Loading...
2008 12 09 PC MinutesMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 9, 2008 7:04 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Quill to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, Robert Wilkinson, and Chairman Ed Alderson. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of November 12, 2008 and November 25, 2008. There being no changes, or corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued -Environmental Assessment 2008-602 and General Plan Amendment 2008-1 12; a request for consideration of an Amendment of the La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element, Amending Exhibit 3.3 Street Cross Sections - City Streets, Exhibit 3.5 City Roadway Classifications, and Exhibit 3.10 the Multi-Purpose Trails Map, located City-wide. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. P:\Reports - PC\2009\7-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-08_Approved.doc Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Principal Planner Mogensen presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the differences from the old street profiles to the new. Staff displayed the street cross section slide showing the modified secondary arterial and collector streets. Staff stated these all involved Secondary Arterial streets and explained what the changes were as stated in the staff report. Planning Director Johnson added information on the modified collector street. He also said in getting up and over the Bureau Of Reclamation dike, a matching 74 foot width design is unrealistic and there are challenges with regards to width of right-of-way and slope easements. It is not currently being envisioned built at that width, but much narrower. That determination would be based, at the time of design, and what can work within that area. The intent is to make sure there are two lanes of traffic and the ability to have means for a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if there was currently any firm plans for traveling over the levee on the 74 foot width or was that wider than what was currently planned. Planning Director Johnson responded by saying right now the General Plan shows it is wider, and it is the standard Secondary Arterial (four-lane road). Staff's intent is to narrow that down to the minimum necessary in order to, get up and over the dike. Commissioner Wilkinson said, based on the traffic counts and the lanes of travel, he didn't quite understand how staff had arrived at this point. Planning Director Johnson said one of the main reasons was the developers of the Travertine project requested City staff reconsider the current General Plan requirements for the streets in that area. A report was created which included the Travertine and Green Specific Plans, development activity within Section 5, and other build-out scenarios; including a post 2020, which is our General Plan build-out. The information in the 2002 General Plan was basically updated to show there was not a need to have the secondary arterial, four-lane road serving this entire area. He then provided information on the current trip rate, as well as the estimated rate, and explained how staff reached their decision. He added, however, if the Avenue 62 crossing does not occur those trips will have to be adjusted somewhere. The majority of those trips would probably end up being on Madison Street which would have to accommodate a higher traffic count. That would then change staff's position on the recommendation for Madison Street. He then explained P:`,Repons - PC\2009`,1-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-08 Approved.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 how it would be modified and what would prompt that modification. He said Principal Planner Mogensen was currently processing the Travertine Specific Plan Amendment and it still had to go through the entitlement process. If that Specific Plan were approved, it could reduce the number of units as well as the traffic count. That case could be before the Planning Commission sometime next year, but that information could not be used in this report since it is an application in process. Based on the staff report, it's identifying that if that crossing did not occur then the Madison Street traffic volume would warrant afour-lane road. Commissioner Wilkinson had concerns about the trails, and what was currently in La Quinta's Sphere of Influence as well as the County. He asked staff about the Class II bike trails and wondered if they were compatible, or lined up, with the Vista Santa Rosa trails and easements as well as being a consideration in the planning of the trails. Staff said, at this point, it had not been taken into consideration and explained why. Commissioner Wilkinson said he was concerned about access for fire and safety personnel and asked if there were alternate locations in case the plans change. Staff replied no. They had not seen any available locations other than the three right-of-way locations at Jefferson Street, Madison Street, and Avenue 62. Planning Director Johnson said the Bureau of Reclamation process for approval to cross over the levees and dikes is long and involved and that is why there is definitely a focus on limiting those access points to specific locations. Commissioner Quill said he thought the levee trail had been discussed at the last meeting, as well as the fact there was a planned trail on top of the levee already identified. The Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District is looking at it and the Bureau of Reclamation is open to those concepts. He thought the City had considered it advantageous just to reflect it, in the General Plan, to ensure that it would not be precluded by the General Plan if it came to fruition. He asked staff if there was any reason not to do that. Staff said it would certainly not be precluded, but the Commission had the option to recommend that it be added at this time. Staff's intention was to add that with the major update to the General Plan. He added, ironically, there is a segment that exists right up near Lake Cahuilla that's on the General Plan, but was not continued south of the Coral Mountain grouping of mountains. He then went on to describe the segment and P:1Reports - PC~2009~1-13-09APC MIN 12-05-08 Approved.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 9. 2008 said the City has spoken with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District about it, and it was even mentioned in the Bureau of Reclamation Easement Agreement with Hoffman Land Company. That could potentially be transferred to the City, at a later date. It recognizes and acknowledges the fact that we have to accommodate a trail crossing when Madison Street is built up and over the dike. Commissioner Quill said there were two significant advantages to showing it: 1) as the levee goes into the rock, this would ensure there would be a connecting trail by the mountain irregardless of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and 2) if it is on the General Plan outside entities would have the opportunity to come to the City and apply for grants. They would then be able to use the levee as a Class I bike trail. He said he would like to see that occur now as opposed to waiting for the General Plan update. Commissioner Barrows said as a follow-up to Commissioner Quill's comments, it would be helpful to be able to see the trails proposed from other entities. She added information on some of the changes which had been discussed with Gayle Cady regarding access from the east. She agreed this needed to be added now. Commissioner Barrows had some concerns over various maps included in the staff report. Staff went over them and explained what was shown on each of the pages and why each one was included. Examples were then given of where the various trails were shown and staff added there had been some technical difficulties with the maps. Commissioner Barrows said her concern was with removing portions of the trails. She pointed out where the trail would be located and noted on one of the maps, on page 4, it suggested the trail go through the middle of the Travertine project. Staff replied there was a lot of leeway as to where the trail was specifically located. Planning Director Johnson said Page 3 would be the actual exhibit staff used and the trails were approximate. This was not intended to be exact in defining those routes. Commissioner Barrows said she made the assumption, because of references in the staff report, but she just wanted clarification. P:\Reports- PC\20090-13-091PC MIN 12-09-08 Approved.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Commissioner Barrows asked, in reference to the extension of Avenue 62, was staff proposing that it go from a wider street to a modified collector street. Staff replied that was correct. Planning Director Johnson said it was staff's position there was not a need for the four-lane road. It was however inconsistent with the County. Staff notified the County of the proposed amendment and they have not commented back. Staff believes atwo-lane road would adequately service that area. Commissioner Weber asked if the County based their decision on a four- lane versus two-lane road on the old traffic count. Planning Director Johnson said it was based on the old County General Plan, which is some of the same information which the City used. This has changed since the build out. Commissioner Weber asked if it was done in the year 2000 or prior. Staff replied probably around 2000. Commissioner Weber commented on slide 3 and asked where Section 5 was located as well as where the Martinez Slide and Class I Trail were noted in the current General Plan. Staff pointed out the location of those features. Commissioner Weber asked where the levee trail would be located if it were added. Commissioner Quill responded with the location. Chairman Alderson asked staff about the calls received in reference to the application, and what they were related to. Staff said one was related to Section 5 and had nothing to do with the reclassification. The balance of the calls were general information questions sparked by the public notification. Chairman Alderson asked staff to put up the drawing which referenced trip counts. He said all the four additional street sections before the Commission were to accommodate streets in and around these proposed future projects and they were all based on the assumption that Avenue 62 would go over the dike. If Avenue 62 did not go over the dike all the streets, with the exception of Madison, were subject to re-evaluation. The Commissioners were not being asked to approve these conditioned upon whether or not that overpass would, or would not, go through. P:1Reporis-PC~2009A1-13-09APC MM 12-09-08 Approved tloc 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Planning Director Johnson said staff was not making a recommendation that Avenue 62 not go over. The recommendation was that the General Plan call-out for the location of the road would stay as is but there be a narrowing of the right-of-way and the number of lanes being assigned to it. Within the study that was submitted to staff there were multiple scenarios that were identified as considered. Staff focused in essentially on one of those scenarios because the others were not really appropriate. Certainly if that crossing did not occur, the 6,150 estimated trips would have to go somewhere and some of those trips would probably impact Jefferson Street with an increase of trips. However, the majority of them, most likely, would end up on Madison Street and that number would increase. There being no further questions of staff, and since the City was the applicant, there was no further comment from applicant representatives. Chairman Alderson then asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Jim Hildenbrand, Travertine/Hoffman Land Development, 77-852 Wildcat Drive, Palm Desert, CA, introduced himself and asked to address a couple of comments. He said this discussion was regarding a General Plan Amendment and they were generally vague and broad. The focus narrowed down to traffic counts versus when the development is completed. He explained what they are currently looking at and what may occur in the future as well as the reduction of these road sections and alternatives. He said they were the instigators to get staff to move forward with these alternatives. They are in total support of what staff is trying to accomplish with regard to the General Plan. Travertine's position is that perhaps Avenue 62 may not be necessary in the future. One has to evaluate the necessity of that particular road. Their Specific Plan demonstrates that Avenue 62 is probably not necessary. Modified road sections could probably handle the trip count. This has changed dramatically from when the plan was originally done. It was a more intense development but the future Travertine is less dense. They would like the Commission to look closely at Avenue 62. He explained the procedures they went through to obtain a license, from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR-, for Madison Street and said they were very fortunate to have that license. The City has a license agreement that's outstanding for Jefferson at this point. As far as the trails are concerned, he agreed with Commissioner Quill and said it is important to get it on the dike. We have an commitment through both the Park District (CVPRD) and the BOR, with their license, that that be acknowledged and we have to address that for them as to how that will interrelate to our trail plan. We P\Reports- PC12009~t-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-08 Approved.dac 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 do, in effect, have a license from BOR for trail purposes on the dike. We are going to have a lot of flexibility that we are going to have to do for our trail routing, and our trail section, particularly in the Martinez Slide area. We recognize that we will have some areas to work around due to environmental considerations. They have worked with the BOR and US Fish & Wildlife Service on the trail plans. We are looking at numbers today, and looking at what we anticipate will come to you with the Specific Plan which will change. He asked that the Commission move this forward to the Council. The only thing he added was a proposed alternative, and asked if it could be implemented as part of this approval. He said it should free up any debate in the event they could provide this alternative section for Madison Street between Avenues 60 and 62. He then offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Quill asked Mr. Hildenbrand if he would accept tonight's decision, but look at the change somewhere down the road. Mr. Hildenbrand said they recognize the need to move forward today with the General Plan designation. He wanted the Commissioners to be aware, in the future, they will be providing proof of the lowered density and there will be no necessity for this connection. They can then address the additional issues of public safety, and fire. Staff pointed out it comes with the ability to change that section to whatever is supported by Public Works and staff and traffic issues and all the other things that come along. This would recognize a positive answer to Commissioner Quill's question. Commissioner Barrows said she wanted to make sure she understood Mr. Hildenbrand's recommendation of November 12, 2008. She understood the explanation of Avenue 62 over the dike and wanted to clarify the re- classification of Monroe Street and the eastern right-of-way. Mr. Hildenbrand said her understanding was correct. Ms. Margo Thibeault, MSA Consulting, 34-200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage CA, introduced herself and said she was representing Mr. Howard Keck. She said the Commission had a letter, which she presented on November 12, 2008. She, as well as her client, were in opposition to the extension of Avenue 62 over the dike for financial reasons. Chairman Alderson summarized what was in the previous letter. P:'~,Reports - PC\20090-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-OS Approved.doc ~ Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Commissioner Wilkinson asked, other than saying her client wouldn't want the Avenue 62 extension, what information did she have to support that decision. Ms. Thibeault said they contacted some prominent La Quinta developers and asked them to evaluate the costs. Their response was there is significant land loss, increased noise, and decrease of worth to the lot next to the road. Included in that were construction costs, easements, etc. which could comprise a loss of up to $12.8 million to Mr. Keck's property. Commissioner Barrows asked Ms. Thiebeault to clarify that her proposal was that Avenue 62 not extend over the dike and asked if there was an existing two lane paved road over the dike. Ms. Thibeault said she was not sure if it qualified as a full two lane but there was currently a paved road there. Commissioner Quill said it was not a paved road but an access road for the Bureau Of Reclamation and the Coachella Valley Water District. Commissioner Barrows asked if the request of Ms. Thibeault's client was that there not be a road that goes over the dike at all. Ms. Thibeault said that was correct. Commissioner Quill said there's an existing road on a very steep slope that goes over the levee for purposes of maintenance and asked if Ms. Thibeault had any problem with leaving that road. She responded she did not. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber agreed with the trails addition. He added he would like to give the developer more options, and he was not clear on the issue of Avenue 62. He said it did seem to be something that had to be addressed, as well as the issue of access. Commissioner Barrows said she was having difficulty with the issue of Avenue 62, especially if the extension was not approved. She had concerns with the traffic count issue on Madison Street, and the access issue identified by the Fire Department. She added when the Travertine P~\Reports - PC\2009\i-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-OS Approved.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 project moves forward and the Commission had a better understanding of what that project would require, in terms of access points, then the appropriate adjustment could be made. Staff responded saying there was nothing that would prevent the Commission from re-visiting Avenue 62 and the issue of access over that dike at that time. But staff's position is they do not have a definitive amendment to the Travertine Specific Plan they can utilize as information since that matter still has to go through the entitlement process. Mr. Hildenbrand has stated they are reducing their numbers and that can be validated. The information being processed does show reduced numbers but it still has to go to the Planning Commission and Council for approval before staff can use those numbers in making a decision. It's quite a dilemma knowing something is coming but it still has to be approved and staff can not use that as base information to make a recommendation to the Commission. Staff added there are additional options with regards to the issue of access for emergency services. Mr. Hildenbrand has met with the Fire Department. Those options have large costs associated with them but that would need to be considered during the Specific Plan Amendment process. If that option comes up the applicant will have to make a business decision as to what they are willing to support but, at this point in time, fire access is an important factor in this. Also, if the Commission did amend the General Plan, and at this time, did not identify that crossing against staff's recommendation that recommendation would change with regards to Madison Street because (based on the current counts) it would warrant afour-lane road for Madison Street from Avenue 60 south. Commissioner Barrows said she had wondered why it needed to be approved now and staff had answered her question. Planning Director Johnson said if the Commission did not approve this Amendment this would revert back to a four lane collector road in accordance with the Circulation Element. Commissioner Barrows asked if the Commission could approve the change from an arterial to collector and not approve the extension of Avenue 62. She said, according to staff, if the Commission did that staff would have to come back with a different recommendation for Madison Street. P:AReports PCA20090-13-09APC MIN 12-09-OS Approved Uoc 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Staff responded saying, yes, Madison Street would have to change because there would be an approved Specific Plan which if it were built out in accordance to what it's entitled to, would exceed the count that is estimated for Madison Street by quite a bit. Commissioner Barrows asked in terms of the Fire Department access, if this was an alternative exit/entry for Travertine as well as a fire access. Staff said that was correct, it would be a standard two-lane road. Commissioner Quill asked if it was within the Commission's purview to propose the elimination of the crossing at Avenue 62, since the matter before the Commission was a General Plan Amendment to alter the General Plan streets. Planning Director Johnson responded it was something that wasn't a part of the Environmental Review that was done. Commissioner Quill said he was not suggesting it be done, but could they if they were so inclined. Assistant City Attorney Houston said in a technical sense, staff's response was correct that you would be changing a project description in a way that has not been subject to environmental review. However the Planning Commission is a recommending body and if it was the Commission's recommendation to Council that it should be eliminated and the Council agreed, there would be the very problem that has been raised. There would have to be additional supplemental environmental documentation that would support that. Therefore it would probably not be appropriate to make that recommendation because it would have to go back through the process again. Commissioner Quill said that was his question. His other comment was to request the addition of the levee trail. He added he hoped there was going to be enough evidence to eliminate the road since there were negative aspects to building the road. He did not agree with the fire issue since there were already two accesses into the project, which was the usual requirement for developments. Those two accesses provide for the alternative accesses. Aside from that, he was in favor of the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the levee crossing as well as the extension of Avenue 62. He wondered if there was a way to move the rest of the project forward without the extension of Avenue 62. P.AReports - PC~2009~1-13-091PC MIN 12-0&OS ApprovoU doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Planning Director Johnson said the current General Plan designation is a four-lane arterial. He then explained the impact to the property owners and the information presented in the staff report. He gave the Commissioners the option of directing staff to take another look at the matter and advised it could cause a delay of another month. He added the other alternative would be to go with what has been recommended, making that recommendation to Council. If Council upholds that then there was nothing to prevent Hoffman Land Company from coming back later on, after they've gone through the Specific Plan Amendment process, and making a request for the potential elimination of Avenue 62 based on the amended specific plan. Chairman Alderson asked if the Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment were approved, as recommended, would Mr. Hildenbrand have the ability of working with staff on alternative street sections if the project changes enough to alter the trip counts. Staff replied there was no option for flexibility on the Madison Street section like there was on Avenue 62. He said typically what happens, and what Public Works likes to see, is the crown of the road in the middle of the right-of-way. This creates a problem if additional lanes have to be added if circumstances warranted. You would have to have the ability to make that happen with the right-of-way. If you offset the street to one side you have to rebuild the entire street to make it work. You can't have a crown offset to one side. He added there was a long section of road from Avenue 60 into the Travertine project that, in all likelihood, was not going to see much intensity of development at all. That area included some private landholdings but the majority of that was the CVWD recharge ponds. So there was some value and benefit in establishing amulti-purpose paved trail on one side instead of the standard trail which includes a sidewalk and amulti-purpose decomposed granite (dg) trail on one side and then just a sidewalk on the other side. We need to consolidate that effort into one all-weather surface ten or twelve foot wide trail on one side accommodating all of those uses. You could even add an equestrian route right next to that. We believe Mr. Hildenbrand's interest is in trying to offset that so you have additional width on one side to meander that and better accommodate it. The challenge we are facing, if you offset it again, is it is going to limit the ability to ever add additional lanes later on. You would have to totally rebuild the road in order to do that. That's why we have continued to stay with the Modified Secondary Arterial A as a recommendation. P:\Reports~ PC\2009.1-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-OS Approved.doc If Planning Commission Minutes December 9. 2008 Chairman Alderson went back to his original statement which was if this is approved as presented, it doesn't necessarily lock in the Avenue 62 Overpass. That is an issue still to be determined down the road as pointed out earlier. It would not be locked and irrevocable. Planning Director Johnson responded if the Commissioners approved staff's recommendation, and if it was recommended to Council to reduce the right-of-way, the issue of the actual crossing would be dependent upon development activity that occurs in the area. At this time there is no development activity. There is a Specific Plan for Travertine but the development would dictate the actual crossing and the warranted need for the crossing. Chairman Alderson said but this recommendation would dictate the width, when and if it would occur, to be narrower. Staff said yes. Commissioner Quill commented that just like the Avenue 62 issue, the Madison Street issue could be addressed when the development occurs. In other words, when that project comes before the Commission it could be addressed in the same manner. He added if there is some issue with shifting the road, or right-of-way, the Commission could make the decision then. He asked if that was correct; and it would be considered a General Plan Amendment, the same as the elimination of Avenue 62. Planning Director Johnson replied that was correct. It would require a General Plan Amendment. He added if the Commission went with what was currently there, it would require the road being established in the middle of the right-of-way being equally distributed in the middle. Certainly in going through the process of approving the amendment to the Travertine Specific Plan, there could be a subsequent General Plan Amendment that comes in along with Avenue 62 that says Madison Street could be offset to one side and it would need to go through that process. Commissioner Quill asked if he was correct in assuming that aside from the two issues presented tonight, there really was nothing required from Travertine, in addition to their Specific Plan, to do a General Plan Amendment. He added, in other words, is there going to be a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone with their application irrespective of whether Avenue 62 is eliminated or not. Staff replied Travertine has made such an application and it is currently being processed. P 1Reports - PC~2009\i-13-091PC MIN 12-09-OS Approvetl doc jZ Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Commissioner Quill asked if the application was for a General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Specific Plan. Staff said that was correct. Commissioner Quill asked if there was a General Plan Amendment that would be coming before the Commission for that community, no matter what. Planning Director Johnson responded, specifically for that community, yes. Commissioner Quill asked, if these two issues needed to be resolved at that time would they become a part of that General Plan Amendment and analysis. Staff said it certainly could be incorporated in that. Commissioner Quill asked if they started moving in that direction and filing for that option and working with staff through that process, would it then come to the Commission. Either staff would not recommend it and they would still be asking us for it or staff would be finally in agreement with some compromise. He asked if that was correct Staff responded it was. Commissioner Quill said what the Commission was doing was reducing impact, and if this application was approved as submitted the impact would be reduced to all of the developers right now. However, their ability to do that with their own General Plan Amendment later was also an available option. Staff replied that was correct. Commissioner Barrows wanted to clarify that her collegues had expressed very eloquently some of her concerns and she appreciated the issues, that not approving the extension of Avenue 62, could potentially create. She said she agreed with Commissioner Quill on the elimination of Avenue 62 extending over the dike, especially if Travertine was going to become a more limited project than originally proposed. She expressed her concerns about the sensitivity of the area, too many roads, greenhouse gases and the possibility of making Madison Street wider. She wanted to know how to direct the discussion so when the various General Plan Amendments come back the Commission can really evaluate their impact. She added what they were doing today was reducing the impact and narrowing the width. She was concerned about Commissioner Quill's comments about building too many roads and asked how the Commission could start addressing this on a City-wide basis. She asked if, in the motion, the Commission could ask for some direction when it does come back. She appreciated the efforts made by staff to P.'~Reports- PCA2 00911-1 3-0 9APC MIN 12-09-08 Approved.doc ),3 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 evaluate the issues, but said the Commissioners need to take a more serious look at how they can really address this issue to understand this is a discussion about the impact on the quality of life and the environment. She wanted to know more about how the Commission could really make that happen. Commissioner Quill had questions on the timing of approval for the General Plan Update versus the approval of Mr. Hildenbrand's application along with the traffic analysis and the elimination of the road. Planning Director Johnson responded by explaining the processing procedures of the Specific Plan Amendment and the possible time frame of the General Plan Update. Chairman Alderson asked if they would see the Travertine Project first. Staff said they would see Travertine first. Staff responded with regards to the General Plan we have to go through a modeling process which includes the forecasting for growth within certain zones, and traffic analysis. Staff then explained what the procedures where for updating the General Plan and the process of traffic modeling. Planning Director Johnson added, as staff goes through the General Plan Update, the issue of greenhouse gases would also play a key role. Transportation is a pivotal part of the SB 375 Implementation. This will be a very involved process and it will have to be looked at very carefully, not only regarding Avenue 62, but in other areas of the community. Staff is very sensitive to these issues and building large expanses/widths of road for no real direct benefit is something that staff will be looking at. In all likelihood the Travertine Specific Plan Amendment will be before the Commission well in advance of the General Plan Amendment and a lot of those final hard decisions will be made during the General Plan Update process. Commissioner Quill commented on the traffic model numbers and the City's participation in the zoning of the area. He suggested the City try not to build the road, if possible. If it is not needed, the City should not build it. P AReports - PC\2009A1-13-09APC MIN 12-09-08 Approved.doc ]4 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Commissioner Quill said his direction to staff would be that they try not to build that road. There has been a lot of back and forth, with Trilogy and everything, to get this road built, but if we don't need the road then we shouldn't build it. Planning Director Johnson said staff's position is that if we don't need the road we don't want to build the road either. He then explained the limitations involved; i.e. Travertine has a Specific Plan, etc. Chairman Alderson reiterated if this is approved, as is, there will still be the opportunity to go back and visit the issues that Commissioners Quill and Barrows mapped out. We are not necessarily casting Avenue 62 into stone, nor guaranteeing it is to be built. He said all of these issues still can be discussed and negotiated in the future, but the basic outline would be committed and asked if that was correct Planning Director Johnson responded by saying essentially yes. If the Commissioners went with staff's recommendation they would be narrowing down the right-of-way width and number of lanes, but there is nothing that would prevent it from being re-visited at a future date. Chairman Alderson thanked staff and added the need for the road could be debated at a later point in time. Commissioner Barrows suggested that in their recommendation, to the Council, they incorporate some of these issues and asked staff if the recommendations should be included in the General Plan Amendment Resolution. Staff replied that was correct. There was no further discussion, and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve Resolution 2008-033 accepting Environmental Assessment 2008-602 as submitted. Unanimously approved. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Barrows/Quill to approve Resolution 2008-034 accepting General Plan Amendment 2008-112 as submitted, with the additional recommendations as noted below: a. That the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District's proposed trail atop Dike No. 4 be included on the Multi-Purpose Trails Map, and, P:\Reports - PC\2009\1-13-091PC MIN 12-09-08 Approved doc ]5 Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 b. That the decision as to whether (or not) there is a need for Avenue 62 to be extended west over Dike No. 4 be further considered at a later date; either in connection with the Travertine Specific Plan Amendment, currently being processed, or as part of the La Quinta General Plan update. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-866, Time Extension No. 1; a request of Trans West Housing for clarification of Condition No. 85 regarding interim landscaping located on the east side of Monroe Street, '/o mile south of Avenue 54. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Director Les Johnson presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Barrows concurred with the staff's recommendation and said the minutes gave an accurate report of the recommendation. Chairman Alderson confirmed they did not add a condition, but merely discussed the possibility of the interim landscaping. Commissioner Quill said the minutes accurately reflected the discussion and asked if the Commission needed to make a motion to reflect their decision. Planning Director Johnson said if the Commission felt the minutes accurately reflected their recommendations, then there was no further action needed, just clarification for the record. Staff wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding as to what was required of the applicant. Chairman Alderson said he concurred with the evaluation and conclusions of staff, as well as Commissioner Wilkinson, that Trans West had provided amore-than-adequate dust control program. He then asked the Commissioners if they concurred with staff's analysis, to which they responded they did. P.ARoports-PCA2009V1-13-09APC MW 12-09-08 Approved.doc ]( Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if there were any applicant representatives or comments. There being no further applicant comments Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. There being no further discussion, Chairman Alderson asked it be noted, for the record, that the Commissioners were all in concurrence that interim landscaping was not required and was not included as a part of Condition No. 85, of Site Development Permit 2006-866, Time Extension No. 1. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Quill was unable to attend the City Council Meeting of December 2, 2008. However, Commissioner Weber did attend and gave a report on the Council meeting including the discourse on the completion time for the Griffin Ranch project. Chairman Alderson added there was a lot of concern about the landscaping on the north side of the Avenue 52 wall. Commissioner Weber noted that Commissioner Quill had been recognized as one of the five Pillars Of The Community and congratulated him on this accomplishment. B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Weber was scheduled to report back on the December 16, 2008, Council meeting. C. Chairman Alderson commented on the Joint Meeting with Council and said he thought it was the best joint meeting he had attended. It was very productive and everyone had a chance for input. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: Planning Director Johnson brought up the discussion of a Joint Meeting with the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. A discussion of possible dates/times/formats followed. P',Reports - PCA2009'J-13-09APC MIN 12-0&06 APprovetl.d nc ]'J Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 Planning Director Johnson said he would confirm the date with the Commissioners, at the next meeting, but it would probably be scheduled to be in concurrence with the first meeting in February (2/10/091. Planning Director Johnson said the preparation for next year's Joint Council meeting would be handled differently; including agendizing the discussion of topics two months in advance and then validating them one month prior to the meeting. This would make the meeting not only more productive but would allow the Commissioners to "hone in" on the topics, more as a group. Staff would solicit individual topics, but then discussion could be held as a group at the Joint Meeting. Chairman Alderson said he would still like to see individual Commissioners have the opportunity to express their concerns; not just one person representing the group. Commissioner Barrows asked if staff had the date of the 2009 Joint Meeting. Staff responded it is in October or November and anticipated it would continue in that time frame. Staff responded they would report back, with that information, at the January 13, 2009 meeting. Commissioner Quill asked about the City's current case load. Planning Director Johnson said things have changed, but there were still projects coming in; such as a large master plan for the La Quinta Resort. He added the large projects provided a tremendous amount of work for staff. There was also a continuing strong interest in commercial entitlements which the Commission would be seeing sometime after the first part of the year. He added there is just not the line up of single family residential maps at this time. The City is experiencing a shifting in applications types as well as taking care of a lot of "housekeeping" matters, such as an update of the lighting ordinance and improvements that are important to the community. Commissioner Quill asked if there was anything the Commissioners could do to help staff since the agendas were not full. Planning Director Johnson thanked the Commissioners for their offer and told them they would be soon become busier with items such as the update of the General Plan which would take up numerous meetings. Chairman Alderson commented on the difficulty of identifying time frames by going over various reports and suggested the Commissioners receive a listing, with dates, showing everything coming up. Staff asked if there would be any P'.\Reports - PC\2009',1-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-OS Approved.tloc j$ Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2008 benefit to the Commissioners receiving a map with the projects listed. General discussion followed and direction was provided to information available on the City's website which would be of great benefit to the Commissioners. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on January 13, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. on December 9, 2008. Respectfully submitted, W Carolyn alker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P'~,Reports - PC\2009\1-13-09\PC MIN 12-09-08 APproved.dao 19