecommunication service options within this portion of the City of La
Quinta; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be
heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings
pursuant to Section 9.210.020 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said
Conditional Use Permit:
61
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-143: Crown Castle
September 11, 2012
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The design and improvements of
the proposed pole and equipment are consistent with La Quinta
General Plan (Chapter 7) that requires utilities and communication
facilities to blend in with the surrounding improvements and insures
residents have access to reliable telecommunication services such as
wireless telephones. The location of the antenna equipment on a single
pole at this site will have a negligible impact on the surrounding public
thoroughfares and land uses.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The placement of the pole and
equipment are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code
(Chapter 9.90 and 9.170) in that the potential adverse visual effects
have been mitigated, and all height restrictions have been met.
3. Compliance with CEQA: The placement and location of a
telecommunication pole for a distributed antenna system has been
determined to be exempt from CEQA, under Guidelines Section 15332
(Infill Development), in that the site is developed as a City street
surrounded by urban infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, water,
sanitation, etc.).
4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: The proposed improvements are
located within existing public right-of-way. The proposed
telecommunication pole, antennas and equipment does not deter from
the surrounding architectural theme and public facility improvements.
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 Conditional Use Permit;
2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 2012-143 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval;
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11`h day of September, 2012, by
the following vote, to wit:
2
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2012-143: Crown Castle
September 11, 2012
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON
Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This permit shall expire on September 11, 2014, unless a building permit has
been finalized and/or a time extension is applied for and granted by the
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code.
3. This Conditional Use Permit shall comply with the requirements and
standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the
"Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web
Site at www.la-quinta.org.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the
City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies, if required:
Riverside County Fire Marshal
La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet
(Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality
Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River
Region, Improvement Permit)
La Quinta Building and Safety Department for Building Permits
La Quinta Planning Department
Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Federal Communication Commission
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or
clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such
approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval.
5. For newly constructed projects of less than one acre, the Permitee shall be
required to submit a Storm Water soil loss prevention plan in accordance
with the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code.
6. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall not be construed as approval
for any horizontal dimensions implied by site plans or exhibits unless
specifically identified in the conditions of approval.
7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of
the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney
to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by
these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any
documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect .these
conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without
deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a
material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of
the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for
engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any
documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be
paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's
failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of
Approval.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer
easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable .offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
essential improvements. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of
access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal
by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to
remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall
establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer.
Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant shall submit and execute an
"AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY" form
located at the Public Works Department Counter prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as
"engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or
licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
10. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with
the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans).
11. The pole shall be designed using the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminares, and Traffic Signals or the
Caltrans standard plans and specifications. Structural calculations or other
proof that can show the proposed pole meets design requirements shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
12. The submitted preliminary site plan appears to propose minimal grading and
may not require a grading permit (see exceptions in Municipal Code Section
8.80.040). If a grading permit is required, a precise grading plan prepared by
a Civil Engineer registered in California and a Soils Report prepared by a
professional registered in California must be approved by the City Engineer
prior to the commencement of grading.
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not
listed shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to
commencing plan preparation.
"On -Site Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs
& gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements.
Building plans and structural calculations shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Building and Safety Department.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
13. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements, the applicant shall deposit
securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds each
valued at 100% of the cost of the off -site improvements, or as approved by
the City Engineer.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V.
improvements.
PRECISE GRADING
14. If a grading permit is required, the applicant shall comply with the provisions
of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements).
15. If a grading permit is required, prior to occupancy of the project site for any
construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit
approved by the City Engineer.
16. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified
engineer,
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the
Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils
engineer, or by an engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in
an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive
Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading
permit.
17. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to
prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded,
undeveloped land shall either be planted .with interim landscaping, or
stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
18. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have
undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section
9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement.
The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback
area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot)
which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum
slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when
the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the
maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1. All unpaved
parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half
inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches (18") behind the curb.
UTILITIES
19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110
(Utilities).
20. The proposed fiber splice vault shall be placed outside of the existing
sidewalk. The location shall be approved by the City Engineer.
21. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of
all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to electric vaults, water valves, and telephone
stands, to ensure optimum placement for safety, practical and aesthetic
purposes.
22. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlaying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply
with trench restoration requirements as required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction
for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the
maintenance thereof shall be located so as to not conflict with access
aisles/entrances.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
23. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping
Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
24. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance
requirements per guidelines in the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets' latest edition, in the design and/or installation of all
landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public
street right-of-way.
MAINTENANCE
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance).
26. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual
maintenance of the structure installed for this Conditional Use Permit as well
as access drives, perimeter and site landscaping up to the curb, and
stormwater BMPs if applicable.
27. The applicant shall protect existing hardscape along the proposed
construction area to include but not be limited to garden walls, landscaping,
irrigation systems, curb and gutter, sidewalk and pavement, and existing
building structures. Restoration to any damaged hardscape shall be to the
satisfaction of the City of La Quinta.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
28. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180
(Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the
City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee
amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for
plan check and permits.
PLANNING
29. The applicant shall secure a lease agreement with the City of La Quinta for
the placement of the telecommunication equipment within the City's right-of-
way prior to issuance of a building permit.
13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-143
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
30. The total height of the telecommunication pole and antenna shall not exceed
twenty-two (22) feet measured from finished grade, and shall not exceed a
diameter greater than twelve 0 2) inches.
31 The pole shall be placed behind the sidewalk at a minimum distance of nine
(9) feet behind the curb along Avenue 50. The exact location of the pole
along Avenue 50 shall be reviewed and determined by the Planning Director.
All ancillary ground -mounted equipment, including but not limited to, the
vault, electrical pedestal and pull box shall be located outside of the existing
sidewalk and within the existing right-of-way. The placement of the pole and
equipment shall not interfere with the existing infrastructure and
improvements at this location. The placement of the pole and ground -
mounted equipment shall not traverse property lines and shall not result in
the removal of existing landscape. The pole shall be painted to help blend the
pole with the surrounding landscape. The final paint color for the pole shall
be determined by the Planning Director.
32. Panel antennas shall be flush -mounted and be attached securely to the
telecommunication pole. All panel antennas shall be painted to match the
pole. All panel antennas are limited to a maximum of thirty-six (36) inches in
height. A single antenna is permitted to be placed on top of the pole. The
antenna shall not exceed a height greater than six (6) feet in height and shall
be painted to match the pole.
33. The applicant shall install a Foothill Palo Verde tree east of the proposed pole
location to screen the pole from view from the adjacent residential
community. The tree shall be a minimum 48" box size and shall be placed no
further than twenty (20) feet east of the pole.
34. The applicant shall negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an
owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information
are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has
received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties.
35. The entire facility shall be maintained in a condition consistent with the
conditions of this approval and, if the facility is not so maintained this
approval is subject to revocation or other correcting actions as determined
appropriate by the City.
14
ATTACHMENT # 2
9
�
i
8888
�
V
p
J
ATTACHMENT #3
n
N
J
f
.I
I
III
III
I
-
` MGM
y �
r
LL.
O
r
LL.
O
p3Y
I
yy
S 3
Y�
§ $
m
2:LLi
UO-
C-4
ILL
ZLLJ
.22 , z
at 1
co U
c i Rill cv) , -, o 4. 1 0. U-
co
LS
FT � \°, 1 , ~ �� ƒ
. '\\ ƒ\\( �
A � � \�� � � �^\ \ ) t§
J ita
IN 5911
1
!
J
3i
i
s I,
,i
l
i
I
I il1J�
I
�J
I
.I
•
r
."e
�
1
_9k
s
L
.t
�
r� A
I
Y
�
v
I
k �
�
�(
sp
�^
"
eU
y1
fir
l
r
Y
a r
) g
f �
�i
0
w
(1)
0
(L
0
It
IL
l 1 f
IL
1'
_V
4
•1
Q r,
9(�
1
C rE
ATTACHMENT # 5
Ll AS
CROWN CASTLE/NEWPATH NETWORKS
CITY OF LA QUINTA
SITE JUSTIFICATION
(LAD088-04, LAD088-05)
July 22, 2012
Crown Castle/NewPath Networks, ("Crown Castle") hereby submits this site justification as an
addendum to its May 22, 2012, application for a conditional use permit ("CUP")' for the
installation of a distributed antenna system ("DAS") network ("Network") within public rights -
of -way ("ROW") of the City of La Quinta ("City"). This site justification focuses on two DAS
nodes of the proposed Network, designated LAD088-04 and LAD088-05.
1. Design and Location of the DAS Nodes.
A. LAD088-04.
LAD088-04 is proposed to be located in the ROW on the south side of Avenue 50, just west
of Heatherglen. It will consist of a new, non -lighted pole, measuring approximately 21 feet,
11 inches in height to comply with the City's height restrictions for new pole installations in
their "primary image corridor" area. It will be unlighted, to facilitate compliance with the City's
"dark -sky" ordinance. In addition to the antenna array, which will be hidden within a flush -
mounted canister atop the pole, minimal accessory equipment will include pole -mounted fiber
repeater radios. The fiber repeater radio converts digitalized spectrum received from the hub
into RF signals emitted from the antenna array to the service area. LAD088-04 will not
feature any other above -ground equipment aside from a standard electrical meter pedestal.
A fiber vault will be installed below grade at each proposed node location. (See LAD088-04
Photo -simulation, attached as Exhibit A; see also Construction Drawings - LAD088-04,
attached as Exhibit B.)
B. LAD088-05.
LAD088-05 will be located at the southeast corner of the traffic roundabout at Jefferson
Street and Avenue 52. Originally, this node was proposed in the median north of the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. The City does not allow the installation of
utility poles within its roadway median. Accordingly, the City requested that Crown Castle
locate a different location. The proposed site seeks to comply with the City's constraints
while still providing the necessary service coverage for the carrier. This node will replace an
existing streetlight pole with a Crown Castle streetlight pole capable of supporting the
required equipment. LAD088-05 will feature an antenna array hidden within a flush -mounted
canister atop the pole, resulting in a total height of 36 feet, 11 inches. In addition to the
antenna arrays in the top -mounted canister, LAD088-05 will feature three panel antennae
mounted below the streetlight arm and a pole -mounted fiber repeater radio. As with LAD088-
' The May 22, 2012, CUP application is incorporated herein by this reference.
3278343.1
04, the only ground -mounted equipment will consist of a meter pedestal measuring
approximately four feet in height and the below -grade fiber vault. (See LAD088-05, Photo -
simulation, attached as Exhibit C; see also Construction Drawings - LAD088-04, attached as
Exhibit D).
C. Design Elements Common to Both Nodes.
As noted in the CUP application, LAD088-04 and LAD088-05 are designed to incorporate
additional carriers. The "multiple -carrier" design will allow more than one network provider to
provide wireless data and communications services from the same system. The Network
therefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive network to take the place of multiple, single -
carrier antennas or macro -sites -- thereby avoiding the prospect of multiple carrier -
constructed antenna facilities servicing a single service area. Put another way, the Network
is the equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to transmit their signals
over one antenna system with only a single series of vertical elements. Even apart from the
specific design elements discussed, DAS itself is inherently minimally intrusive by design.
Specifically:
(1) Crown Castle DAS utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology,
incorporating smaller, low -power facilities instead of using larger -- and
sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers;
(2) Crown Castle DAS utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private
property or undeveloped resource areas;
(3) Crown Castle DAS allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding
antenna proliferation;
(4) Crown Castle DAS strikes a balance between antenna height and coverage in
order to minimize visual impacts;
(5) Crown Castle DAS carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a
minimum of node locations; and
(6) Where possible, Crown Castle DAS seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in
the ROW, such as utility poles and streetlights, whenever technically feasible,
thereby minimizing the net number of vertical intrusions in the ROW.
2. The RF Service Area.
MetroPCS provided Crown Castle with a polygon to outline areas where it experiences a
significant gap in coverage and/or impaired network capacity in the City ("Service Area!).
Using the Service Area boundaries, Crown Castle conducted a site survey to determine siting
options available for the Network nodes, utilizing either existing vertical elements and/or new
poles. Despite the low profile of the DAS nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low -
profile system, Crown Castle sought to maximize the coverage of each node location, since
maximization of the node coverage equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the
Network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, each location was chosen to provide an
3278343.1 2
effective relay of signal from the adjacent node, so that ubiquitous coverage is provided
throughout the Service Area with a minimum number of facilities. Each node is locationally
dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far from its proposed
location will result in an inability to meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed
location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other nodes
in the larger Network. Crown Castle also sought out existing utility pole and streetlight pole
sites that could serve as a potential host site for an alternative location. In light of the above
considerations, a site -specific alternative analysis follows.
3. Alternative Site Analysis.
A. LAD088-04
(1) Proposed Site: New Non -Lighted Pole on the South Side of Avenue
50, West of Heatherglen: This candidate was identified as the preferred alternative
because it fronts a vacant lot to the south (minimizing any visual intrusions) and
because the location meets RF objectives for the Service Area. Residences to the
north are buffered by Avenue 50 -- a four -lane arterial -- as well as a greenbelt and a
soundwall. (See Alternative Site Analysis for LAD088-04, attached as Exhibit E.)
(2) Candidate 1: New Non -lighted Pole on South Side of Avenue 50,
East of Heatherglen: As with the Proposed Site, the pole for Candidate 1 would
comply with the height limitations imposed by the primary image corridor and would be
non -lighted to comply with the City's dark -sky policy. Also like the Proposed Site,
Candidate 1 presents minimal aesthetic impacts, since it is located on an arterial in an
area already developed with existing utilities. While Candidate 1 achieves the
necessary RF propagation objectives for the Network, it is located closer to homes to
the south. The Proposed Site was selected as the preferred site because it is located
further from residences to the south. (Ibid.)
B. LAD088-05
(1) Proposed Site: Existing Streetlight Pole at the Southeast Corner of
Jefferson Street and Avenue 52: This candidate was selected as the preferred
location because it utilizes an existing streetlight pole and because the location meets
RF objectives for the Service Area. By using the site of an existing streetlight pole,
this location avoids a net increase of poles in the ROW. This site also features
excellent buffering from any residential view -sheds, because the site is located at a
major intersection and the parcels surrounding the site on all sides are vacant. (See
Alternative Site Analysis for LAD088-04, attached as Exhibit F.)
(2) Candidate 1: New Pole at the Median of Jefferson Street, North of
Avenue 52: In its review of alternative sites, Crown Castle identified another location
for LAD088-05 in the median of Jefferson Street, north of the intersection of Jefferson
Street and Avenue 52. Because Candidate 1 is located in the median of Jefferson
Street, the siting of this location was considered by Crown Castle to be aesthetically
unobtrusive. A greenbelt and golf course further buffer the site from views to the east
and west. The Proposed Site was selected over Candidate 1, however, due to the
City's regulations prohibiting utilities within the roadway median along a scenic
corridor. The proposed site nevertheless required Crown Castle at the edge of the
3278343.1 3
carrier's Priority Coverage Zone. The proposed site nevertheless meets the majority of
the carrier's RF coverage objectives for the Service Area. (Ibid.)
3278343.1 4
m
V�m
0
I Y E
,1
V.
fl
C9
l N
t
L� - JA 1 i /jYerxda r
i
Jamoyuas13 - —
0
c CD Cf)
l' U
T -/
]� 1
IL
p m to
� C
Fl _ O
I
��
P ��� .x
g - LI IJoIS'� Est m J /
R�Dy dLc a ;
,
IIJI <.
nrit
e
I_ sUwo q }{j�
�9' % "� ��� � ,•-IS-O' 2 / y
i�' �� W`.➢ � �k, Ali �z �1���� ` Q "� ��4��5 4�" ��j .
".aa�.��"
1.5
EF
W �A Pid C azdOOy�v^en d— UrliO� Eg
�i :✓�`� ,Ave
Ze IUBA
U�
s
U
Tar 4 4 Q9W&
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: David Sawyer, Planning Managers
DATE: September 11, 2012
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-075 AMENDMENT 2
MILAN INSTITUTE EXPANSION
Conditional Use Permit 2003-075 Amendment 2, which proposed the expansion of
the Milan Institute Beauty School located at 47-120 Dune Palms Road, was
approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2011. Condition of Approval
#3 stated:
3. The Conditional Use Permit is to be re -visited to make sure the
designated parking is adequate and has not impinged upon any of the
neighboring retail businesses. This review shall occur in 18 months
from the date of April 18, 2011, which is the beginning of the next
class cycle..
As of September 11, 2012, the applicant has not expanded the use as proposed.
Conditional Use Permit 2003-075 Amendment 2 included an expiration date of
March 8, 2012. Consequently, another CUP application is required should the
applicant express interest in moving forward with the proposed expansion in the
future. Also, as the use was never expanded, the review of parking space
sufficiency as stipulated by the aforementioned condition of approval is unneeded.