Loading...
2007 11 13 PC City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Guinta City Hall Council Chamber' 78-495 Calle Tampico La Guinta, California NOVEMBER 13. 2007 7:00 P.M. * *NOTE* * ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED. TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2007-044 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-018 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 October 9,2007. P:\Reports - PC\2007\11-13-07\PC AGENDA. doc PUBLIC HEARINGS: " For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Ex~cutive 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................... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 Applicant............. PetSmart #1230 Location.............. 79-375 Highway 111, within the Centre At La Guinta Shopping Center Request .............. Consideration of a request to allow two (2) outdoor metal containers for the temporary storage of seasonal merchandise at the rear of the building from October 15, 2007 through January 4, 2008. Action................. Resolution 2007- B. Item............:....... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 Applicant............. Tarlos & Associates, Architect Location.............. The southwest corner of Depot Drive in the Komar Desert Center Request............... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for a 7,000 square foot restaurant. Action ................ Resolution 2007- C. Item.................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2007-094 Applicant............. City of La Guinta Location.............. City-wide Request................ Consideration of an amendment to the La Guinta Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.60 to modify the City's Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives in accordance with State Law. Action ................ Resolution 2007-_ VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None P:\Reports - PC\~007\11-13-07\PC AGENDA. doc VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of November 6,2007. IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. ' DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Guinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing, Agenda for the La Guinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 13, 2007, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Guinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, November 9, 2007. DATED: November 9, 2007 Public Notices The La Quinta City council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four 124 hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance, by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background materials is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It.is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. ' P:\Reports - PC\2007\11-13-07\PC AGENDA.doc l---- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA October 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Planning Director Les Johnson to lead .the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jim Engle, Paul Quill, and Chairman Ed Alderson. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Quill to excuse Commissioner Barrows. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David f Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Alderson requested two items be added to the Agenda under "Commissioner Items." The addition of Item B - Status of New Planning Commissioner Appointment, and Item C - Discussion of Future Meetings and the Planning Commissioners Attendance Schedule. It was then moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to confirm the Agenda as revised. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: Chairman Alderson asked if ther~ were any changes to the Minutes of September 25, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle /Quill to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Village Use Permit 2006-03: a. request of Dan Cline, Forward Architecture and Design, Inc. for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans for three retail commercial buildings located on Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 3.39 acres located at the northeast corner .of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive. 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report,:a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner Engle asked if the landscaping . was consistent with the buildings in the surrounding area. Staff replied it will have a water efficient design. Commissioner Engle asked staff if they had asked if the applicant had considered using a contrasting color to break up the large expanse of white. Staff went back over the exhibits and explained the colors in the landscaping, as well as the use of tiles to relieve the monotony of all the white used. 3. Commissioner Engle asked if the parking was consistent with City regulations. Staff said it was and explained the parking layout and usages. 4. Commissioner Engle was concerned about having enough trellises to help curtail the amount of heat going through the windows. Staff went over the exhibit and explained the usage of the trellises. 5. Chairman Alderson asked about the proximity of this project to Old Town and its affinity to pedestrian traffic. He was concerned about the entrance into the buildings from Calle Tampico. He said it did not appear to be pedestrian-friendly and . asked if staff had given any thought to having an entrance on the street side. Staff said they did discuss the pedestrian entrances into the buildings. The applicant wanted the parking close to the store entrances and the Village Guidelines state the parking should be far from the street. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached on the parking and entrances. 6. Chairman. Alderson gave an example ofa pedestrian shopping experience. Staff pointed out the large. expanse of glass on Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 Shop 1 and said there was a possibility of additional tenants changing ,their entries on the south elevations. 7. Chairman Alderson asked about the two blank walls that , showed 27 foot dimensions. He asked if they were just blank walls. Staff explained there would be trellises placed on those walls. 8. Commissioner Quill asked if this application had been presented to the Planning Commission on a prior date. Staff replied it had not. There had been a previous project planned for this site, . but it was not presented to the Planning Commission. 9. Chairman Alderson explained the history of the elevation process on this project. He wanted to know if the columns on the north elevation were going to stick out so the vines could wrap around and climb up them. Staff explained the vines would be attached to "green screen" material to allow the vines to climb up the .columns. 10. Commissioner Quill disclosed that when this came in as a proposed Rite Aid he did have a conference with the applicant and that was why he thought he had seen this before, but it was a different plan. His concern is the box on Calle Tampico which carries the capacity to the street.' He asked if there was an opportunity to connect to this box for storm water on the site. He said that was the whole point of putting it in to begin with. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer replied the applicant has many different options on how to handle the storm water off the site and this is one option. Staff has crafted several options for the applicant to choose from and several were outlined for the Commissioners. He explained typically the drainage plan is complete when the application comes before the Planning Commission. However, the applicant wanted to bring his application before the Commission prior to finalizing the hydrology issues for this development. To be receptive to that staff crafted conditions that are fairly flexible to allow them multiple options, one of which was just described. 11. Commissioner Quill said staff alluded to the fact this was partially contingent upon a study, but was not available at this Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 time. Staff said it was not. The study; previously referred to, was the potential outcome of one currently being conducted, regarding the capacity of that particular pipeline. Anecdotal information shows the pipeline is of sufficient size. Commissioner Quill asked who was doing the study. Staff replied Psomas of Orange County was preparing the study but under worse case scenario, if the pipe was full and couldn't accept this water, there would still be other options. 12. Commissioner Quill referred back to the date the pipe was installed and said it was designed to handle the flow of the low line area down to Calle Tampico even with build-out. He asked if there had been a hydrology study done when this was installed and did we have that study for reference. Mr. Wimmer said they had searched the archives and no study was found. 13. Commissioner Quill asked if there was anything that reflected the redevelopment phasing they did for the improvements to La Quinta from the late 1980's. Mr. Wimmer replied his staff searched for information on capacity at that facility on Calle Tampico and they didn't have any information reflecting that information. 14. Commissioner Quill said there was an interim City Engineer at the time, who was also the engineer who may have worked on that design. His name was John Curtis and staff should contact him for his input. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer said he would be happy to contact Mr. Curtis as the City would like to have a copy of it. 15. Commissioner Quill said his fear was storm water engineering is not an exact science and if there is a system designed with a certain capacity and another firm comes up with different numbers it's going to create a conflict. It would be helpful if the original work could be found. Staff said they would try to contact Mr. Curtis order to obtain that report. Commissioner Quill said he would be happy to give the contact information to staff . 16. Commissioner Quill asked if this would be a hold up for the applicant. Staff said it would not and the conditions were Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 crafted with flexibility so the applicant could move forward . while awaiting the additional information. Staff said contacting Mr. Curtis would help move things along. 17. Chairman Alderson said he read through the conditions which were enormous for a three building project. Several references are made to the site, and two scenarios on the storm drain. One of the scenarios alludes to a retention basin. His question was if there is a retention basin introduced to the project will it affect the site layout and have any bearing on relocating buildings or the parking count. Staff said the applicant has the ability to do a retention basin. Staff is not recommending it, but there is enough flexibility in the conditions that they can achieve their drainage requirements without on-site retention. Chairman Alderson said there is no preliminary grading plan, preliminary traffic study, or preliminary hydrology report. However, he did not anticipate any problems with taking care of . the storm water. There is a pipe on Calle Tampico, and one on Desert Club Drive. Staff met with the developer's engineer who studied their options and was very comfortable they could handle the storm water. Chairman Alderson asked if that included without the use of the retention basin. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer replied it was without the use of the retention basin. 18. Chairman Alderson said the traffic study and hydrology study were still forthcoming. Another issue is with the trucks and their turning radiuses. He asked if they had been analyzed in a . practical sense or were they the result of some mathematical calculations. Staff said the turning movements had not been analyzed with scale drawings, but the applicant was working on that. Since the applicant was in a hurry.to get this application before the Commission the conditions had been crafted so that if they were unable to get either an appropriate length of truck to make the maneuver, have their' hours of operation accommodate the deliveries, or move the traffic signal poles they could still accommodate the turning radius of a truck. They were given enough flexibility to solve the problem. Staff does not know what is going to happen because they still have .not seen any scale drawings. They are waiting on their traffic engineer to finalize their report. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 19. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Mike Singelyn, Highland Development Company, 80 South Lake Avenue, Suite 660, Pasadena, California 91101, introduced himself. He stated they had been addressing the conditions with the Public Works Department and had been working with the City to solve the storm water conditions. The upcoming traffic study has highlighted several concerns on Calle Tampico and Washington Street. . He said the traffic study is being done by Psomas and should be completed in two weeks and they will submit it to the City. They have already done the traffic count. This report will be given to the Public Works Department for their study, comment and recommendations. They do not have scale studies, but their information shows this area will accommodate a 40 foot truck. They are waiting to determine if the tenant's trucks are able to do that. They are open to conversations with the Public Works staff. They are excited about working with Fresh and Easy and tying into the downtown Village concept. They are excited about the green screen treatment and hope pedestrians will want to sit and stay there for awhile. 20. Commissioner Quill asked if they thought they were providing adequate pedestrian access from Old Town. Mr. Singelyn said the layout works for the tenant and the pedestrians. They have worked with this layout for a year-and-a-half to come up with the best compromise for both pedestrian access and parking available. 21. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant had any problem with changing the color of the green screen pylons to match the color in the awnings. Mr. Singelyn said it was no problem. 22. Commissioner Quill liked the concept, but was concerned about vandalism and maintenance and asked if the pylons were sturdy enough to resist vandalism. Mr. Singelyn said they were made from sturdy materials, placed firmly in the ground, and not easily removed. Mr. Singelyn said the pots were intended to withstand vandals. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 23. Commissioner Quill asked if they previously had designed a trellis attached to a column with a sidewalk underneath it. Mr. Singelyn said that was a different applicant. Commissioner Quill asked aBout the trellis hanging over Tampico. Mr. Singelyn said they were unable to position the trellis in that manner due to City regulations. Staff made a comment about a free-standing trellis being used instead of an attached trellis. Staff concluded the free-standing trellis could be incorporated, but the attached trellis went into the setback on Calle Tampico. Staff described the items in the exhibit which were colonnades set within the setback. 24. Commissioner Quill asked about the right-of-way and location of the sidewalk. He asked if the sidewalk was going to be within the colonnade. Staff showed the exhibit and Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant was going to be completely removing all the landscaping and sidewalk currently on site and referenced the exhibit with replacement options for those areas. Staff confirmed he had interpreted the exhibit correctly. 25. Mr. Singelyn replied to Commissioner' Quill's inquiry about tearing out the current sidewalk. He said they are currently considering leaving in the meandering sidewalk and replacing all the landscaping. They may have to work with staff to design the sidewalk and green trellis treatments as shown on the exhibits. 26. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant about the comment made by staff regarding the two foot drop and asked if the applicant preferred not to do that. He asked if there was an architectural reason for it. Mr. Pedro Garcia, 7864 Home Court, La Quinta, representing the architect for the site, said originally . the building was designed at a height of 28 feet, but the tenant required a mezzanine to accommodate their mechanical units which are not roof-mounted. They are within this mezzanine which requires that area be raised. That is the only part of the building that will be raised to 30 feet. It is the northeast corner of the building and the furthest part of .the building from the street. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 27. Commissioner Engle said if they added a contrasting color on top of that or along that way it might break up the monotony of the white walls. Mr. Garcia said they were trying to match the Old Town La Quinta design style and that is why they used the large amount of white. ' 28. Commissioner Quill said there is a two-story building right across the parking lot as well as two-story buildings right across the street and they are at least 35 feet high. He did not have ,an issue with the applicant's elevations. Staff said the two- story buildings were approximately 35 feet. 29. Commissioner Quill commented on the outdoor seating area. He asked if any outdoor seating was proposed along Calle Tampico. The applicant said they were trying to put everything in the center courtyard. 30. Commissioner Engle said he was very happy someone is developing on that parcel. Most of his concerns were addressed. Had no problem with the height. He was not concerned with the north elevation, but on the east, west, and south elevations, the top piece (or pilaster) projects out a couple .of inches and if it were painted brown it would help break up all the white. The applicant said they had no concerns with doing that. 31. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was going to use the existing driveways on Desert Club. The applicant said the northern driveway has to stay, but they are requesting some modifications to the southern driveway. They are working with the Public Works Department'on the ingress/egress issues. 32. Chairman Alderson commented on the fountain design and the Commission's sensitivity towards water usage. Mr. Pedro Garcia said this water treatment is not really a fountain but a " 'very shallow reflecting pool. Mr. Singelyn said if they wished to eliminate the water feature the applicant would be happy to bring back an alternative. Chairman Alderson said the Commission would appreciate their efforts as long as this does , not sacrifice the applicant's aesthetics. . Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 33. Chairman Alderson said he was still concerned about the pedestrian-friendly traffic pattern into this project. He asked to be shown where a pedestrian could enter the store if they were on Calle Tampico. He asked if there was any way to include an entrance on that side. The applicant said that was not possible due to the accommodation of the delivery of goods. 34. Commissioner Quill commented on the Shops 1 doors and their locations in relationship to Calle Tampico and the parking lot. What he's seen is a new shop comes in' 'and the doors on Calle Tampico become inoperable because the tenant blocks the entrance. He said there were no columns and no ambiance on the shops facing Calle Tampico. There is no replication of those green screen c'olumns on Calle Tampico. Commissioner Quill said there was an opportunity for a coffee shop with a south facing entrance but this has not been made user friendly. Mr. Singelyn said tenants want the doors facing the parking lot. There may be an opportunity for tenants to use doors on that elevation. He explained how the buildings were laid out. 35. Chairman Alderson asked for clarification that they were discussing the south elevation. Applicant replied yes. 36. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant could add green screen columns and pots along Shops 1, on the Tampico side to keep the theme moving in that direction. The applicant said they would not have a problem with it, but they ~ave been trying to break up the monotony of the buildings and when the greenery grows out there will be one large green wall on Calle Tampico. He gave a description of what would happen when the plants mature and why the landscaping was designed as shown. 37. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a landscaping architect involved. Mr. Pedro Garcia replied there was. Commissioner Quill asked if the green screen column would be a spiraled c.olumn or a pruned square. Mr. Garcia said they would be consistently pruned into four foot high squares. 38. Chairman Alderson asked about the pre-made landscape product. Mr. Garcia said he had used this product in a project Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 in Phoenix, Arizona in 1998. He visited it last year and it still looked great. 39. Commissioner Quill asked if they were four foot diameter pruned squares would there be at least five feet of planted area in that square. Mr. Garcia said yes. 40. Chairman Alderson opened the discussion to the public. Hearing none he opened the discussion to the Commissioners. 41. Commissioner Engle was happy there was something going in on the barren lot, but he did suggest the addition of color on the roof treatment. He said their landscape ideas and the addition of the columns was wonderful. 42. Commissioner Quill said Fresh and Easy was an incredibly good use of the location. He much preferred it to the Rite Aid previously proposed. He said he would prefer a little bit better orientation for pedestrian use, but this plan was acceptable. He had concerns about the appearance of the plant material when mature and asked if the staff had to approve, the landscaping prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. He asked if they could add a condition about, the final landscaping, especially when it is "right off the truck". He wanted to make sure the plants were of good quality. Staff said due to the high visibility of this project the staff will do several inspections of this site to assure the plant materials will be appropriate. Commissioner Quill described the type of plant materials that , would ideally work better for this site. 43. Commissioner Quill said the applicant did a good job. It is different than Old Town but has an old town feel and did not have any problems with the 30 foot height. He liked the elevations. 44. Chairman Alderson still had concerns about the large white expanse on the north face of Building One. Chairman Alderson asked if it would be advantageous to continue the green walls across. Staff suggested the architect comment. Mr. Garcia said they tried to follow the Old Town palette but in addition to the large amount of green they would add some interest to the Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 building by adding another shade of white. They did not wish to add another color as it would introduce too much of a contrast. Chairman Alderson said it just needed to be broken down so it was not such a large expanse of one color. 45. Chairman Alderson said since he was formerly in the development business he understood the importance of getting , tenants in on time. He had five concerns and felt most of them , had been answered, but he was still concerned about storm drains, retention basins, and storm basin scenarios that had yet to be determined. The traffic and hydrology studies have yet to be determined. The truck turning radius has not been properly researched but he was sure it can be. There is the potential of having to relocate and rework the intersection and signals at the corner of Desert Club and Calle Tampico and the potential of a left turn lane at Calle Tampico and Washington. All of these things are yet to be determined and he didn't think they would be a problem, but they may. The Commission is being asked to approve a project with a whole bunch of contingencies and the conditions of approval are extensive. One option is to recommend continuing this until some of these are taken care of unless staff could assure him these problems could be addressed he would be hesitant to go forward. There are too many ifs. He liked the project but he was still concerned about the pedestrian access from Calle Tampico. 46. Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing and Mr. Singelyn addressed the Commissioners on the traffic issue. There are two left turn lanes already on Calle Tampico. They expect the traffic study will recommend the northern-most left turn lane queuing area would have to be extended further to the west, however in the current condition they could not extend it that much because it would encroach into the westbound lane. They are very comfortable they have the scope of the work that will have to be done on that lane. Regarding the turning radius of the truck westbound on Calle Tampico and north on Desert Club, the applicant worked on drawings showing a 68 foot truck with a clip of eight feet on that corner. The resolution of that problem would be the relocation of the signal box and the current signal and bring it in eight feet closer. 'They will get the scaled drawings to the Public Works Department and are Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 prepared to work with them to resolve these problems. They have spent a lot of time with staff on this project and are confident these items and time frames can be met. Their civil engineer has been working on this, but they are still awaiting the Psomas study. They feel comfortable with the conditions and confident they can work with the Public Works Department to resolve these issues. 47. Commissioner Quill said with respect to the storm drain issue it sounded like these are options versus finalized conditions. What has been done is they have provided "all of the above" so that solution can get rectified and frankly it's an engineering/Public Works solution that's going to get rectified pretty much irrespective of what we say or do in this forum. The same thing goes for the issue of the turning' radius. They will do what they need to do to make it work. 48. Commissioner Quill asked the applicant about the additional columns in the front of Shops 1. He said it made sense to him they would carry the theme of what you would see on Calle Tampico and he would like to see four additional four foot by four foot columns in that location. The bottom line is you are going to see hazy glass there. He'd rather see columns rather than the glass. The columns would filter the "back of the house" look. The applicant said they would be happy to accommodate that request. 49. Chairman Alderson closed the public comment portion and returned to the Commissioner portion of the meeting. 50. Chairman Alderson said he had previously stated his many concerns and was confident staff could work them out with the applicant. Ed Wimmer said they were going to work with the lIpplicant to get a good project. 51. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-042 approving Village Use Permit 2006-035 with the addition of the following recommendations: Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 1. Modification of the landscaping plan adding four more columns in front of Shops 1 2. The addition of a color treatment to the parapet. 3. Modifications of the conditions pursuant to the memorandum that is dated October 9, 2007 from Les Johnson and Tim Jonasson. 4. Allow the 30-foot height limit AYES: Commissioners Engle, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Barrows. B. Street Vacation 2007-045; consideration of a Report of Finding under California Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed Vacation of an Easement in favor of the public for access, ingress and egress of fire, police and other emergency vehicles and personnel within Tentative Parcel Map 33367 and Public Utilities Easements established over the vacated portions of Avenue 52 and Adams Street lying within Tentative Parcel Map 33367 is consistent with the General Plan. 1. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Engineer Manager Ed Wimmer presented the information contained in the staff report,: a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked for questions from Commissioners. 3. Commissioners Engle asked if this type of request was just standard operating procedure. Staff replied it was. 4. Commissioner Quill said the utility easements were not taken out because there was an office in the near proximity and the power was needed. So, the utilities were left in place to accommodate that need. 5. Chairman Alderson asked if there was, any public comment. Since there was none he did not open the public comment portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 6. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adopt Resolution 2007-043 recommending approval of Street Vacation 2007-045 as recommended. ROLL CALL: ' AYES: Commissioners Engle, Quill, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner , Barrows. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioners Schedule: 1 . Commissioners Schedule did not include the new Commissioner and asked if they could put it on the back burner until the additional Commissioner was appointed. Staff pointed out the additional Commissioner was included in 2008. B. Status of New Planning Commissioner Appointment: 1 . Chairman Alderson said he spoke to the City Clerk regarding appointment of the fifth Commissioner. There were five applicants from the previous group but are the City is re- advertising. They will hold interviews on November 6, 2007, and select a fifth Planning Commissioner. He said he would be covering that Council Meeting. C. Discussion of Future Meetings and Planning Commissioners Attendance Schedule: 1 . Staff reminded the Commissioners of the Joint Meeting on the 23'd of October at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Engle asked if they will get an e-mail reminder of that date. Staff encouraged the Commissioners to add items. The agenda currently includes green building, the general plan and housing element updates, as well as what the Commission hopes to accomplish by June of next year. If there are additional comments please get them Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 to. Planning Director Les Johnson. Chairman Alderson had a comment on the eligibility issue and would like to have an explanation of how that was resolved. He also wanted to make sure the Council was aware of the Commissions' efforts on to promote water efficiency. Staff said that would be listed under , the green building topics. 2. Chairman Alderson said he would cover next week's Council meeting. 3. Chairman Alderson asked about a Chamber meeting that was faxed to him. Commissioner Quill said one of the Chairman's tasks is to attend a joint city and chamber meeting every 'quarter. Chairman Alderson said he would attend. D. Pedestrian-Friendly Planning Considerations: 1. Commissioner Quill was also concerned about access and pedestrian accessibility between various City amenities via bikes or walkers. 2. Staff made comment on attendance at a recent APA meeting. One of the topics they addressed was pedestrian walkability of communities. One of the key issues is the ability of people not having to drive and focus on more pedestrian-friendly areas. Transit and non-motorized functions are very important. La Quinta has few transit opportunities but we can certainly encourage people to get out and walk. Gas emissions are a priority item for the State of California and will continue to be an important issue. 3. Commissioner Quill said the previous project on this site had a cover on the south side of the building to encourage walkers to use the sidewalk. In the interest of walkability and health some exceptions should be allowed on setbacks to encourage more pedestrian usage. He used the example of walkability of Carmel and why it is so pedestrian-friendly. We need to adjust our laws, rules and regulations to accommodate that type of atmosphere. Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2007 4. Chairman Alderson asked if there could be encroachment if the possibility of shade and walkability is in question. Staff said they were looking at the walkability of the Village to enhance and improve upon what is there today; such as a central parking lot. They want to encourage folks to walk around downtown. The second opportunity would be the update of the General Plan. There are two great opportunities within the next twelve months to encourage walkability in the City. IX; ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Engle to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on November 13, 2007. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. on October 9, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Secretary City of La Quinta, California PH#1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-106 APPLICANT I PROPERTY OWNER: PETSMART #1230 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO (2) OUTDOOR METAL CONTAINERS FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF SEASONAL MERCHANDISE AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING FROM OCTOBER 15, 2007 THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2008 lOCATION: 79-375 HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: . THE lA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS. OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4) IN THAT THE STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TEMPORARY AND WILL HAVE NO PERMANENT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) RC (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: PROJECT PROPOSAL: Every September the Planning Department issues a letter to all major tenants along Highway 111 regarding the Conditional Use Permit process, for temporary holiday storage. All applications were to be submitted no later than October 15, 2007. To date, only PetSmart has applied for the Conditional Use Permit. On October 9, 2007, the Planning Department received a Conditional Use Permit from PetSmart requesting to place two temporary metal storage containers at their back of building for additional holiday merchandise storage~ The applicant has requested the two temporary containers be in place between October 15, 2007 and January 4, 2008. A site visit on October 16, 2007, indicated the applicant, without Planning Commission approval, had placed the storage container on site. P:\Reports - PC\2007\ 11 -, 3-07\CUP 07-106 PetsmartlCUP 07- 106 Petsmart (STAFF REPORT}.rt! " Each container measures eight feet wide, by 40 feet long, by ten feet high (Attachment 2). The outdoor storage containers are located at the back of building, adjacent to the truck delivery area, and are screened by a five foot high chain- linked fence with green mesh (Attachment 3). The two storage containers are located approximately seventy (70) feet from the PetSmart building, just west of the Sam's Club Gas Station. Due to the layout of the building site, adequate space exists to accommodate both storage containers, through traffic, and truck deliveries. Located directly east of the temporary storage containers is the Sam's Club gas station, where a five (5) foot high wall separates and screens the gas station from the storage containers. In addition, the PetSmart building to the west helps to screen the storage containers from public view. The applicant has also installed a six (6) foot high chain link fence with green mesh material to further screen the storage containers. Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 1, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no letters have been received. Any written comments received will.be handed out at the meeting. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request per Section 9.210.020 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. ANALYSIS 1. Public view of the temporary storage containers are limited by the surrounding built environment. A five (5) foot high masonry wall at the Sam's Club gas station limits views from the east, while the PetSmart building and green mesh construction fence block views from the west. 2. The proposed temporary storage containers comply with the sixty (60) foot safety setback clearing area, set by 2001 California Building Code. 3. The placement of the temporary storage containers does not affect the traffic pattern for the.. Centre of La Quinta, as adequate space exists between the storage containers and the street curb to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 2007-106, subject to findings and the attached Conditions of Approval. P:\Reports - PC12007\ 11-1 3-07\CUP 07- 106 PetsmartlCUP 07-106 Petsmart (STAFF REPORT}.rt! Prepared by: Eric Ceja, Assist t Planner Attachments: 1 . location Map 2. Storage Container Sighting 3. Additional Site Photos P:\Reports - PC\2007\ 1 1 - 1 3-071CUP 07-106 PetsmartlCUP 07- 1 06 Petsmart 1ST AFF REPORT}.rt! PH #2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-892 APPLICANT: TARLOS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING ~ PLANS FOR A 7000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATION: SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 SOUTHWES:r CORNER OF DEPOT DRIVE IN THE KOMAR DESERT CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: KOMAR INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. GENERAL PLANt ZONING DESIGNATIONS: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE, REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2005-539 PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2005-075, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 33960, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 4, 2006. NO CHANGES CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166 SINCE THIS PROJECT IMPLEMENTS SPECIFIC PLAN 2005-075; SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: HIGHWAY 111, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL COSTCO, COMMERCIAL PARK MIMI'S CAFE (RESTAURANT), REGIONAL COMMERCIAL VACANT, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL BACKGROUND: Tarlos and Associates are proposing a Souplantation restaurant on a pad within the Komar Desert Center (Attachment 1) located on the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Depot Drive, opposite the project entry from the previously approved Mimi's Cafe restaurant. The Komar Desert Center Specific Plan 2005-075 was approved by the City Council on January 3, 2006. Three previous Site Development Permits have been reviewed and approved for the Komar Desert Center. The first approval was for Costco (by the City Council) on January 3, 2006; the second was for seven retail buildings proposed north of Costco on February 13, 2007; and the third was for a 6,480 square foot Mimi's Cafe restaurant on April 10, 2007. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The proposed 7,000 square foot restaurant is a custom designed desert contemporary building with tiered massing that includes painted plaster, stack stone highlights, recessed windows, and canopies (Attachments' 2 and 3). The main entrance is located at the southeast corner of the building with patrons exiting the building from the door at the south elevation. A portion of the north elevation facing Highway 111 will consist of split-face blocks. Most windows on the building are either recessed or covered by a canopy to provide shading. The service yard located at the northeast corner of the site will be fully enclosed by a wall with a metal gate painted to match the building. All proposed lighting fixtures attached to the building will be dark-sky compliant. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened behind the parapet which extends six to eight feet above the roof. The surrounding parking area serving the proposed restaurant has been previously approved. The building has been designed to have some variation and undulation of both the massing and height. Forward depth of the building elevations will range from one to two feet. Variation of the roofline will range by five feet with the tallest point of the building at 24 feet in height. Roofline parapets will have a metal cap painted a contrasting color. The building is located behind the landscaping setback and berm, 56.5 feet from the Highway 111 right-of-way. Landscaping The applicants have identified a water-efficient landscaping design containing Chinese Pistache, Mimosa (Silk), and Shoestring Acacia trees, and Texas Rangers, Agave, Red Yucca,' Desert Spoon, Waxleaf Privet, and Desert Ruellia for shrubs (Attachment 4). The Komar Desert Center landscaping palate uses the same plant selections, but has a greater variety. The groundcover will consist of decomposed granite. The applicants will be providing landscaping around the immediate perimeter of the building, as the surrounding landscaping has already been approved as a part of the Komar Desert Center and will be installed as those buildings are constructed. ANALYSIS The proposed restaurant is a geometrically-designed contemporary style similar to the approved buildings in the Komar Desert Center and consistent with the Komar Desert Center Specific Plan design guidelines. The color scheme will consist of a palate similar to the other existing and approved buildings on the site. The landscaping palate will also be consistent with the overall' Komar Desert Center landscaping. The applicants have provided some level of detail and variation to the building's cubic elevations, but the general footprint remains rectangular. The use of canopies, expansion. joints, and recessed windows provide some relief. The applicant has made an effort to be consistent with the overall architectural style and design of the Komar Desert Center shopping center (Attachment 5) while still maintaining an individual identity. Overall, the project, as presented, is consistent with the Specific Plan and complies with applicable zoning requirements. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of October 24, 2007. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2007-028, recommending approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into this review: 1 . Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional, reviewed by the ALRC and Public Works Director, and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the first building permit. An ap'plication for Final Landscape Plan Check shall be submitted to the Planning Department for final landscape plan review. Said plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project, including perimeter landscaping, certified to comply with the 50% parking lot shading requirement, and be in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Planning Department. 2. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. All trash enclosures shall have a color and finish consistent with the buildings. 4. The applicant shall provide two additional trees along the south elevation in order to provide some additional shading for parking and the building. 5. The applicant shall substitute the Texas Rangers along the split face block wall on the north elevation with an alternative specimen that provides some vertical relief, similar to those identified in the color elevations. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 2, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.110 of the Zoning Code. To date, no comments have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All agency comments received are on file with the Planning Department and have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: As required by LQMC Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits), findings to approve Site Development Permit 2007-892 can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_, approving Site Development Permit 2007-892, subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1 . Site plans and line elevations 2. Color building elevations 3. Color building rendering 4. Landscaping plans 5. Sample elevations from other buildings within Komar Desert Center Prepared by: drew J. Mogensen rincipal Planner - --, , PH #3 \ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2007-094 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA OUINTA REQUEST: AMEND LA OUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9, CHAPTER 9.60 TO MODIFY THE CITY'S DENSITY BONUS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IN,ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW LOCATION: CITY-WIDE PROPERTY OWNER: NOT APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN I ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALlTY ACT (CEOA). AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061 (B)(3) AND SECTION 15282(H)' OF THE CEOA GUIDELINES. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NOT APPLICABLE BACKGROUND: The State has recently made a series of significant changes to the portion of the State Housing Law that provides density bonuses to housing projects that make a certain percentage of their units affordable to persons and families of very low-, low- and moderate-income. As a result of these changes, the City of La Ouinta's current ordinance regarding density bonuses for affordable housing projects has become outdated. The proposed Code Amendment text, Attachment 1, is intended to bring the City's ordinance (LOMC Section 9.60.270) into compliance with the new State requirements. Previously, State law required a 25% increase in the density of a project when 10% to 20% of the project's total units met the low and moderate affordability requirements. The new law significantly increased incentives in a variety of ways and substantially restricts the City's discretionary authority to impose development standards and restrictions. PROPOSAL: The new legislation, SB 1818 (chaptered as Government Code Section 65915- 65918), which became effective January 1, 2005, requires cities and counties to revise their ordinances to bring them into conformity with these new State mandates. The new law significantly reduces the amount of, units that a developer must provide to receive a density bonus and requires cities and counties to provide between one to three concessions, depending upon the percentage of affordable units that the developer provides. It also imposes a new land donation rule, mandatory density bonuses for qualified senior housing proje~ts, mandatory density bonuses for affordable residential projects with a qualifying childcare facility, and State-wide parking standards that supercede local parking regulations for projects that include affordable housing components. In short, the new law imposes a number of far-reaching State mandates for projects qualifying for a density bonus. ANALYSIS The following is a breakdown of the eight areas of new requirements. 1. Primary Density Bonus Provisions In order to qualify for the density bonus program, a developer must provide a minimum level of affordable housing and must request the benefit of Section 65915. The number of affordable units that a developer must provide in order to receive a density bonus varies by level of affordability and is significantly reduced from prior law as follows: . If at least 5% of the units are affordable to very low-income households, the project is eligible for a minimum 20% density bonus. . If at least 10% of the units are affordable to low-income households, then the project is eligible for a minimum 20% density bonus. . If 10% of condominium or planned development units are affordable to moderate-income households, then the project is eligible to receive a 5% density bonus. In addition to these minimum thresholds, the new law enacts a "sliding scale" for additional affordable units, thus permitting developers to exceed the minimums noted above: . An additional 2.5% density bonus for each additional increase of 1 % very- low income units above the initial 5% threshold as illustrated in the following - ' table. Percentage Very Percentage , Low-Income Density Bonus Units 5 20 6 22.5 7 25 8 27.5 9 30 10 32.5 11 35 (maximum) Sample Scenario: If a project is permitted a maximum total of 100 units per the property's zoning designation and the project proposes five (5) of those units as very low-income units, the project would receive a twenty percent (20%) density bonus over the original maximum allowed 100 units for a new total of, 120 units ,.., allowed on the same property. . A density increase of 1.5% for each additional 1 % increase in low-income units above the initial 10% threshold. Percentage Percentage Low-Income Density - Units Bonus , 10 20 1 1 21.5 12 23 13 24.5 14 26 15 27.5 17 30.5 18 32 19 33.5 20 35 (maximum) . A 1 % density increase for each 1 % increase in moderate-income units above the initial 10% threshold. Percentage Percentage Moderate- Income Units Density Bonus 10 5 1 1 6 12 7 13 8 14 9 15 10 16 11 17 12 18 13 19 14 20 15 21 16 22 17 23 18 24 19 25 20 26 21 27 22 28 23 29 24 30 25 31 26 32 27 33 28 34 29 35 , 30 36 31 37 32 38 33 39 34 40 35 (maximum) These bonuses reach a maximum density bonus of 35% when a project provides either 11 % very low-income units, 20% low-income units, or 40% moderate- income units. 2. Land Donation Additional density is available to projects that donate land ,for residential use. To qualify for this additional density, the land must satisfy all of the following requirements: . The applicant donates the land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application. . The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being donated are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low-income households ,in an amount not less than 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development. . The donated land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units; has the appropriate General Plan designation; is appropriately zoned for development as affordable housing; is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure; and is zoned in a manner that makes the development of the affordable units feasible. Additionally, 'the land' and units must be subject to a recorded deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units. . The land is donated to the City or to a housing developer approved by the City. . The donated land shall be within the boundary of the proposed development or, if the City agrees in writing, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the p'roposed :development. . If these conditions are met, the applicant shall be entitled to' a 15% increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire housing development. This increase shall be in addition to any increase in mandated density, up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 35%. Sample Scenario: Using the previous scenario, if the project donates to the City enough land to yield ten very low affordable units (10% of original 100 units), the project will receive an additional bonus of 15 units (15% of original 100 units) in addition to the initial bonus of 20 units for a new overall total of 135 units. 3. Parking Standards If a project qualifies for a density bonus, the developer may request (and the City must grant) new parking standards for the entire residential development project (i.e., not just for the affordable units or the density bonus units). The new standards are: . zero to one bedroom - one onsite parking space; . two to three bedrooms - two onsite parking spaces; and . four or more bedrooms - two and one-half onsite parking spaces. These ratios apply to guest parking as well as handicapp~d parking and may be tandem, uncovered, or located on a private street within the perimeter of the project's site plan. Parking spaces on a public street, adjacent to the project or otherwise, cannot be counted. For a comparison of these ratios, the City's standard parking ratios and those applied to a previously approved affordable housing project (Dune Palms, CVHC), please see the following table. To facilitate the comparison, the sample scenario project, which has grown to 135 units based on potential density bonuses, is used to show how the three alternative set of standards would be applied. Standard Requirements Sample (135 units 1 BRs/65 3BRs) Scenario with 35 2BRs/35 Approved Affordable Housing Project (Dune Palms - based on existing CVHC pro'acts) Sample Scenario (135 units with 35 1 BRs/65 2BRs/35 3BRs) ',1 covered , resident space + .5 guest space per unit !i'j!~I'i!'I!l:!iul'!:1Iimr:ijiji~i~i1:;i':): :fl!;ifjl.!i1ri";-: . 1.2 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit ;''"'i::;!;;'t;!; . ..I;::~~:q, ::~~~6~:~~,::!!:: 2 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit :,;rhreeor':more' '~~df6b~~:. .' 3 covered resident spaces + .5 covered resident spaces for each bedroom over 3 + .5 guest space per unit 277 covered resident spaces + 68 guest spaces equaling 345 total spaces (2.55 spaces per unit) 1 .5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 1.5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest : space per unit 1 .5 covered resident spaces + .5 guest space per unit 203 covered resident spaces + 68 guest spaces equaling 271 total spaces (2 spaces per unit) New State Requirement (proposed ordinance) 1 space* 1 space* 2 spaces * 2 spaces * Sample Scenario ( 135 units with 35 1 75 total . (1. 75 1 BRs/65 2BRs/35 spaces spaces per unit) 3BRs) . '::, ',:,i"'; ":" '-:':',,'_'''''";;,''--:'; '," ;"" "':"- _,,,!_.,.:,:,:,,...,,..:..j"T"',''''''':':'i!<ii -.' """'''''~ - -iF"," :"""'T'("',;'" .; ::;!':';'''' beCt'andem'aHd1uhcovered :~;:]nclt'ldes::handicapped ':spa'ce's';::: ue'sfspaces:'ahd'may 4. Continued Affordability The continued affordability requirements for very low and low-income units have not changed. However, there are new requirements for moderate-income units that are (i) for-sale, and (ii) part of a common interest development. The new law specifies that the city or county must ensure that the "initial occupants" of qualifying moderate-income units meet the income qualifications. This is done through a new mechanism of "equity sharing" agreements. Upon resale of the moderate-income units in a common interest development, the, seller retains the down payment, the value of any improvements, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. The City recaptures its proportionate share of appreciation and those funds must be used within three years to promote lower or moderate-income home ownership. ,In this regard, the State law substantially differs from our existing Code provision. The proposed Ordinance meets the new requirements while maintaining the City's ability to demand a right of first refusal in the event a qualifying moderate-income unit is sold. The proposed Ordinance is drafted to retain, as much as possible consistent with State law, the affordability restrictions that presently exist in the Municipal Code for affordable units other than moderate-income units for sale in common interest developments. With respect to moderate-income units that are in common interest developments, State law imposes the conditions described above and the proposed Ordinance is consistent with those conditions. 5. Concessions or Incentives The City must grant one or more "concessions or incentives" reducing development standards, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided. "Concessions and incentives" include reductions in zoning standards, other development standards, design requirements, mixed use zoning, and any other incentive that would reduce costs for the developer. Any project that meets the minimum criteria for a density bonus is entitled, as a matter of right under State law, to one concession from the City, increasing up to a maximum of three concessions depending upon the amount of affordable housing provided. Again, the number of concessions or incentives granted takes the form of a sliding scale: . For projects that provide either 5% of the units affordable to very low- income households, 10% of the units affordable to lower income households,' or 10% moderate-income common interest development households, then the developer is entitled to ,a minimum of one concession. . When the number of affordable units is increased to 10% very low-income units, 20% lower income units, or 20% moderate-income units, then the developer is entitled to a minimum of two concessions: . When the number of affordable units is increased to 1 5 % very low-income, 30% lower income, or 30% moderate-income units, then the number of minimum concessions is increased to three. There are some limits on concessions. The City shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following: . The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable ,housing costs or for rents for the targeted units; or . The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in the Government Code. For instance, if the developer asks for a concession to a zoning standard, such as a height limitation, the City may deny the request if it shows that the additional height would have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses. This finding would need to be supported by evidence showing how the additional height would be detrimental. 6. Waivers and Modifications of Development Standards The City may not impose a "development standard" that makes it infeasible to construct the housing development with the proposed density bonus. In addition to requesting "incentives and concessions," applicants may request the waiver of an unlimited number of "development standards"; however, the applicant must show that the waivers are needed to make the project economically feasible. As mentioned with the general concessions, a waiver of development standards may be denied if either of the following findings is made and supported by sufficient evidence in the record: . The waiverlmodification is not required to make the proposed affordable housing units feasible; or . The waiverlmodification will have a specific adverse impact. 7. Senior Citizen Projects Qualified senior citizen projects shall receive a 20% density bonus. Qualified senior developments include "senior citizen housing developments", with a minimum of 35 dwelling units or a mobile-home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older. 8. Bonuses for Childcare Facilities A developer may qualify for a density bonus by providing achildcare center (not a family daycare home) within or adjacent to the development. Where the development otherwise qualifies for a density bonus, and the developer agrees to include a child care facility onsite or adjacent to the site, the developer is entitled to an additional density bonus in the amount of the square footage of the childcare or an additional concession or incentive if that concession or incentive contributes to the economic feasibility of construction of the childcare facility. Where a childcare facility is provided in conjunction with the granting of a density bonus, the following provisions apply: . The childcare facility shall be operable at least as long 'as the affordable units are required to remain affordable; . The children attending the childcare center are required to qualify based on household income in the same percentage as the percentage of affordable housing in the development in accordance with the proportional affordability level; . The number ,of children at each affordability level must be the same or greater than the percentage required. If a finding can be made that there is sufficient child care facilities in the community, no concession or density bonus is required to be given. Notably, the statute provides no guidance as to how these findings and requirements (some of which are inherently impractical, if not impossible, to enforce) are to be made or enforced. Sample Scenario Summary Through the application of the new State mandated changes, the project which started as a 100 unit development has grown to include 135 units with a 12.5% reduction of required parking from previously approved affordable housing projects. Additionally, the project may be entitled to a further bonus if providing a childca{e facility onsite or adjacent to the project and the applicant may also request additional concessions such as reduced setbacks and height requirements as well as other design standards. PUBLIC NOTICE This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on November 2, 2007. To date, no letters have been received. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW A copy of this Departments. Department. Amendment. request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City All ,written comments received are on file with the Planning Applicable comments have been included in the proposed STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this Amendment can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- ,recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2007-094 to the City Council. Exhibits: 1. Proposed Code Amendment Text Prepared by: ~~~Il- David Sawyer ' Planning Manager