The URL can be used to link to this page

2009 10 13 PC�`a' C O City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now (x available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org cab OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California OCTOBER 13, 2009 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2009-031 Beginning Minute Motion 2009-008 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 September 22, 2009. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item .................. STREET NAME CHANGE 2009-019 Applicant........... East of Madison, LLC Location............ North of Baffin Avenue, West of Pike Place; Within the Madison Club Request ............. Consideration of a Recommendation to Change a Street Name from Fremont Way to Happy Place Lane. Action ............... Application withdrawn - no action required. B. Item .................. 2008 LA QUINTA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of a Recommendation for Adoption of the Proposed Draft of the 2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update Document. Action ............... Resolution 2009- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of October 6, 2009, by Chairman Alderson. B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the October 20, 2009, City Council meeting. C. Quarterly Attendance Record IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. 2009/2010 Work Program Report B. Update on Discussion Items Selected by ALRC for Inclusion at the Joint PC/ALRC/CC Meeting of October 27, 2009. X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on October 27, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 13, 2009 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Friday, October 9, 2009. DATED: October 9, 2009 kk ecretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA September 22, 2009 7:05 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 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. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. III I�1I�[�ZK�]JilPil�►1l�►L.7� III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the minutes of September 8, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment 2008-601, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment 7 Tentative Tract Map 36139, Site Development Permit 2008-907; a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC for consideration of plans to subdivide the project site and construct the PGA West Golf Villas; a 54-unit residential development consisting of single-family attached duplex units and community center, located in PGA West; on the west side of PGA Boulevard, south of Avenue 54. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Associate Planner Wuu also referred to a memorandum from Timothy Jonasson-Public Works Director, given to the Commissioners prior to the meeting which stated: Re: Requested Changes to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 36139 and Site Development Permit (SDPs) 2008-907 and 2009-911, Pyramid Project Management, LLC. Staff spoke with a representative of the developer team for the above mentioned project and recommends the following change to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for the above mentioned Tract Map and SDPs after publication of the Planning Commission Agenda report. The Public Works Department recommends the following changes: 1. Delete the following paragraph from Condition 44 of Tract Map 36139, Condition 33 of SDP 09-911 and Condition 36 of SDP 08-907: "Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta. " After the staff presentation and memorandum reference, Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows asked if the color palette was provided for in the current specific plan for PGA West. Staff said no; they allowed for architectural styles but did not provide an actual color scheme. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about Eden Rock's color palette and how it matched up with this project. Planning Director Johnson replied P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 it was probably were no colors applicant. more of a medium- to light -brown variation. There as dark as what was originally proposed by this Commissioner Wilkinson said he thought they were a little darker than what was typically out there. Staff responded they were. Chairman Alderson said there was a leasing office noted on the plans and asked if that was an error: Associate Planner Wuu said they were single-family homes for sale and not for lease and confirmed the leasing office designation was incorrect. Chairman Alderson asked the staff if the recommendation about the roof tile type and toning down of the color palette had been presented to the applicant. Staff said it had been discussed with the applicant. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Davis Sezna, 81-240 Golf View Drive, La Quinta, CA, President of La Quinta Resort and PGA West, introduced himself and gave some background on himself and his company. He then went on to give the history of the purchase of the La Quinta Resort and PGA West. He conveyed his impressions of the area and described what they wished to do but, with the economy, they were taking their time. He said they were. very excited about the Resort Master Plan and this development. He then introduced the Vice President of Pyramid Project Management, Mr. Hoeppner. Mr. Ken Hoeppner, Pyramid Project Management, One Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109, introduced their design team: Michael Olson (Z Design Group, Denver CO), Chris Bergh (MDS Consulting, La Quinta CA), Forrest Haag (Forrest Haag Landscape Architects, Laguna Beach CA), Rob Bernheimer, (CV Strategies, Special Entitlement Assistant to Pyramid, Indian Wells CA). Mr. Hoeppner then gave a power point presentation giving some detail of the renovations they have made to the resort and PGA West. He went on to discuss the benefits of their renovations; including water sensitivity. He re -stated the items presented in the staff report and showed site plans and color palettes. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Mr. Hoeppner commented on the review comments by staff beginning with stepbacks of the buildings. He said they went back to the design team and the new plans showed significant stepbacks in the buildings to give more depth to the building character. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Hoeppner to explain the stepbacks. Mr. Hoeppner said instead of having all the duplexes being flush across they have stepped them back approximately five feet, as well as staggering the buildings up-and-down the road so they were not as lineal. Mr. Hoeppner addressed the building colors on a power point slide. He used an analogy, relating to the colors and what they were trying to do. Mr. Hoeppner said it was their intent to create some vibrancy, architecturally, within the community and they have achieved that with the Stadium Clubhouse, as well as the private clubhouse. All of their nine golf courses are all unique and different as are the three restaurants within the spirit of the region and the community. Mr. Hoeppner commented on one of the items discussed, regarding more landscape buffer between the driveways and its relationship to water consumption. He said they have decided that the entry water feature, to the villas, would be deleted and they would do a landscape component instead. He then introduced Michael Olson, Principal with Z Design Group, 1877 Broadway, Boulder CO to talk about the architecture and how it related to the villas; as well as the color palette. Mr. Olson then showed a slide with regional style, architectural materials, and palettes that exist as the Coachella Valley home style. The projects ranged from Palm Springs through Indian Wells through La Quinta and showed the spirit of the style and color palette they wanted to use. He then pointed out the various types of materials and said sometimes, in the initial presentations, the colors show up a little darker. He commented on the color revisions made, after the ALRC meeting, and then showed slides with the new color palettes for the condominiums. He commented on the color identity used to create variety, interest and articulation on the various models. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Mr. Hoeppner said one of the key parts to this design was there needed to be continuity between the clubhouse design, the community building and the villas. Z Design is the architect for all of those and that is critical because they understand the transgression of the design. Mr. Olson continued with his power point presentation and discussed the fitness wing that was in addition to the PGA West Private Clubhouse. He explained the features of the two buildings; including such items as the concept of shading, and setback, for sun control and energy conservation and the components which currently exist in the Clubhouse. The intent was to play off those characteristics that work well in the existing building. He pointed out the features of the remodel versus the previous Clubhouse. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if any of the darker colors had been deleted. Mr. Olson put up the appropriate exhibit and commented on the stone being common in all the elevations and said the darker colors had been deleted. Chairman Alderson asked if the exhibit showed the revised version, after ALRC looked at it. Planning Director Johnson said this was a new exhibit that was being presented. The applicant had taken the information, from the ALRC, and staff was also seeing it for the first time. Commissioner Wilkinson asked Mr. Olson to put up the exhibit showing the Clubhouse and the design of the villas. He commented that one design was more contemporary than the other and asked if that was intentional to blend in with what was existing out there and asked how they arrived at this combination, in terms of compatibility. Mr. Olson said they would term the existing clubhouse as being more contemporary because of the nature of the glazing and the simplicity of the detailing. He then explained some of the architectural details and how the design was determined. Mr. Hoeppner added there were two applications, and part of the clubhouse was a transition from the existing architecture, which was quite bland, to what they were proposing. They wanted to introduce more colors and some vibrancy and have a bridge between the two. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 He said the Commission would see, (in the second application) how they took the original architecture and transformed it into something more unique and up-to-date. He added it's a fine line to try to bridge the gap between existing architecture and the community building and the residential units. Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff if one of the colors shown on the ABC color exhibit tended to be more like the Eden Rock colors. He was concerned about compatibility between the two projects. Staff responded it appeared to be close, but possibly a little darker. It was definitely a softer color than what was originally proposed, but it was probably somewhere between the colors shown on Color Schemes A and C. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the Eden Rock color was more like the first floor of A versus what was shown on Color Scheme C. Staff said it was. Commissioner Quill commented the architecture was nice. He said the existing clubhouse was very dated and did need refreshing. It was definitely time to do it. He wanted to know what the plan was and how it was going to work; once the project was approved, and when would they be starting. Mr. Hoeppner said they wanted to do it this year, but things have been pulled back. Their company wanted to be ahead of the curve so that when things do come around they would have these projects ready to go and not miss an opportunity. He said possibly next year, depending upon the economy and market demand. Commissioner Quill asked what assurance they could provide that, if they demolished the existing facilities, they would go on and rebuild to avoid another blighted area like Eden Rock. Mr. Hoeppner commented on the economic climate, but said they owe it to their members to make sure facilities were maintained. There would be some logistical issues in terms of the construction of both of them, but they were compelled to meet those obligations. Commissioner Quill asked if he was referring to the clubhouse remodel and then the new development model. His previous comment was if PAReports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 the tennis clubhouse facilities and the tennis facilities are demolished, what assurances did they provide that they were going to construct the new community center and tennis courts and in what phases. Mr. Sezna responded the whole picture was very important to the Company. They would never create a construction site in the middle of their investment until they were ready to develop. He commented on the grass lot tennis courts and the workout facility and said the tennis clubhouse would remain until they were ready to do the master plan of the private clubhouse. He then commented on the timing of the project coinciding with the end of one Bob Hope Classic and the start of another. He commented on the statement they want to make and the lifestyle they want to convey. He said it was important not to have a scar in the middle of their investment. Commissioner Quill said they would discuss the clubhouse in the next hearing item, so they were not referring to it now, but to this development. He then asked if they intended to do the clubhouse remodel before this development. Mr. Sezna said he would let Mr. Hoeppner answer that question as his whole point was they have a much bigger master plan and they are interrelated. Mr. Hoeppner said the projects were not necessarily tied together and they did not have to be. He said with a phased construction, they could build phases of the residential units without any impacts to the clubhouse. Commissioner Quill asked which phase of the residential they would start with. Mr. Hoeppner said he could not answer that question because it was too early in the project. He went on to explain how the decision of phasing would be made and he gave examples of how the decision would be made. Commissioner Quill asked about civil improvements; such as access. He then asked what they would be doing to keep it aesthetically proper and dust -free for the neighborhood while they were moving from phase to phase during the construction process. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Mr. Hoeppner said, pending approval, they would like to proceed immediately with the construction documents and the permanent application part for the infrastructure. He said the building permit applications would probably include construction phasing and temporary restoration as well as addressing dust control issues. Commissioner Quill asked if he would be amenable to planting the improved lots with some vegetative cover; such as Gazania. Mr. Hoeppner said they could certainly entertain that and reiterated Mr. Sezna's comments about this being very special and an important asset. The last thing they want to do is impact how that looks during the Bob Hope Classic and while their Clubhouse guests are there, so they were going to be really very sensitive to that. Commissioner Quill said he was more worried about the neighbors since they are the ones that are there all the time. He then asked about the phasing and staging and if they would assure that the community center, the four new tennis courts,.and the new building would be built prior to, or with, the very first duplex units. He said he wanted to know, straight out, if they had any intention of doing that or would they be open to a condition of approval that said, prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the first duplex, those facilities would be complete and available to the owners. Mr. Hoeppner responded the tennis courts would need to be completed because they are a critical part of their business and an amenity for the clubhouse members. As far as the community building was concerned they would certainly entertain a discussion or a commitment to build it by a certain point. He then gave examples of the performance of a project and staging and said they would be open to discussing a certain number at a certain stage. Mr. Hoeppner continued saying, as an example, many times with condominium projects, lots of times the homeowners' association is turned over to the owners when it reaches 50% sold. He said that might be a good trigger for the homeowners as well because then their amenities are in place at the same time. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Quill then asked if this was intended or being designed to be a condo -hotel type of venture. Mr. Hoeppner replied just condominiums, no hotel. Commissioner Quill asked if there was any assurance that the community center would be built with the first phase of development. Mr. Hoeppner explained the phasing again. Commissioner Quill asked if they had met with the neighbors in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Quill said at one time this was the premier tennis facility in the Valley. He asked about the state of tennis users that live at PGA West. Mr. Hoeppner said the PGA West tennis usage had dropped significantly over the years. He said they had great facilities at the Resort and around the community. He said their future focus was that tennis would be a micro business used to sell the Resort, and not a major business entity like golf. That's why they were building smaller, higher quality tennis facilities. Commissioner Quill asked if the tennis facilities were open to the general ownership and membership of the club. Mr. Hoeppner said it was primarily for the private and tennis club members. Commissioner Quill said the new tennis courts would be for the private club members, not just for the 56 units. Mr. Hoeppner said that was correct. The Villa owners, themselves, might also have tennis memberships. Commissioner. Quill said the tennis facility was part of the membership of the private club and not necessarily tied to those condominium - duplex units. Mr. Hoeppner said that's correct. Commissioner Quill asked if the concrete wood piece that was on the board (#8) was the fascia on top of the community center. Chairman Alderson asked if that was the metal siding he was referring to. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Quill said the concrete wood piece (#8) was faux wood. Mr. Olson said it was actually a concrete wood siding product and was going to be used as a wood accent on the elevation. Mr. Olson pointed out on the slide where it was located. Mr. Hoeppner said it was in lieu of wood products as it provided better durability in this area; especially in the summer climate. Commissioner Quill asked if they would be maintaining and operating the tennis facility until they are permitted for demolition and construction of the new subdivision. Mr. Hoeppner said that was correct. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if he knew how many tennis memberships they currently had. Mr. Sezna said about 350. Commissioner Wilkinson then asked how many were active. Mr. Sezna said he knew they were underutilized. Commissioner Weber said he was still confused on staging and asked about the significance of the sequence numbering shown on the plans. Forrest Haag, Forrest Haag Architects, 1254 N. Coast Highway, Laguna Beach CA responded there was no significance in the numbering other than as plan reference numbers. Commissioner Weber asked if the plan numbers had any significance on which units would be built first. Mr. Hoeppner said there hasn't been any discussion on that. He said, for discussion sake, it would be better to start from the west and work out rather than from the front door. He added, looking at the infrastructure, water and sewer installations, and elevations, that would play a lot into where they started. Commissioner Weber said what he was concerned about was what was going to happen after the project was approved and grading started. He was concerned that the project would sit with a green fence around it, and the City Council would get complaints about it being up there too long. He understood they had certain standards to maintain but, early on in the process, there should be some kind of assurance whether conditions or not have to be made in regards to P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 staging to make sure that there was some kind of commitment. He was most concerned about the tennis side of things and what was going to happen. He said he understood that they were underutilized, but didn't think the statistics on the underutilization of the tennis courts had really been shared. He wanted to hear about the process they used to determine that tennis was going to be more of a micro business, in the future compared to golf, and did they factor in the aging of the PGA West population as having a significant impact to the percentage of folks looking at tennis. Mr. Hoeppner said certainly golf was their core business. They have nine courses, and they are very expensive assets. Over time things evolved, including the dwindling requirement for tennis from guests and groups. They have heard from their tennis membership and potential businesses that they would like to see the quality of the facilities improve. They have had internal discussions ongoing with the Resort on how to create better amenities, by having the optimum number of courts. There is currently very little play on the tennis courts at the Resort and PGA West. Commissioner Weber asked if that substantially differed in ten years, or so, what would be the plan of attack. Mr. Hoeppner responded they have other areas where they could build tennis courts, if needed. They could also do paddle ball or racquetball or whatever came about. He compared these amenities with the current need for spas. They are currently very cachet. Everyone has to have one, not as an amenity to guests, but to attract groups and also for local residents. It's an ever -evolving business. Commissioner Weber said they addressed a lot of the ALRC comments, and that was really good because there could have been some issues of concern. And they were working with staff and the consultants and made the right move on that. He asked that they clarify if the darker color was still a part of the options they wanted to have. Mr. Hoeppner said what they presented was just options for discussion and they were perfectly happy with what they heard from the ALRC; in that they wanted to see some variety instead of P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 everything being one color. They had no problem with that. He commented they had offered several different shades for discussion. He said they just wanted to be sensitive that there would be a little bit of variation. Chairman Alderson said that point was made early on. The ALRC and staff recommendations to tone down the colors have been done so that point has been made. Commissioner Weber said he was trying to make sure he understood that this was an option. Commissioner Weber asked if they could talk a little about the process for outreach or notification of the membership. Mr. Hoeppner explained they had previously held an open house at the PGA Stadium clubhouse. It was attended by about 40 or 50 people; all homeowners' association members or residents. They had a presentation with himself, Forrest Haag, and Davis Sezna. It was very well received and they took comments/feedback from that meeting and incorporated it into the plans. There were issues such as the entry drive, the maintenance access drive, and landscape buffers. They were very favorably received and they documented to staff what those comments were and how they addressed them. They also met with the homeowners' associations to request their incorporation of this project into the master homeowners' association, and that was a very successful meeting as well. Commissioner Weber asked if they felt it was pretty favorable. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Weber asked since you addressed the homeowners' association I assume the areas along the PGA Boulevard would be part of the master and would this then be part of its own separate homeowners' association. Mr. Hoeppner said it would be incorporated into the Residential 2 Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Weber asked if those conversations had occurred with the Residential 1 and Residential 2 homeowners' associations. Mr. Hoeppner said he had a letter of acceptance and agreement. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Barrows said she just wanted to follow up on a question on the tennis issue. Was there any specific feedback, in the sessions held with homeowners and others, about the tennis issue and the reduction in the amount of tennis courts. Mr. Hoeppner said not in this project. Commissioner Barrows said, so that has not been a concern from that community. Mr. Hoeppner said no. Commissioner Barrows asked for an explanation of the designation Tuscan Territorial Modernism. Mr. Olson responded it is a style of architecture that has a heritage of desert contemporary that has existed in the Valley for years. Modified Tuscan and his interjection of the term "territorial" is a similar term his firm has used in Arizona and Nevada. It really is the core of using materials that are regional. You look out to the Santa Rosa mountains and it is all rock. You're sitting on a geological granite formation here, so that term of territorial means to integrate more of the regional materials that probably would have been used in the early days. Existing readily available materials like stone, like a lot of sand being used in stucco and site walls and things like that. Commissioner Barrows said they mentioned green practices and water conservation and it looked like the community center had a very nice overhang to help ameliorate the sun falling on the windows, but she didn't see that in the villa units. The front elevations are going to be facing different directions in this area, the south and west exposure in particular, are pretty severe and it was not clear how there was going to be any. shading or any type of protection, for the windows. Mr. Olson responded there would be a variety of technology to help temper those conditions; such as low-E glass. They have deeper set windows, the use of shade and shadow, and they've tried to incorporate some shade devices like trellises, but not to the extent of large structured horizontal shade structures, like the community center. Commissioner Barrows asked if those windows would be deeper set. Mr. Olson explained they were and pointed out several windows and their setbacks. He explained the setback differences between these and traditional windows. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Barrows said it was a question she was interested in because she was concerned about the potential homeowners, and said you can ameliorate that with low E and with triple -glazed windows. In terms of the colors, she just wanted to clarify this because it sounded like the suggestion was this was a proposal and the Commissioners could provide some feedback and some discussion on that. So the color palette that was shown was for three different colors; 5, 6, and 7. She asked if all of those colors now were no longer part of that presentation or were they talking about the lightest color: Mr. Olson said just the darker colors, like 6 and 7; they would probably still use 5. Commissioner Barrows asked if 6 would be an accent color. Mr. Olson said it was a little hard to see, but 6 would be the darkest for an accent, but they would definitely drop 7. Commissioner Barrows asked if the colors in the new presentation are all different or was 5 in there since it was hard to tell. Mr. Hoeppner said when they went through the building permit process, they would submit a new color palette that was consistent with the design instead of trying to come up with a board tonight. They wanted to get a flavor for the Commission's direction and then incorporate that direction in the final building permit design. Commissioner Barrows said she appreciated that, but she was trying to get a sense of it. She said some of the A, B, C presentations, lost a little bit in taking out some of the deeper colors. She said they added a richness, and she wanted to make sure she knew which colors they were talking about. Mr. Hoeppner asked if it would help if they said they would offer colors A and C for approval, as a solution, versus saying "pick one". Commissioner Barrows, said maybe, as she was possibly more tolerant of the darker colors than others, it looked to her like it was a whole different set of colors. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Barrows said you mentioned the water feature and it changed with this presentation. Mr. Hoeppner said they spoke with staff and understood the water concerns in terms of excess water use and water conservation. Water features are everywhere at entrances to residential developments so they automatically did that. They are P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 going to replace the water feature with a landscape or sculpture -type monument entrance instead of a water feature. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was turf proposed along the walkways for the residential area, or some smaller areas of turf. She said there was a condition that limited the extent to which that turf can occur up against the sidewalk. Mr. Haag said they are controlled by what CVWD allowed them to irrigate and obviously the plant palette was very much desert species, with drought -tolerant plants. Some areas of concentrated turf blended more closely with the look of the Palmer Course, etc., and some of the other common areas to the residential areas that exist. There is a new ethic so there is going to be a lot more desertscape. Chairman Alderson said you have an elevation that has been modified to fit the requests of staff and the ALRC, now you have to provide a color palette that matches that. Is that what we are talking about. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson said the ALRC didn't come up with a firm recommendation, but we have a lot of good comments from them, both pro and con on this project and asked staff to let them know that the Commission had taken them into consideration. Chairman Alderson said marketing will dictate your phasing, is that in effect what you told Commissioner Quill. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson said when you get out into the parking lot I don't see a lot of infrastructure. Change is required when you're talking about feeding the main clubhouse and also the subordinate piping coming off underground wet -and -dry utilities to this clubhouse. So the work that Isee in the parking lot is primarily restructuring of hardscape paving and paving striping; not a lot of underground work. Mr. Hoeppner replied there was not in the main entrance to the clubhouse. Chairman Alderson commented it was not going to be torn up too badly other than to re -stripe and re -configure the site concrete. Chairman Alderson said there were eight units which were adjacent to the street behind. He commented on the one-story versus two-story P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 homes and the Commission's sensitivity to sight pollution. He also mentioned some very large shrubbery -laden fencing along the entire south of the entire project and asked if they were going to be able to salvage that in construction so the screening could mature and remain. Mr. Hoeppner said they identified that as being important to maintain. They have designed/made provisions within their plan to keep those plantings. Chairman Alderson asked if that was a yes. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson said Commissioner Quill was talking about conditioning the project with reference to the phasing. He didn't get a solid answer as to whether or not the applicant would commit to phasing, to holding up occupancy of the first unit unless they had the clubhouse and the tennis courts. Commissioner Quill said, just for clarification, he was talking about this community center, not the clubhouse. He wasn't referring to the clubhouse remodel, and when he referred to infrastructure he wasn't referring to the parking lot of the clubhouse, but to the street; internal improvements within this project. Chairman Alderson said, but the infrastructure he referred to would affect both of them and asked if the applicant could say yes or no to that. Mr. Hoeppner said if it was based on the first unit to be occupied, or certificate of occupancy (based on a duplex of two or four), they would probably not be able to do that economically. However, if there is a mechanism to trigger the construction or completion of the option as he mentioned earlier as being when 50% of the project was sold, or occupied, then the development would be turned over to the owners, that would be a good milestone to have the clubhouse up and running. He said it was their intention to have it built sooner, rather than later, because otherwise they would have a lot of unhappy purchasers. He said, in fairness to the business and the economy, they would like to have that come at a more economical time to the process versus laboring the project early on with that cost. P:\Reports - PC\2009110-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson said he didn't have concerns about the financial viability of this project because of Pyramid's reputation. He asked if they would be using local builders and general contractors. Mr. Hoeppner said it was their company's policy to work with local contractors and consultants. It is a benefit to the community to keep the local people employed; whether it's local craftsman or suppliers. Commissioner Weber had a question on exhibit C4 which showed the layout, prepared by MDS, regarding the hedge along Double Eagle Way. He said it was a very large space on the layout and was noted as being a proposed perimeter open space, he questioned whether the hedge was going to be retained when the plan showed a proposed perimeter open space. Mr. Hoeppner said it was shown as being retained in the attachment package, but not on the screen exhibit. Commissioner Weber said it was shown as open space. Did that mean it would not have structures on it; and the hedge was going to be retained. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Gary Tomak, 54-991 Tanglewood, La Quinta CA, (PGA West) introduced himself and said he has lived there for about 20 years. He said he has never been disappointed with anything that has been developed out there and nor with anything the City has approved. It has been a gorgeous place to live. He was not for or against this project, but had one concern, regarding the timing of the issue. Because of the housing downturn there's going to be more homes in foreclosure coming on the market, and he has been waiting to see the development of the residential project which has been put on hold. He commented on nearby projects that have been put on hold and have become eyesores. He added that in PGA West there are timeshares that are sort of half -completed and residents are waiting to see a finish on that, so that the green screens will not continue on for years. He commented on the housing bubble and asked what impact the addition of 54 more units would have on the completion of the existing projects in La Quinta, and the homes that are currently on the market. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 17 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Mr. Howard Culver, 55-501 Southern Hills, La Quinta CA (PGA West) introduced himself and said he wanted to address a couple of issues. The first issue had to do with architectural vibrancy and asked that the Planning Commission, and staff, temper architectural vibrancy with architectural compatibility. He commented on the mountain views from PGA West and that he didn't think the steel and metal finishes proposed were compatible with that. He said the Commission had been concerned with color and the applicant had revised the color to a more moderate tone but, as stated by a staff member, this is the first time they have seen it. They really haven't seen what it is going to look like. He thought the members at PGA West would prefer consideration of something more, compatible with the general area around where this is going to be located and go to compatibility before vibrancy. Mr. Culver continued with his second issue which had to do with the presentation of timing and sequencing of the development. He said, as residents of PGA West, they had always been told that before any construction of the villas, that the tennis courts and the existing gym/ fitness facility would be done at the main clubhouse so that there would be no period of time where there would be no tennis courts or fitness facilities. The plan does call for modifications of the main clubhouse, but it has always been presented that the fitness facility would be totally new and developed and the main clubhouse and the tennis courts built before any work was done to demolish existing facilities. If that is a change then I think everyone needs to know about it because that is not what has been presented before you. I am unclear right now as to whether there is going to be a fitness facility at the main clubhouse, up and operating in full extent before the existing one is torn down and whether the new tennis courts are going to be up and operating before the old ones are taken out. There were going to be five tennis courts, which meant they were going from nineteen to five and the five were going to be on new property. He asked if the five tennis courts currently existed. Chairman Alderson responded there were going to be five courts in a different location. Mr. Culver asked if the new courts would be built before the old courts were taken down. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 18 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson said that was not how he understood it. Mr. Culver reiterated would there be a period of time where there would be no tennis courts at all? Chairman Alderson said unless there were some other tennis courts. Mr. Culver responded there were no other tennis courts. Chairman Alderson said then the assumption was probably correct. Mr. Culver then suggested the Commission ask about the fitness facility because there was no other fitness facility. If the existing health and fitness club was torn down and there wasn't one built at the clubhouse, there would be no health and fitness facility for an undetermined period of time. All of those representations had been made to all the PGA West membership that there would be no interruption in tennis facilities or the fitness center. Chairman Alderson told Mr. Culver some of his concerns would be addressed in the next presentation about the clubhouse. Mr. Culver said it was never clarified as to what the sequencing would be. Chairman Alderson said they would be touching on that shortly. Commissioner Quill had a question for Mr. Culver regarding his first point. He said PGA West was started in 1983, when it was constructed, some of the first duplex and triplex units were contemporary in design. Then they started going to a more Tuscan or Mediterranean, or Spanish Colonial and then there were the custom homes that were built some of which are extremely contemporary in their design in textures and use of materials and the actual clubhouse facilities which were very contemporary and didn't necessarily have a tie to the existing structures. PGA West, in and of itself, is a very eclectic architectural design community right now. He asked Mr. Culver what he wanted because there wasn't anything about the architecture at PGA West that was consistent. P:\Reports - PC\200900-13-0%PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 19 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Mr. Culver responded there was a certain compatibility, in terms of color and general architectural style and exterior furnishings. He agreed that the existing clubhouse and health and fitness facility were not the models to go by, but in terms of the colors they are very dark colors which are totally incompatible with anything in PGA West and a lot of the desert. If the applicant is toning them down, we don't know how much they have toned them down. I appreciate their willingness to do it. My concern is that you drive around PGA West and see the colors there and have them change the colors to be more compatible with those, not something glaring and, different and that would probably go with the main clubhouse. I know we're going to get to the main clubhouse later on and I will save my comments for a major objection to what they are trying to put there. He didn't have any problem with general modifications to the main clubhouse because it is dated, it is not necessarily compatible, but it is low and sort of unobtrusive. Chairman Alderson asked if he intended to speak on the other project. Mr. Culver said yes. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. City Attorney Jenson wanted to point out that since some of the facilities that they were talking about were within the footprint of this map, they could add a condition of approval relating to there being no demolition permit on the existing tennis clubhouse or the tennis courts until the replacement facilities were up and ready. Chairman Alderson asked Counsel if she was saying they could condition the tennis facility to have to be done first so those facilities were functioning which would force that phasing on to the developer. City Attorney Jenson said yes the Commission could add a requirement that there would not be a demolition permit issued for the existing tennis clubhouse or the existing tennis courts until the new ones were in place. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 20 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Quill suggested the public hearing be re -opened to allow the applicant to respond to the some of the comments and then keep it open to allow questions. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if it would be beneficial to him to have the public hearing re -opened, so he could respond to the comments he'd heard. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson then re -opened the Public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Hoeppner said, in response to the comments, their intent would be to replace the existing tennis courts prior to start of construction because the tennis courts already existed fairly close by. It would be easy to construct those tennis courts without any impact to the level of play or service to the members. There's already tennis courts there so they would just be re -surfaced and it would be worked out, in terms of logistics, of when certain courts closed and the other ones open. The tennis courts exist there already. We'd just be improving those prior to starting construction and demolition of the other ones. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant was referring to the five new courts where there were currently some grass courts there. Mr. Hoeppner pointed to the map and showed where those courts already existed and the extension of the green area. So those courts could be constructed prior to demolition. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if he would have no objection to a condition in that regard. Mr. Hoeppner said that was correct. Mr. Hoeppner said the clubhouse situation, and replacement of that, would have to be staged and said it might be better addressed in the clubhouse application because this may actually end up staying there while the other one was being constructed. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the existing exercise/workout facility, clubhouse for the tennis courts would remain until after the remodeling for the main clubhouse facility was finished and all the equipment was moved. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 21 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Rob Bernheimer, 45-025 Manitou Drive, Indian Wells, CA introduced himself and asked if the Commission could hold off on the discussion of dealing with this building until we get to the application on this building. He said they could agree to the condition, regarding the construction of the tennis courts, but it would end there for this application. He added they could talk about demolition during the next agenda item. Chairman Alderson commented his comments on the tennis courts would help solve part of the problem. Mr. Bernheimer said yes. Commissioner Wilkinson said there were some sunken grass courts out there. He asked if the elevations of the courts were going to remain the same, as he didn't see a grading plan. Mr. Hoeppner said it was about the same. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if it could be cut out and other courts built. Mr. Hoeppner said right, pointed out the slope, and then gave an explanation of what was going to be done. City Attorney Jenson said, for clarification, since the existing clubhouse was within the footprint of this map, it is appropriate to add that condition to this map because otherwise you would be creating lots underneath the existing building. You could put it in the other Site Development Permit as well, but you would want to have it in this geographic area because it is covering this map and if there is no intention to demolish that building in advance of doing the other then it shouldn't be a problem. She recommended that it actually be a condition on this map because this map shows homes where the existing clubhouse is. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if she was saying the condition would read that the demolition permit could not be issued until the clubhouse remodeling was finished. Chairman Alderson commented on the dovetailing of issues with the big clubhouse remodel into this project, interacting with both and really getting complicated. Planning Director Johnson said the key thing to remember is that the Commission has four actions to review. One is a map which covers all 25 acres, including the adjacent clubhouse and as long as the P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Oraft.doc 22 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 condition is connected to the map, and not the Site Development Permit, that would be fine. He also added he thought the issue was the need for assurance that the amenities would not be lost for an interim period. Mr. Bernheimer said he thought that was a good comment and added he didn't have any objection to saying they would have to provide for this amenity somewhere on this overall site, before that's torn down, but they didn't know what the timing would be and how it would relate to the clubhouse. So, there could be some transitional application of that and they might have to create a facility for workout while construction and demolition was going on. If the condition was worded that the amenity be provided for without disruption of the use of the amenity, rather than just saying they could not tear this down until the entire thing was complete, then that was something they could live with. Chairman Alderson asked if the work on the big clubhouse was completed, and was made functional, so that you had a workout facility, that would take care of one of the concerns. The other concern would be to have tennis facilities ongoing and if the five tennis courts were put in, without the clubhouse, you would then need them both. That would then force you to do the big clubhouse first and we have not reviewed that application yet. Mr. Bernheimer said the conditions should be worded so that Pyramid would be required to provide a minimum of four or five tennis courts at all times, during construction and they would not have to parcel up the map. They would also have to provide similar workout facilities for the membership, in this building, without saying you can't demolish this building. He said they were fine with having the conditions applied to both maps, but not to isolate different facilities. He was concerned that, right now, it appears as though they don't need material for grading, but what would happen if when they begin work and they have to demolish a few courts, but then leave four or five courts going while doing some of that site work. He said if we just talk about amenities, instead of actual physical structures, it would provide more flexibility. City Attorney Jenson said it was perfectly fine to say the amenities could be provided with the area. PAReports - PC\200900-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 23 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson said that condition could be attached to the parcel map. Mr. Bernheimer said they were fine with both of those. Mr. Culver responded by saying what they had proposed had merit. However, he cautioned the Commission to make sure the applicant would not have an opportunity to provide the tennis or fitness facilities at the La Quinta Resort, since there are tennis courts and fitness facilities on that site. The PGA West residents would then have to go to the Resort to use their facilities. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Culver wanted the condition to be site specific. Mr. Culver reiterated his comments about the promise of no demolition without replacement facilities and he was concerned the applicant would say the PGA West residents would have to go to the La Quinta Resort for their fitness and tennis facilities for an undetermined number of months. Chairman Alderson then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked Commissioners if they had any additional comments or questions. Commissioner Weber asked if the surfaces of the existing courts were grass, clay, or hard courts. The applicant responded there were all three types. Commissioner Weber asked if the five new tennis courts would be grass or hard courts. Mr. Hoeppner said it was yet to be determined. Commissioner Barrows asked Counsel about Commissioner Quills previous question on Site Development Permit condition #37; which related to the improvements, building permits, and the project being partially completed. She asked if the current condition addressed that. Commissioner Barrows then read condition #37 which states: Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 24 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission would have to define what they meant by a "timely manner". She referenced the discussion they had about the new community center and whether to require it before the first Certificate of Occupancy, or when they were halfway through. She then gave examples of the types of wording that could be used and said those were items that could be specified in the condition. She recommended that they not rely on condition #37 as that related to the improvement security and was not appropriate. It needed to be spelled out in a new condition. Commissioner Barrows said she was concerned about one potential condition which related to provision of the facilities on an on -going basis for the recreational facilities and asked for further clarification, from Counsel, on the provision discussed. City Attorney Jenson said the construction was in reference to the timing of the construction of the new community center. She said the new facility would be designed for the 54 villa units and the remodeling of the clubhouse would be discussed in the next public hearing item. Commissioner Barrows said she was concerned about what would happen after construction began and wanted to prevent being left with a graded, fenced, empty lot. That was what she wanted to address. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could spell out those items; such as requiring the roadway improvements be installed. She suggested Principal Engineer, Ed Wimmer, would help with what is typically done for subdivision phasing. If there was something in particular the Commission wanted spelled out, it would have to be done, and could not be bonded for. If the Commission wanted the condition to read "prior to the first building permit", that would have to be spelled out. Chairman Alderson said that was the key. If site improvements get half -done, and not completed, what would be the point in holding the P:\Reports - PC\200900-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 25 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 building permits as they would not go forward anyway, but if you had a bond on it, that would be helpful. City Attorney Jenson said there would be bonds required for all the off -sites, but some of things are not required as map conditions, such as the tennis courts and she did not thing the City would be holding bonds for those. She deferred to Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer for an explanation. Commissioner Quill commented that even if there was a bond it would take four years to get the money. It was a moot issue and not worth discussing, as a bond does not protect you. He did not think that was worth going into. Chairman Alderson said the point I made regarding the financial stability of our developer -client here, hopefully, covers that. Commissioner Quill commented on the economic atmosphere and the instability of large brand name firms. His biggest concern was that they not demolish, or close anything, until they know they are going to build the other amenities. If they're going to build models for pre - sale, they should find a location within this site before they begin demolition. They might have to demolish some tennis courts but not the fitness center or clubhouse. He asked if they could provide assurance to the Commission that they intend to build the community center and tennis courts; and, during construction, provide some kind of replacement fitness and clubhouse facilities prior to any demolition. Chairman Alderson commented on what the Commission was discussing for this public hearing item and asked if Council would repeat her earlier remarks on the suggested condition. City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could add a condition, to the tract map, that said the existing, tennis courts, tennis clubhouse and their amenities, would not be demolished until new replacement amenities were provided within the site of this map. That did not cover the clubhouse or the community center for these 54 homes. Commissioner Quill said they could do that by building permit. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Dra ft. doc 26 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 City Attorney Jenson said the Commission could designate a certain numbered building permit would have to be in place prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Alderson said he thought that covered the concerns of all they had heard. Commissioner Weber read condition 75 on page 109, which stated: All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. He asked that "and painted to match the adjacent buildings" be struck out because the transformers were utility -owned and that was not the developer's prerogative to paint them to match the adjacent buildings. He also wanted to add that the screening and landscaping be in compliance with the utility's regulations because there were issues regarding plantings around transformers and he wanted to see that included. Commissioner Weber said he appreciated the ALRC's debate on this. There were two opposing views, and a lot of consternation, and he was glad there was an ALRC. He was still concerned as to why the .phasing could not be clarified. He then commented on the applicant's responses to the setbacks, the water features, and the colors. He commented the Commission should be very strict about the amenities being in place prior to demolition. He said he still had an issue with the tennis courts being reduced from nineteen to five. He was not `convinced that 20 years from now tennis would not be more than just a micro -business and saw this as moving in a direction that worries him. Chairman Alderson wanted it entered into the record that Ms. Sharon Burton, 55-099 Tanglewood, La Quinta CA, sent a letter regarding this project giving her thoughts on water preservation. He also read a letter from Mr. B. Richins, 54-299 Shoal Creek Road, La Quinta, CA, stating he opposed the project. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 27 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Quill said he'd just like to recommend that the following wording be added to Condition #75: you add "per the specifications of the appropriate utility", or words to that affect. That way it would cover IID (Imperial Irrigation District), or any other utility, from that perspective. Commissioner Weber said this is a major issue and the landscaping perimeters, around the equipment need to be maintained. Imperial Irrigation is actually going in and trying to work on this issue now. So, if this is a standard condition, it needs to be changed because the standard is no longer acceptable. Commissioner Wilkinson asked to see the ABC color palette exhibit. He said he was not opposed to the darker color, but was looking for compatibility with the surrounding architecture; in particular the adjacent project. Discussion followed regarding what was shown and what the original colors were. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the Commission was to designate colors, was the applicant to select A, B, and C, and had the original designated color been dropped from the palette. Commissioner Barrows said that depended on how the motion was worded. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Wilkinson wanted to condition the project to utilize colors as is dictated in the revised condition.,Commissioner Wilkinson said yes. Commissioner Barrows just wanted to clarify one thing regarding Commissioner Wilkinson's question on the colors. She said there is an existing condition that references the color palette being amended to represent the lighter colors typically found in PGA West and she thought what the Commission wanted to refer to was the colors presented at the meeting. Commissioner Weber asked if the community center was the residential center. Commissioner Quill responded that the community center was the building that was intended for the 54 unit tract. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 28 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Weber added he wanted to clarify and make sure he understood there would be no demolition of the existing tennis clubhouse or a majority of the tennis courts prior to replacement facilities being in place, within the tract boundary. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to approve Resolution 2009-026 approving Environment Assessment 2008-601 as submitted. Unanimously approved. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Barrows to approve Resolution 2009-027 approving Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment 7 as submitted. Unanimously approved. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-028 approving Tentative Tract Map 36139 with amendments as follows: 1. Delete the following paragraph from Condition 44 which states: "Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta." 2. Change condition #84 to read: "No demolition permit shall be issued for the existing tennis courts or existing Health & Racquet Club prior to construction of the new permanent facilities at the adjacent Private Clubhouse or construction of temporary replacement facilities located within the boundaries of Tract 36139." There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wilkinson to approve Resolution 2009-029 approving Site Development Permit 2008-907 with the inclusion/amendment of the following conditions: P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN-9-22-09_Draft.doc 29 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 1. Delete the following paragraph from Condition 36 which states: "Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta." 2. Change condition #74 to read: "All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping. The applicant shall coordinate with Planning Department staff and Imperial Irrigation District representatives regarding the painting of all ground - mounted mechanical equipment. " 3. Change condition #76 to read: "The architectural color palette and roofing material for both the Villas and community building shall be amended to represent the lighter colors and concrete S-tile presented to the Planning Commission at the September 22, 2009 hearing. A copy of the amended palette shall be kept on file. The final color palette shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the site." 4. Change Condition #78 to read: "The community recreation building and associated recreation facilities (pool area/tennis courts/etc.) proposed on Lot 2 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 30th building permit within the Villas project." 5. Change condition #79 to read: "No demolition permit shall be issued for the existing tennis courts or existing Health & Racquet Club prior to P:\Reports - PC\200900-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 30 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 construction of the new permanent facilities at the adjacent Private Clubhouse or construction of temporary replacement facilities located within the boundaries of Tract 36139." Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2009-911; a request by Pyramid Project Management, LLC for consideration of plans for the remodel and expansion of the PGA West private clubhouse located at 56-140 PGA Boulevard; PGA West; west of PGA Boulevard. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Chairman Alderson prefaced the staff report by saying this was being presented by the same applicant and there had been a lot of discussion of some of the issues involved with this project which did not need to be repeated. The Commission is now fairly familiar with the project and would not have to go over the same points. He then asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to identify the location of the clock tower. Staff pointed out its location. Chairman Alderson asked if staff had the same color concerns as they did on the previous project. Staff said no, but the question of color did come up at the ALRC so it could be a point of discussion for the Commission. There being no further questions of the staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Ken Hoeppner showed a slide presentation regarding the clubhouse. He started with staff and ALRC's previous comments, some of which were regarding water features, at both the front entry P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft. do 31 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 and the rear of their proposal. Unlike the water feature introduced in the prior application, this water feature was truly interactive and a key part of their marketing and business model, at the Resort and at the clubhouse. It would be a great opportunity for wedding and group photos, and they would like to keep the water features, but they would certainly be aware of water conservation issues to minimize water usage. He also commented on their use of green building initiatives since this was an old building and needed updating. He discussed some of those updates. He also commented on access to the tennis courts which would be provided by a walkway from the clubhouse to the tennis courts. At last there was the issue of architectural design in which they tried to introduce uniqueness and character to liven up the existing architecture at the clubhouse. They introduced some different materials and elevations and he showed slide renderings and perspectives of what the proposed clubhouse would look like. Chairman Alderson commented this was the first time the Commissioners had seen the renderings as it was not in their packet. He then asked if the circular planter shown was existing. Mr. Hoeppner said that was approximately in the same location as the current drop off. Chairman Alderson then asked if that was an active water feature. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Quill asked if the blue designated area next to the entry was water. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Mr. Hoeppner went on with a slide presentation which showed some of the work previously done at the Stadium Course Clubhouse as well at the existing facility, at the private clubhouse, before and after. Commissioner Quill asked about the water features and Mr. Hoeppner pointed to one of the slides which showed a water wall. Chairman Alderson asked if that was the water feature Mr. Hoeppner referred to earlier, for photo opportunities. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Quill asked if it was similar in size and scope to the one in the present resort hotel courtyard. Mr. Hoeppner said it was a larger scale than that. PnReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 32 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Quill asked about water usage in the front entry. Mr. Hoeppner said they recognized the sensitivity to water conservation and would try reuse and minimize water usage. Commissioner Alderson asked about the three circular water fountains noted on the plans. Mr. Hoeppner said the only water feature would be in the center, by the porte-cochere. The rest of the circular notations were landscape islands. He then explained where the rotunda would be and the water feature in the middle of the drive court, as well as the water around the palm trees, at each side of the entrance. Commissioner Weber asked which ones were new. Mr. Hoeppner said they were all new; except the center one replaced an existing one. Commissioner Quill said he liked the plans. Commissioner Barrows commented on the various locations on water features. She the read Condition #59, which states: "Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. " She then noted there was grass shown right up to the curb contrary to this Condition. Commissioner Quill pointed out they were not public streets. Commissioner Barrows said regardless of that it would still create water runoff into the street or other surface. It would be a maintenance issue for the City if it were a public street, but it still creates a condition where water is running off onto pavement and not being productive. She was concerned about that and the lack of information on the water features. She commented on the fact the Commission has been reviewing water features very carefully to ensure that the water source is recycled water she assumed that was the case. Mr. Hoeppner said he was assuming that. Commissioner Barrows said it was difficult to assess them without a complete presentation. Mr. Hoeppner said he understood. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 33 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked about the landscape plans coming back to the Commission. Planning Director Johnson said the standard procedure was to have it go to the ARLC, and then be reviewed by the Planning Director. Chairman Alderson said the Commission could make a recommendation to review those plans since Commissioners Barrows and Quill had those concerns regarding the configuration, size and function of the water features. Staff responded the Commission could direct it to come back as a business item. Chairman Alderson said he did not think it was worth bringing back the entire project. Commissioner Quill clarified that he just wanted the water features brought back, as a general business item. Mr. Hoeppner said they could certainly accommodate that. Commissioner Barrows said she thought it was a great looking building and didn't have any concerns about the architectural compatibility or colors. She did say the report contained comments regarding sustainable or green building construction elements which did not appear to be a focus of the proposed remodeling and expansion plans; however, the applicant's presentation stated they were a focus. She commented the City is encouraging green and sustainable building practices and asked if the client could give the Commission a little more information on their plans. Mr. Hoeppner explained his company's philosophy and the fact that California has will be adopting more strict building and energy codes. They would definitely be in compliance with that and would support incorporating those building codes into the project. Commissioner Barrows said the clubhouse addressed her concerns with regards to shading, but she did have a concern about landscaping and water runoff. Chairman Alderson asked the applicant if this could be addressed. Mr. Hoeppner said he believed so. Chairman Alderson asked if Commissioner Barrow's concerns could be covered in the landscape PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 34 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 plans forthcoming. Mr. Hoeppner said he believed so and said they could look at decomposed granite (DG) and other kinds of alternate materials. Commissioner Barrows said a lot of that had to do with the irrigation system. Mr. Hoeppner said that was correct. Commissioner Weber asked what shade fabric was to be used. Mr. Hoeppner said it would be Sunbrella. Commissioner Weber said he echoed the comments about energy efficiency and Title 24. He added that the City of La Quinta tried to go beyond that as energy and water efficiency is becoming more of a focus. He then commented on State requirements and the importance of water. He added, the water features needed to come back as a business item since the Commission had so many questions on those features. Chairman Alderson commented on the fact that the applicant removed 140 parking stalls and asked if he was still in conformance. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Chairman Alderson asked about the location of the turnaround versus the current driveway. Mr. Hoeppner referred to its location on the site plan. Chairman Alderson asked if the flow of the traffic would remain the same. Mr. Hoeppner said the front door is in exactly the same place. Chairman Alderson asked if they were able to save any of the large specimen palm trees. Mr. Hoeppner responded that was part of what their proposal included. Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Culver asked about various buildings, shown on the power point slides. Mr. Hoeppner pointed out what each building would be. Mr. Culver asked if, procedurally, this matter could be considered, since he received a notice about one public hearing item, but not the other. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 35 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked if they had been noticed on the same document. Staff responded both hearing notices were sent out. They did not know why Mr. Culver received one and not the other, but said they had documentation representing the distribution. Mr. Culver commented on an earlier discussion regarding site pollution and said he was opposed to the 45 foot clock tower. He referred back to the (City Council) Eden Rock proceedings and the denial of their clock tower. He was shocked to see another proposal to put a clock tower in to block the view of the mountains and thought it should be eliminated here as it was incompatible with the surrounding architecture. He then commented on some of the pictures, the prominent position of the clock tower, and the relationship of the signature mountains behind it. He then urged the Commission to deny the clock tower. Mr. Culver also inquired about the shade structure on the terrace and asked if they would be included on the dining terrace. He also commented on the previously -raised issue of window shades and covers and wondered how extensive the shading would be and asked if there were any pictures included in the proposal. Chairman Alderson thanked Mr. Culver and said he appreciated his comments. He then asked if the applicant would like to address Mr. Culver's comments. Mr. Hoeppner said the shade structure was on the rear of the patio area just like the one at the Stadium Clubhouse. Chairman Alderson asked if that was a dining area with individual seating and umbrellas. Mr. Hoeppner said no, it had a shade structure. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant understood the concern and could deal with it. Mr. Hoeppner said yes. Commissioner Quill said the clock tower looked no higher than the fireplace chimney. He asked how much taller the clock tower was than the top of the parapet. Mr. Hoeppner said he did not have the dimensions handy. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doe 36 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Chairman Alderson said on the west elevation it appeared the clock tower was the same height as the building. Commissioner Quill said it looked like it is the same height as the parapet for the equipment. Mr. Hoeppner said it was about the same height of the building; or five feet higher in certain locations. Planning Director Johnson said, based on the information available, there is a one foot difference from the highest parapet point of the building. Mr. Culver said one of the pictures, he saw, showed very clearly that it was more than a foot. Mr. Hoeppner located the slide and said that was a perspective picture. Mr. Culver said people would look at that perspective and see the clock tower was more than a foot above. Mr. Hoeppner then explained about the slide showing perspective. Chairman Alderson said the dimension drawings do show the scale and that alleviated his concern. Mr. Culver asked if there was a clock on the clock tower. Planning Director Johnson offered to show Mr. Culver the plans which went into more detail. Chairman Alderson told Mr. Culver to see staff to review those plans. Mr. Culver said he had one more issue and that was to urge the Commission, and staff, to postpone this item until later in the season. Right now there were only 10% of the PGA West residents present and this should be presented later. He said, in other words, ask the Council to consider this in the winter season, when 90% of the PGA Residents could be present instead of trying to pass it through when there was virtually no one around. Chairman Alderson said it was so noted and thanked Mr. Culver for his comments. There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Dratt.doc 37 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Commissioner Weber asked when this project would be presented to City Council. Staff said if the recommendation was brought forward this evening then this matter would go to Council on October 6, 2009. Commissioner Weber asked that this information be shared with Council and said the only other issue he had was regarding the standard utility comments. Commissioner Barrows commented the building might look better without a clock tower. She did not have any concerns about the architectural compatibility, as it was a good territorially -inclined modernization of the site. She did think the Commission should review the water feature, as a future business item, and commented on adding a recommendation about the lawn/water runoff issue. Chairman Alderson asked staff if they address Commissioner Barrow's concerns on the landscape designs. Staff if it was the Commission's recommendation to Council, they would make sure it was clearly stated in their conditions. Chairman Alderson said Commissioner Barrow's comments and concerns should be shown on the landscape plans that were yet to be designed and brought before the Commission. Commissioner Barrows said that could be added as a condition. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the clock tower was any different in height than the chimney, at the maximum height. Staff said there was approximately a one -foot height difference. Commissioner Wilkinson said he did not see a specific height listed for the chimney, but looked about the same height or lower. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on line -of -sight and the possibility the clock tower would probably not be seem as you drove in. He then commented on the proximity of the closest residents and pointed out the location on an aerial. He then said, after looking at those locations, he did not think that it blocked any views, or has any line -of -sight restrictions for any of the residents. Chairman Alderson agreed. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to approve Resolution 2009-030 PAReports - PC\2009,10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 38 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2009-911 with additional recommendation as follows: Delete the following paragraph from Condition 33 which states: "Said off -site improvements shall include obligations of the PGA West Development not performed by KSL Development Corporation or any of its entities, as deemed necessary by the City of La Quinta." 2. Condition #59 shall be amended to read: "Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. The use of turf in proximity to hardscape throughout the project site shall be minimized in order to prevent irrigation overspray." 3 Condition #70 shall be amended to read: "All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping. The applicant shall coordinate with Planning Department staff and Imperial Irrigation District representatives regarding the painting of all ground - mounted mechanical equipment. " 4. Condition #72 shall be added to state: "Detailed description of water features shall be returned to the Planning Commission, as a Business Item, for approval, prior to any building permits being issued." Unanimously approved. PAReports - PC\2009\1 0-1 3-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doe 39 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Planning Director Johnson provided the Commissioners with information on the Correspondence which was received as a result of the mailing of a Notice of Preparation regarding the La Quinta Resort. The Commission was not required to take any action, and this was provided as informational only. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 15, 2009, from Chairman Alderson, with the following items highlighted: • Comments on the City's establishment of a Housing Authority. • The Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), Desert Hot Springs, and the cost of delay. • SilverRock Resort and consideration of its future. B. Chairman Alderson noted he is scheduled to report on the City Council Meeting of October 6, 2009. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Joint Council Meeting Discussion Items. Planning Director Johnson referred to the memo included in the Commissioners' packet, but said the Commissioners were not limited to the items listed. Discussion followed regarding which items should be brought before Council, at the Joint Meeting. Staff said, with the time limitations, it would probably be wise to limit the list to three items, if possible, but more could be added if necessary. It was then concluded the following items would be brought forward: P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Dra ft. doc 40 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 • Item #2: Discuss establishing provisions that encourages, or even mandates, solar control (recessed windows and glass doors, awnings, trellises, landscaping, etc.) on non-residential and multi -family buildings. Consider increasing shade requirements for parking lots. Require installation of conduit and any applicable structural upgrades necessary for the future installation of solar panels on new commercial buildings. • Item #3: Discuss establishing stronger provisions that address non - motorized and vehicular connectivity with the adjacent streets and between existing and future developments. • Item #4: Discussion of improvements to the City's transportation/ circulation plan to ensure that other non-traditional motorized transportation modes are strongly encouraged, such as golf carts and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). Ensure that walkways, trails, Class l and /l Bike Trails, and connection to such with nearby cities is strongly encouraged. Item #7: Consider review and analysis of City's parking standards (LQMC Chapter 9.150). Project review observations have brought into question the number of spaces currently required for several land uses and if the current standards are requiring more parking spaces than is necessary to serve said uses. Additional discussion followed on the economic climate and the Planning Commission's role in helping further the economy. Staff said this could be brought up as a global topic. However, with the time constraints it was important to focus on the key topics. PAReports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Dratt.doc 41 Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2009 Staff stated the ALRC would also be discussing suggested items at their October 7, 2009, meeting. Staff would report back on what those items were. The Joint Council/Commission meeting is scheduled for October 27, 2009, at 5:00 p.m., in the Study Session room. B. Staff reported back on Site Development Permit 2007-879, Time Extension #1, The Foundation Group development in the La Quinta Village Shopping Center, located on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. Commissioner Weber had concerns about the trees and lighting maintenance in the Center. Staff responded they had contacted the Code Compliance Department who reported back that they were working with the property owner to resolve the problems. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on October 6, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. on September 22, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\PC MIN_9-22-09_Draft.doc 42 � T �a� •C o� S �y OF TKti��W TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LES JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009 SUBJECT: STREET NAME CHANGE 09-019 — HAPPY PLACE LANE APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL PH A On Thursday, October 1, 2009, staff received a written request from East of Madison, LLC to withdraw their application for Street Name Change 09-019, for Fremont Way/Happy Place Lane. A copy of their request is attached to this memo. Staff will be closing the file regarding this case and has begun processing a refund. Happy Place Lane ATTACHMENT Jay Wuu From: Scott Birdwell [sbirdwell@discoverylandco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:58 PM To: Jay Wuu Subject: Happy Place Lane Jay, Based on your advanced notice about the city's recommendation to deny our application to change Fremont Way to Happy Place Lane, we will pull the application. As I am aware, the application is being criticized because of life/safety concerns and an inconsistency with other street names within our community. Please let me know if the city changes their stance on this item. Sincerely, Scott 10/2/2009 Fn-Twff -al UELMLELOJ STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118 REQUEST: 1) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599 WAS PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, INCORPORATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AMENDMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As of the completion of this staff report, the second -round review comments from the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) have yet to be received. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission receive the staff report, open the public hearing for any testimony, and continue further consideration under open public hearing to the regular meeting of October 27, 2009. This will allow staff time to review and address any remaining HCD comments, as well as allow the Planning Commission additional time to review the Housing Element document. BACKGROUND: The Housing Element Process & Requirements The Housing Element is one of seven State -mandated elements required to make up a City's General Plan, and one of nine elements contained in the La Quinta General Plan. It represents the City's policy document for meeting all of its housing needs, including housing affordable to low- and moderate -income families. Every city and county in California is required by State law to periodically update its Housing Element. Additionally, the law requires the Housing Element be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element is the only Element of the City's General Plan that must be certified by the State. The main purpose of the Housing Element is to determine how the City will try to handle increased demand for housing. State law requires that the City's Housing Element consist of "identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing." State law also requires that the City evaluate its housing element approximately every eight years to determine its effectiveness in achieving City and statewide housing goals and objectives, and to adopt an updated Element that reflects the results of this evaluation. Jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region must complete the statutory update for a seven -and one -half -year planning period that extends from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014. This is a comprehensive update to the City of La Quinta's Housing Element to bring it into compliance with state housing law and to meet the SCAG region update requirement. Typically, housing element reviews are done independent of the General Plan update, as it is subject to a State -mandated planning period, and requires State review and certification. To ensure that cities do not overlook their responsibilities to provide housing for households of all income levels, each city is assigned a "fair share" number of new housing units for various income levels that it needs to try to accommodate. This "fair share" number is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The California Department of Finance first determines a State-wide growth number and then assigns a proportion of the State-wide number to each regional planning agency, which for La Quinta, is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG then allocates a proportional share to each jurisdiction within the SCAG region. The City of La Quinta received a RHNA allocation of 4,327 total units for the planning period that extends from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. After the City develops a draft of the revised Housing Element, a copy is sent to the HCD for review. The State then has 60 days to review and comment on the Element E for compliance with State law. After modifying the Element to respond to the State's comments, the City re -submits a second revised draft Housing Element for another 60- day review period. At this stage, the State typically grants certification to the City's Housing Element. La Quinta's Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") Allocation The 2006 RHNA proposes that La Quinta identify the capacity to construct 4,327 new housing units to accommodate housing needs for all income groups during the planning period January 2006 through June 2014. According to SCAG, 1,065 new units will be needed to accommodate very low-income households, 724 new units to accommodate low-income households, and 796 new units to meet the needs of moderate -income households. Approximately 40% (1,741) of the total RHNA is allocated to above moderate -income households, which is provided through market - rate housing. The RHNA allocations are calculated by factoring projected population, vacancy rates, housing market removals and existing housing units, adjusted by income categories to reflect income distribution in the community. The 2006 RHNA allocation of 4,327 represents a significant increase from the previous RHNA allocation for the 1998-2005 planning period, for which SCAG identified a 913 unit future housing need for La Quinta. This increase is likely attributable to inflated housing construction estimates generated by the tremendous growth experienced La Quinta and the Coachella Valley during this prior period. Community Outreach For this planning period, HCD has placed a strong emphasis on a broad community outreach effort. As part of the City of La Quinta's Housing Element update process, a Housing Community Forum was held in July of 2008. The intent was to obtain the community's input as to the perceived housing needs, issues and concerns of residents, and other stakeholders interested in housing opportunities in La Quinta. The Forum was conducted in an "open house" format, with attendees coming and going during the Forum's two-hour window. Approximately 35 to 40 persons attended, averaging about 15-20 in attendance at any one time. The Forum was well advertised, with loose-leaf inserts in Spanish and English placed in the La Quinta Sun, a weekly supplement to the Desert Sun newspaper, which has a circulation of 20,000. The insert consisted of an announcement about the Forum backed with a questionnaire on housing issues. It was also announced on Spanish and English radio, with brief articles in the Desert Sun, Public Record and the City newsletter, La Quinta City Report. It was also posted on the websites of the Chamber of Commerce and the La Quinta Cove Association, which represents approximately 3,500 households in the approximately 2-square mile La Quinta Cove. 3 The following housing and community service organizations were contacted and participated in the Forum by answering questions and providing handout materials: • Coachella Valley Housing Coalition • Coachella Valley Rescue Mission • Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Rancho Housing Alliance • City of La Quinta Community Services Department Habitat for Humanity (could not attend but provided handouts) A brief presentation and Q & A session was conducted by The Planning Center, the City consultant for the Housing Element update, focusing on the City's demographic characteristics and how the Housing Element utilizes that information to develop policies and programs to provide adequate housing for all residents and income levels. A "Poker Chip" survey, based on the six issues listed in the questionnaire, was set up, whereby attendees would rank the importance of each issue by placing a certain color chip in the respective bin representing that issue,,one chip per bin by each participant. The City also provided several handouts at the Forum: • Bilingual questionnaire (English & Spanish) Q & A handout entitled What is a Housinq Element? • A comment form • 8.5" x 11 " copies of the Powerpoint presentation and display boards Several attendees completed questionnaires and comment forms at the Forum and submitted them to staff. AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS Future residential development in the City of La Quinta will take place throughout the City, primarily in areas for which specific plans and tract maps have been approved. California housing law allows cities to obtain credit toward RHNA housing goals in three ways: constructed and approved units, vacant and underutilized land, and through preservation of existing affordable housing. City building permit records show that 5,675 units were constructed or approved between January 2006 and September 2007. Combined, these constructed and approved units, and pending projects, will create 576 lower income and 569 moderate income housing units. The City is still responsible for identifying land that can accommodate 1,213 units affordable to lower income households and 227 units affordable to moderate income households within the current planning period (a total of 1,440 units). n Land Resources State housing law requires that a Housing Element must contain a land inventory, which identifies available sites within the City that can accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA allocation. Vacant and underutilized lands need to be currently zoned for residential development or identified for rezoning to allow for residential uses. Underutilized land is defined as developed residential sites that are capable of being recycled at a higher density, or sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be rezoned, if necessary, and redeveloped for residential use. It is important to note that only lands within City boundaries can be considered for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA allocation. The housing element identifies 111 vacant acres with a total expected yield, at a realistic capacity established based on existing development trends, of 1,165 units. The underutilized land inventory identifies 207 acres of underutilized land that could accommodate new housing during the planning period. The total expected yield of these sites, at a realistic capacity established based on existing development trends and densities, is 1,651 units. Based on vacant and underutilized sites being developed at assigned densities, the total capacity of 2,816 units can absorb the projected remaining 1,440 unit RHNA allocation. In order to achieve the necessary capacity, certain existing land resources will need to be rezoned. Rezoning, in terms of the Housing Element, can mean an actual change to a parcel from one zone district to another, or a revision to the zoning district development standard(s) which would affect certain identified sites. This would also include corresponding changes to General Plan land use. Attachment 1 shows the location of all vacant and underutilized lands included in the inventory. Of the identified sites, one vacant site and 4 underutilized sites are proposed for changes to their zoning district: ➢ Vacant Site #2 — a 21.4 acre parcel on the south side of Avenue 58, sharing the west boundary of Andalusia. Current General Plan land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM. ➢ Underutilized Site #U1 — a 4.9 acre parcel on the north side of Darby Road, east of Palm Royale Drive. Current General Plan land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM ➢ Underutilized Site #U2 — a 4.8 acre parcel on the south side of Darby Road, east of Palm Royale Drive ITT 31087). Current General Plan land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM ➢ Underutilized Site #U4 — a 6.1 acre parcel on the north side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street (Price's Nursery)• Current General Plan land use / zoning: LDR/RL. Proposed: MDR/RM s ➢ Underutilized Site #U8 — Eleven parcels comprising approximately 19.6 acres, along the east side of Dune Palms Road between Westward Ho and the Whitewater Channel (RDA holdings and existing mobile home park). Current General Plan land use / zoning for all 11 parcels: MDR/RM. Proposed: MHDR/RMH These changes would be reviewed and undertaken as part of the 2009 La Quinta General Plan Update process just getting underway. Under state law, the City must rezone these sites, generally within the first one to two years after adoption of the Housing Element, in order to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for development of these sites during the planning period. It should be noted that, as part of the General Plan update, there may be other sites identified for affordable housing opportunities. There is some flexibility to allow alternative sites that can accommodate the RHNA allocation in that, to ensure the land inventory remains a viable and useable land -use planning tool throughout the planning period, local governments should prepare periodic updates, which can be achieved with the General Plan process. For purposes of the Land Inventory in the Housing Element, the City is required to identify adequate residential site capacity. If the City fails to identify a sufficient number of sites to accommodate its RHNA allocation, State law would require the City to zone enough sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA allocation that can allow at least 16 units per site, be developed at a density of at least 20 units per acre, and permit multifamily development by right. The City's Housing Element seeks to identify an adequate land inventory to ensure La Quinta is not subject to these intense development requirements. POLICIES AND ACTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Significant Governmental and Non -Governmental Constraints Constraints to the provision of adequate and affordable housing are posed by both governmental and nongovernmental factors. These factors may result in housing that is not affordable to lower and moderate income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible. Constraints on the construction and affordability of housing include land costs, financing, land use and development standards, local permitting procedures, and impact fees. Although not a direct market or governmental constraint, the common perception of affordable housing by the public is that it is undesirable in their community. The City has given careful consideration to ways in which the City can mitigate possible constraints, but will need to revisit and accept some traditional land use concepts that have been advocated since incorporation. For example, while the City of La Quinta has successfully supported the construction of affordable housing at densities as low as 4.5 units/acre, the Housing Element proposes programs to expand mixed -use opportunities in most commercial zones and M increase maximum densities from 16 to up to 20 units/acre (Programs 1 .5, 1.6). With the advent of SB 375, staff believes that rethinking the types and mixes of land use, as well as moderate increases to multi -family residential densities, needs to be seriously considered. Processing time and fees can add to the cost of development of housing, which is often passed on in rents or purchase price. The City will continue to prioritize processing for projects with affordable housing components. Additionally, to encourage the production of second units as a housing resource (Programs 2.2, 2.3), the City will permit second units and guest houses as accessory uses, eliminating the Minor Use Permit requirements. Public Notice The public hearing for the proposed Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, and Housing Element Update was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 2, 2009. The public hearing notice was published as 1 /8 page legal advertisement. Public Agency Review On March 4, 2009 the City released a Public Review Draft of the Housing Element document to public agencies and stakeholder groups. The City also notified these same entities on May 11, 2009 that the final HCD review draft had been sent to HCD and was available on the City's website. The City website has been periodically updated to advise visitors seeking information on the Housing Element of the review progress and scheduling. To date, the City has only received responses on the Housing Element from the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, submitted by email on April 3, 2009. The comments were minor and the City responded to CVHC concerns in the aforementioned draft element submitted to HCD on May 1, 2009. As of this report's preparation, no comments beyond those previously submitted by the CVHC had been received on the proposed draft Housing Element; any comments submitted in the interim period shall be presented to the Planning Commission and addressed at the public hearing. CEQA Compliance Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2008-599 for the draft Housing Element, A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Desert Sun on September 11, 2009, establishing a 30-day public review period under CEQA, ending October 12, 2009. As of this report's preparation, no comments had been received on the proposed Negative Declaration; any comments submitted in the interim period shall be presented to the Planning Commission and addressed at the public hearing. 7 STATE REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT The City submitted the first draft of the revised Housing Element on May 1, 2009 and responded to the State's comments with a second submittal on August 12, 2009. This second submittal was the result of discussions with State staff assigned to review the City's Housing Element, and was expected to receive certification. The City also distributed copies of the Housing Element's draft Negative Declaration to local and State agencies on September 11, 2009 for a 30-day public review period, ending October 12, 2009. The City and its consultant have held several prior conversations with the State on their concerns during the first -round review period. Staff believes those concerns have been addressed by the second -round submittal of the revised Housing Element Draft. However, as of the date of preparation of this staff report, HCD has not provided their second -round review comments, due by October 12, 2009, and have not given any indication that they are ready to certify the City's Housing Element. If the City were to adopt the Housing Element prior to State certification, staff would need to resubmit the adopted Element to the State for additional review prior to certification. As a result, there is a need to continue this item to the October 27 Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Under an open public hearing, continue consideration of Environmental Assessment 2008-599 and General Plan Amendment 2008-1 18, recommending adoption of the La Quinta Housing Element Update, to the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2009. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory Map 2. 2008 Housing Element Update Draft document s Proposed Zoning RL CC RM - CP RMH - CR CN VC RDA Project Area One RDA Project Area Two Source CM 0 L.O' .MQ ATTACHMENT 1 (2 PAGES) Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory 2W8 L Qwiw, H. l Ell.., Update Initial St dy T& P( .x m, Ow, • F19UM 0 DI A Low�T�r Fy OF Tt� TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LES JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTO DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009 SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief summary of the key work program items the Planning Department is currently working on or will be working on during the current budget cycle (FY 2009-10). All of the programs listed are either underway or are scheduled to commence shortly. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will be involved with all of the listed projects. During the October 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Staff will be prepared to provide a verbal summary of each of the listed program items and answer any questions you may have. General Plan Update: As noted in last years work program report, the City's current General Plan was last comprehensively revised in 2002. We are now approaching the 8 to 10 year time period that State law and the Office of Planning and Research uses as the benchmark for recommending the review and revision of a community's general plan. In light of this and the pace of growth the City has seen in the past six years, Staff is commencing the process of comprehensively reviewing and revising the City's General Plan. The update effort will especially focus upon two key items; transportation and sustainability as well as considering potential redevelopment opportunities in the older non-residential areas of the community. At the City Council's meeting of October 6, 2009, the Council selected Terra Nova Planning and Research as the lead firm to assist staff in the preparation of the revised General Plan, its environmental review and other support documents. The update process will commence by the end of this year and is anticipated to take approximately 18 months to complete. It is currently anticipated the Planning Commission will be asked to participate in at least two study sessions during the development of the Plan and will ultimately conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council in the spring/summer of 2011. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\Work Program Report.doc Zoning Code Amendment — Annual Clean Up Adjustments: The purpose of this amendment is to address Zoning Code issues that have come to light throughout the course of the year and which need either correction or clarification. A typical example of such is a code interpretation made by the Planning Director which needs confirmation and inclusion in the Zoning Code. Another example is the discovery of an inaccuracy or conflict in the language of the code that needs correction. The work schedule for this amendment currently brings it to the Planning Commission for review in November, 2009. Parking Ordinance Update This is a potential update of the Zoning Code's Parking Chapter (9.150) and is scheduled as a discussion item for the Planning Commission's upcoming joint meeting with the City Council and Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. The Code's parking regulations were adopted in their current format in 1996 with about a half dozen amendments since then to address various specific issues. Since that time, along with the growth of the City, the dynamics of the community's parking needs have changed. This update would take a comprehensive look at both the parking supply and design requirements of the current regulations in light of today's industry standards and local community goals and needs. If direction is received to proceed with this amendment, it would be targeted for consideration by the Planning Commission in the spring of 2010. Communication Towers Ordinance Update This update is of the Communication Towers and Equipment Chapter (9.170) of the Code. This chapter, which is written to primarily address large regional A -frame type antenna structures, needs to be revised to better address today's cellular communication towers and facilities. The update is tentatively scheduled to be ready for Planning Commission review in the spring of 2010. Miscellaneous Projects Other items the Planning Department is working on but will not necessarily require formal Planning Commission review and approval includes the upcoming 2010 Census, coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) on the development of housing and employment projections for the City to be used in SCAG's transportation and green house gas reduction work under SB 375, and review of new state and regional policies and requirements for water efficiency which would come to the Planning Commission if changes to the City's own requirements are deemed necessary. Although formal review is not anticipated for these items, the Commission will be kept informed through updates as these projects progress. P:\Reports - PC\2009\10-13-09\Work Program Report.doc