Loading...
2004 04 27 CC Minutes LA QUINT A CITY COUNCIL :- LA QUINT A PLANNING COMMISSION : JOINT MEETING , MiNUTES APRIL 27, 2004 A special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at the hour of 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Adolph. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Members Henderson, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, and Mayor Adolph ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Daniels, Quill, Tyler, and Vice Chairman Abels ABSENT: Chairman Kirk MOTION - It was moved by Commissioners Abels/Daniels to excuse Chairman Kirk. Motion carried unanimously. r-- ; Vice Chairman Abels led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. , , PUBLIC COMMENT: None. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None STUDY SESSION 1 . DISCUSSION REGARDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC MEETING OPEN. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the agenda packet. Commissioner Daniels stated that with the General Plan being only two years old, the presumption is that this Plan represents the stated policy and vision of this City Council. It represents the validity of the City Council going forward and any changes to that vision should be the responsibility of the applicant to - prove the purpose for any change from commercial to residential. Any change should be considered as either something has changed in circumstances, such as the City has bought and developed a large golf course, a major road Joint Meeting of the La Ouinta City Council And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 widenening, or a development has been proposed. Some kind of change has taken place to create a reason for the land use change. It could even be that there was a mistake made in the land use designation. One of these should be shown in order for an applicant to receive the land use change. Commissioners discussed the chart contained in the staff report. Commissioner Daniels stated the northwest corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street is noted as a proposed change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The Planning Commission did recommend approval, but when it was presented to the Commission it was described as a commercial enterprise. The developer described it as a project that would generate Transient Occupancy Tax so it would be some kind of commercial activity, therefore the Commission approved it. The Commission's concern has been the loss of commercial land. With the funding mechanism in California, the City is looking at 779 square feet that will be, or may be, lost for commercial uses. That is equivalent to a regional shopping center that may be lost and it seems that this is something that should be protected so as to not lose the income from that site. If the Council has a different direction, then the Commission needs to know. Commissioner Tyler stated there should be some recommended land use ratio to use. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated every community can be different. The City of Indian Wells has more residential than commercial but they have four hotels so they rely on their income. Council Member Henderson stated the General Plan does not show this, but other documents do show a need for commercial square footage and recently the draft Economic Development document does have a projection of the needed commercial space that is based on the revenue hopefully generated from that commercial space. Most recent numbers state we would need to develop 192,-233,000 square feet of retail commercial real estate per year between now and the year 201O, so there is a need for commercial development. As we loose the commercial space we will not be able to meet the needs of the City. This is a critical point but a lot of it centers around infill projects and how difficult they are and how they are to be treated and maintain the commercial projects. Commissioner Tyler stated residential development does not pay its way in regard to City services, and yet we are looking at potential annexation and most of it will be residential which creates an increased need for City services which we will not have if we keep losing the commercial land. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 2 -- -- - -~ - - ~~ -- --~ ~--- ~ ---- ----- --- Joint Meeting of the La Ouinta City Council :- And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 . Council Member Sniff asked what the total land designated for commercial is currently. Staff stated 570 acres. Council Member Sniff asked how much is currently occupied and then how much is remaining. City Manager Tom Genovese stated that due to the number of projects in current .phases, that number may not be available. Council Member Sniff stated he would not discard the thought of additional residential as it does provide an enormous of shoppers for the commercial areas. It takes the residential to keep the commercial in place. Weare developing rapidly commercially and there is a vast area of 100,000 to the east and that is almost entirely residential without any commercial. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that as of 2002 there 1,216 acres of which we lost 53 acres and of that 771 acres of undeveloped land. . Commissioner Quill asked if their was a direct nexus between the designated commercial in the General Plan and the fiscal study that would show the " revenue generated from the sales tax at the build out of the City, to say this level of commercial will support the level of services as proposed. - City Manager Tom Genovese stated there was an economic component that showed how many hotel rooms and commercial in total would be needed . Commissioner Quill asked if there had been any kind of assessment on the revenue being generated from our existing commercial that could be expanded over the balance of the community to determine if, at build out, that if we lost 200 acres of commercial, would the City still have enough revenue generated by the sales tax to support the City? If we did not annex any other land, could we substantiate the loss of commercial land by an assumption of tax revenue generation from the existing and proposed projects? Can the General Plan support the loss of commercial land? Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the General Plan designates a land use designation which allows a big range of retail and commercial uses and not all commercial uses generates sales tax. There would need to be some combination of uses to generate the revenue. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated they .did a cost benefit analysis for all the land uses that included sales tax, property tax and general fund costs that showed build out of the General Plan as a positive. From a statistical point the City can count on $1.20 a square foot, a year, in sales tax generation from general commercial. The loss of 700,000 square feet of commercial would be a loss of $930,000 annually. - Mayor Adolph stated that when the City was talking with Walgreen it was stated they would generate approximately $20,000 a year in sales tax. You weigh that factor against the 10-11 % sales tax on a hotel room, and you need G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 3 Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 to determine where our emphasis will be focused. It is obvious where our growth is and it is south and east of PGA West. Our emphasis on commercial has to be put down there as it will be needed in the very near future. A venue 50 and Jefferson Street, we lost Albertsons as they realized they could not make a profit. The project at Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street had a lot of commercial to the south and it could be a question as to whether it is a viable project. Common sense has to be taken into consideration. The entire area needs to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Quill stated the question from the Commission is whether we can substantiate the loss of the commercial property to residential by virtue of a forecast of revenue that we believe will enable that, then there is no issue. It is totally an issue of losing square footage and revenue. If there is something that will substantiate that loss, that we know it will be replaced in another area or it is not needed because of different commercial that will offset it, then the change can happen. Council Member Henderson stated it is the developers' responsibility as to why there is a need for the conversion to make the nexus. Mayor Adolph stated the General Plan is the document that has to be followed and that is what the Council is wanting. Commissioner Daniels stated the presumption of the Planning Commission is that they follow what the Council wants for development. Therefore, the burden is on the developer to show the reason for the change or prove a mistake in land use has been made on this piece of property to make a compelling argument. Maybe there is a need for commercial in the annexation areas but we all know the difficulty to introduce commercial into a residential area. Therefore, he is reluctant to let go of the commercial when it is so hard to get it. Mayor Adolph stated they do not disagree. They expect the Planning Commission to do their job and they believe they are. Council Member Osborne stated the General Plan is a living document and it will change as the economy changes. The residential and commercial development is economically driven. We do not want to put handcuffs on ourselves. We need the flexibility as the City grows to allow changes and we need to be ready for these changes. How much it will cost us to operate at build out, no one knows. Each land use change should be evaluated on its own merit. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 4 - - - ---- - - - - -_.~- ------- . ~--~--_.- - - ---- ~------ Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council - And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 . Commissioner Tyler stated that on the chart in the staff report at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street, there is already an approved Specific Plan with Neighborhood Commercial and yet no development has happened. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated a residential project is currently being processed for this site. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were providing a reason for the commercial not being viable and can we request an analysis for the change in land use. Staff stated a different developer has purchased the site and is requesting a zone change. An analysis has been requested. Council Member Henderson stated she would recommend the Commission have discussions with staff as they are not going to bring something to the Commission that they should turn down. They may have the answers to the Commission's questions as to why the project is before them. Staff does not present changes to the General Plan unless they have analyzed it and believe the change should be made. Council Member Perkins stated the conversation is good, but where is it going. - He has no problem with the mix of commercial and residential as it is now. We need to be careful even though the people live close to Ralph's they will shop in Albertsons in Palm Desert. You cannot count on a residential area to have a commercial area. It will help but not all will go that site. The Council made a change in the Von's shopping center when the signal was ínstalled on Highway 111 that opened the market to residents of the City of Indian Wells. We need to consider the need to attract the out of town people. Staff is probably closer to this than either the Councilor Commission. Maybe the answer is to discuss more with s~aff to get their input before the meeting. Council does not like to overturn the Commission's recommendations. Commission has done a nice job, but they need to work closer with staff. Commissioner Abels noted the Commission once held study sessions and they were very valuable obtaining insight into a project and they were discontinued. These study sessions could allow that time for the Commission to discuss matters with staff. Council Member Osborne stated it is a good question to ask whether the project makes sense. Is there enough commercial to make a difference. These are all good points to raise. - Council Member Sniff stated the reason the study sessions were eliminated was . that they preceded the public hearing and that was a legal problem where it was not appropriate. Things vary and needs change and none of this is totally set. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 5 Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 There is always flexibility until it a project is built. Chances are we have as many grocery stores as we are going to get. We will reach a legitimate saturation point. There is a limit as to how many retail businesses can be successful. These things will work themselves through and generally Council will agree with the Commission. Commercial has to be strategically situated. He does not believe there will ever be commercial on all 700 acres that remain . designated as commercially developed. Council Member Perkins stated the Commission should not underestimate the developer when he brings forth a commercial project. They will do their research because they do not want to fail. Council Member Henderson stated that in regard to direction most projects should be evaluated on a case by case situation. It might be worth while for each of us to look at the General Plan and Zoning map and get a feel for what vacant land should be commercial. There are probably some commercial areas that will never be developed. Bring your suggestions back as it does not seem reasonable. Maybe some things have changed and it should be reevaluated. In fill will be a real challenge. The message is one of cohesiveness as to what kind of heat the council will take from the PC approval. She will look at the map again to see what could or should be changed. There being no other comments from Planning Commission or Council, Mayor Adolph thanked the Commission for bringing this to their attention. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked Principal Planner Fred Baker who introduced the Planning Center consultant Colin Drucker who gave a presentation on the Housing Element. Council Member Henderson asked when the certification would expire. Mr. Drucker stated June of 2006. Council Member Henderson asked why the City did not turn around and resubmit it again. Mr. Drucker stated because the City will be receiving new RHNA numbers. Commissioner Tyler asked why was this submitted to the State before receiving approval before City. Mr. Druker stated it is best to submit a draft to the State to determine what their concerns are so they can be addressed before adoption. The State will review it as a draft more conservently than if it was an adopted document. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 6 ---~- - _. -~--- ---- --~-~ ~----~ ----~-- Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council r-- And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 . Council Member Sniff asked what the State was wanting. Mr. Druker stated the State take into account existing housing needs for the entire State. This is to ensure that one city is not receiving more than its fair share of the low income housing. The State then determines the housing needs of the entire State and distributes those numbers to each jurisdiction. For Southern California the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the entity that then divides the numbers between the cities in its jurisdiction. Commissioner Quill asked how SCAG does the allocation. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated they have a mathematical formula to determine the number. This year they did take into account the City's input. Council Member Henderson stated that if the cities do not meet these requirements as soon as possible, the State is going to take it out of their hands and figure out. a way to do it themselves. Mr. Druker explained why the Housing Element had taken so long to complete. The State is pleased with the City's Housing Element. They have made very few comments. . r- Council Member Osborne noted the Vista Dunes Mobile Home Park was not \ included. Mr. Druker stated others need to be included. Commissioner Quill asked when the RHNA number will change. Mr. Druker stated in June of 2005, the City should receive its new number to reflect the growth of the City. City Manager Tom Genovese stated it is important on the Redevelopment Agency the State does not take the 20% low mod monies. They are set aside. Council Member Osborn asked if the City did not meet its RHNA numbers or even in the next five year period, could they force us to put low income housing in a redevelopment area such as SilverRock. Mr. Drucker stated that if you build residential in a redevelopment area, part of that has to be affordable. If the City is out of compliance for two consecutive periods, right now there is nothing in State law that allows them to force the City to build affordable housing. Staff stated that if the City does not have a certified Housing Element and the City is spending Redevelopment monies, there are advocacy groups of individuals that will either sue the City to force them to produce affordable housing. Mr. Druker stated the court will force the City to build if they do not - have a certified Housing Element. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 7 Joint Meeting of the La Quinta City Council And Planning Commission April 27, 2004 Commissioner Daniels asked if the Housing Element would come to the Commission for approval. Staff stated yes, both the Council and Commission. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission and/or council could make changes before it is adopted. Mr. Druker stated yes, as long as the State doesn't object. Staff stated we are currently in the second round of review with State. They are asking us to insert certain sentence into the element. Mayor and Council items: Council Member Henderson stated Commissioner Tyler has been trying to have certain changes made to boiler plate conditions as some things do not need to be in there on all projects. Are there certain things that could be reviewed to eliminate this problem? Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston noted it would depend on the depth of the question asked as this was not agendized. If these are common things asked of staff to be included as conditions, there is no issue as long as they are applicable to the project? Determining what conditions should be included should be on a case by case basis. City Manager Tom Genovese stated that if there was a concern about conditions that are boiler plate put into all conditions. Council Member Henderson stated they seem to be there whether needed or not. City Manager Genovese stated this is a staff issue to take responsibility to clean up the conditions before they are sent to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no. further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Council Members Sniff/Osborne/Perkins to adjourn this City Council meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved and seconded by Planning Commissioners Abels/Daniels to recess the Planning Commission at 6:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bet y . awyer, Executive Secretary City of La Ouinta G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\JTMtg4-27-04.doc 8 ----- - - -~- --- ~ -~ ~- -------.- ---- ~-