Loading...
2009 10 27 PCT City of La Quinta �Jj Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page � � 4 @ www.la-guinta.org G�`� OF'CYl4'9�^v 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 27, 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 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 13, 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 .................. CONTINUED - 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 20, 2009, by Chairman Alderson. B. Commissioner Quill is scheduled to attend the November 3, 2009, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 10, 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 27, 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 23, 2009. DATED: October 23, 2009 CAROLYfV WALKER, Executive Secretary 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 October 13, 2009 7:03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Weber 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, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the minutes of September 22, 2009. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Chairman Alderson and Commissioner Wilkinson to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Street Name Change 2009-019; a request by East of Madison, LLC for consideration of a recommendation to change a street name from Fremont Way to Happy Place Lane, located in the Madison Club; north of Baffin Avenue and west of Pike Place. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. PAReports- PC\2009\10-27-09\PC MIN_10-13-09Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Planning Director Les Johnson said staff had received notification that the applicant was not going to proceed with the name change. Because the request for withdrawal occurred after publication of the hearing notice, the item had to be presented at the Commission meeting. No vote or further action was needed. (A copy of the requesting memo is on file in the Planning Department.) B. 2008 La Quinta Housing Element; A request by staff for consideration of a recommendation for adoption of the proposed draft of the 2008 La Quinta Housing Element update document for the City of La Quinta. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Wally Nesbit presented the staff report, which included a request to open the public hearing portion of the meeting and continue this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2009. (A copy of the staff report is on file in the Planning Department.) Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff Commissioner Weber referred to an item on Page 6 of the staff report, which states: "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 acres, permit multi -family development by right." He asked if the allocation could not be accommodated, would State Law then allow developers to bypass some portion of the permitting process. Staff responded that was correct. Staff also explained "by right" means is that it is a permitted use "by right" in a zoning district. It means a requirement for a conditional use permit or specific plan or other use -related requirement can not be attached. Additional permits can be required for the development of the property, but use conditions can not be added. fr ,Reports P,,.A200q 90-27-00"C: MIN. 10 i z C9 Craft J,c 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Commissioner Weber commented that was one way the State could make sure of compliance. Staff said the State could also require heavier density if the City did not make an effort to find a sufficient number of sites. Commissioner Weber asked about the appropriateness of La Quinta's allocation numbers and if any other municipalities had asked for "pushbacks" of inappropriate numbers for their jurisdictions. Staff responded, initially, they had some significant questions about the number, and thought it was very high. They then gave details of what had been done to accommodate affordable housing even though this was a very high assignment of RHNA; however the City decided not to contest it. Planning Director Johnson said the State appeal process was fairly arduous and it was extremely difficult to lower those numbers. He then gave the example of the City of Irvine and their unsuccessful appeal. La Quinta carefully considered the options and did the best job possible to make it fit versus contesting the numbers. He then explained the difficult process, low success rate, what happens if cities do get their numbers shifted, and how it affects other jurisdictions. He added that the City just did not see the benefit of having to go through that challenge. Commissioner Quill asked if all the cities in the Coachella Valley were getting the same type of allocation, or was the City of La Quinta getting overburdened. Staff responded it did seem disproportionate. Commissioner Quill asked if more was being put on the City of La Quinta versus the City of Indian Wells. Staff did not comment specifically on that particular city, but said looking at all the cities and their per, capita situation, La Quinta was one of two cities that received a fairly high allocation. Commissioner Quill asked if the City was being penalized for doing a good job. Staff said no. Staff then went on to explain that the numbers were based upon future growth projections. Staff presented the City's land use situation when they met with the SCAG staff. In addition they identified the inventory of vacant, underdeveloped, and under-utilized P:,RN )or1. PC\2009A10-27-09TC MIN 10-13-09, DmfY.do c 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 land in the community. SCAG took that into consideration amongst all the other information they received from other jurisdictions in allocating the numbers. Staff explained their efforts in trying to fit all this within the City's jurisdiction, including the potential of up -zoning. There are still outstanding matters to address, with the State, to get to the point of certification. However, staff has taken a very difficult task and tried to make it work within the fabric of our community without much of a difference from what had been planned for with the City's last General Plan update. Commissioner Weber asked if the 60-day review period had technically expired on October 12, 2009. Staff replied, it had, and they had received review comments. Commissioner Weber asked about the procedures for the review and comment periods. Staff responded there were generally at least two, but the review periods could go on indefinitely. Staff was hoping to address the State's remaining concerns in the next submittal, and obtain a quick response in order to bring this forward. If there was not an additional 60-day time period, these could be turned around and be addressed in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Weber asked if there was the possibility of municipalities being able to shift their allocation to others by buying them out. Planning Director Johnson said it was possible but would be extremely difficult to do. Commissioner Weber said he had heard rumors of that happening and was troubled by it. Staff responded their understanding was that the process was so difficult it was virtually impossible. Commissioner Quill asked about other cities being under -allocated and if it was a political process. Chairman Alderson also asked if per capita income was part of the equation. Planning Director Johnson responded it was not. Principal Planner Nesbit said there were many factors involved in the allocation, including numbers generated by the Department of Finance. The planning period started in 2006 and when they were usthe City ingenced those quite a bit of growth in the proceeding years numbers. He went on to explain about the trend -line analysis and the 4 rl:1R<Curis - P', `.70C,9S10 24 OVIC ^AIN,10 13-09 Dmft.dwc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 assumption those numbers would continue. He explained the ramification of those formulas and said he couldn't speak to the matter of politics. However, there wasn't supposed to be any political influence and he doubted there was. His explanation of why the numbers went up so much was the growth that occurred. Commissioner Quill stated it appeared this was not a system that was subjective, but objective. Planning Director Johnson said it was supposed to be an objective process. He went on to confirm staff's previous comments. Commissioner Weber asked if there was going to be a square footage requirement on the second units and guest houses and were casitas anticipated as being part of that. He then asked about the definition of a guest house. Staff responded by saying a second unit guest house had additional amenities associated with it to allow occupants to live independently of the main house. A casita would be dependent upon the main house and the equivalent of a detached bedroom. The numbers staff used (500 units) were based upon the potential that is there. The City's Municipal Code supported those opportunities and hired help is residing on those sites. The City views that as a positive and, working with our consultant on this, it appears to be a realistic number to aim for in the future. Commissioner Weber asked if any other municipality had gone through the process of including these units and were they challenged. He askedif the City could actually use those numbers, or was this in a consulting stage. Planning Director Johnson said the City's Municipal Code actually encouraged those uses and there was nothing preventative in that area. It had been through the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) review and staff was not aware of any challenges. Principal Planner Nesbit said State law did specifically allow the use of second units as a potential housing accommodation and staff has not received any comments about using them. The State has challenged the capacity numbers, which included these, but has not said anything about the concept of using second units. Commissioner Weber asked for clarification on the definition of second units versus casitas and whether they were attached or detached from f' Aeporis , PC\2p09110-27-`J9Vr'C NIIN 10 13-09, Prnfr.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 the main residence. Staff responded, according to the consultant, a guest house or second unit were interchangeable but staff would double-check on that. Staff also commented that the consultant would be available at the next meeting to answer questions. Commissioner Barrows had some questions regarding the analysis of vacancy and under-utilized land and asked if the City could satisfy the RHNA allocation by including those parcels. Staff said yes. Commissioner Barrows said as the City further expands, or grows, vacant land tends to be used for other purposes; to which staff agreed. She then said she was curious as to what extent we could predict how much of a turnover there would be in existing buildings that might become moderate density or public units. She referred to the Vista Dunes project and its success. Staff responded that was what the City hoped to do with the last remaining mobile park site. There were also some limited opportunities identified on Highway 1 1 1, with mixed -use allowance. Part of the re -zoning program the City was putting forth would allow residential in selected commercial zones. This was not specifically a re -zoning in terms of actually up -zoning or re -zoning property but a change in the Municipal Code allowing more sites to accommodate more housing. Staff then explained the possibilities of using storefronts or other non-residential permitted uses in that zone. These sites could be developed as market rate or other residential -type uses that are not affordable. The Housing Element is periodically updated, as well as the land inventory, in an on -going process. A lot of this re -zoning would be looked at in more detail during the General Plan update and staff may be able to identify additional sites. Commissioner Barrows acknowledged that the City could satisfy all of their requirements with vacant land and the difficulty in predicting what might happen in locations with existing buildings and their conversion. She said she would like to see more above -second -story or above -retail provisions occurring. Commissioner Quill had a question about the Housing Element, Section 7.1 - Constructed and Approved Housing .Units, Paragraph 4, which included numbers for what was considered moderate, as well as the rental rates for many multi -family units. He commented that affordability had definitely improved over the last two -and -a -half years .27-09 "C MIN 10 1 3 p9_ Drilfl' loc 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 and gave an example of rental rates in the La Quinta Cove. He said the rates were very affordable, even though they were market rates. He commented on staff saying the only market rate housing available was only for the above -moderate folks, but then the report gave numbers of $1200 to $1590 as being affordable -moderate housing. He said he owns homes in the Cove and has had to drop his rental rates to fill them; since there was so much available single-family product in the affordable range. Planning Director Johnson said the numbers at the income levels change on an annual basis. The information in the Housing Element draft was based on one time frame, and there has likely been a downward adjustment since this was drafted. There will be annual adjustments throughout the life of the Element. A lot of that was based on historical trends. The current market was providing opportunities for housing today that wasn't there 18-24 months ago. How long that would last and what would transpire over the next year to five years no one knows. But the City had to take a conservative position and continues to focus in on the issue of adding more affordable housing for very -low and low- income residents in the community regardless of the current economic situation. The Council recently established a Housing Authority to try to expand and diversify affordable housing stock as well as the ability to provide those opportunities not only today, but many years into the future. Commissioner Quill asked if market rate housing could be considered, if it is affordable and in the price ranges for low to moderate. He asked if it could be included in the equation, even though it was market rate, or did it have to be subsidized government -type housing. Staff responded there was nothing that required it to be subsidized. There is the ability to provide that housing because of the current economy. The City may or may not be able to get credit for that with our housing element, but the interest is to give those folks a chance and opportunity to obtain affordable housing. There is continued interest with RDA to secure properties for new construction and possibly securing existing available projects to make sure that not only today, but in future years, we can provide opportunities for those in need. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the report being prepared based on the peak of the housing market and the determination of P Rcoron, "C,20CP 1C 27 OQ rC tFM 10 13 09 t)mfrAou 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 averages based on a previous high and now the market is off over 40% in value. He asked if the report would be more accurate if the peaks and valleys were leveled out and the numbers were figured on a straight-line graph. He asked how the cities could get the State to consider that. Staff said there could be some advantage to that but conditions are always changing. They explained the fluctuations and said they believed this was a reasonable approach to try and address the allocation that had been given to us. The General Plan update process would clear up any incorrect zoning. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how long had parcels U1 and U2 been in the City. Staff responded they were added in late 2007. Staff then commented on an affordable housing group's acquisition of property in northern La Quinta and its future potential. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the numbers of total residents in 2006 versus 2007 and said he suspected there were fewer people in the City today than in prior years, based on vacancies and people moving out -of -the -area for work. Staff responded those numbers were obtained from the State Department of Finance as the City had no way to validate or confirm those numbers as it was a fairly arduous task to track them. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on nearby cities being able to avoid providing these high numbers and asked if, realistically not statistically, the need was really that high. Staff responded, probably not with the economic downturn, since the affordability line had dropped. There's much more opportunity today than there was two or three years ago, but we are not the only Valley City struggling with a disproportionate number. There are other cities that have had difficulty. He gave the examples of Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage as well as what they were going through. He commented on SB 375 and the whole effort to combine affordable housing/transportation and linking those and future land use all together. The City will be re- visiting this issue during consideration of the sustainable community strategy (SB 375) with an even better and more realistic approach. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if Parcel 2 met the State's criteria for an affordable housing location since it was not close to shopping, schools, and public transportation. Staff said they would like to have it within certain distances of those amenities, but that particular site f' 1Report, PCi2009 10 27 09tPC MIN 10-13 09 Dmfr.dw; 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 could be more conductive to a moderate housing opportunity. The City is not bound to particular sites, but identified them because we have to identify sites to the State. As staff goes through the General Plan update process the issue will be the ability to accommodate those units and we may find there are other properties that might be more conducive. Staff identified those sites based upon current General Plan Land Use designations and the obligation to accommodate those allocated units. Commissioner Wilkinson commented that the criteria appears to be modified based on the total need, not the distance to shopping, schools, transportation, work centers, etc. He asked if all of that was factored into the equation for any kind of affordable housing. Staff responded there was an interest in doing that and added that was a key for sites the RDA may be interested in for future development. Staff then explained the reasoning for choosing various sites. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the City was not creating an area of conflict when the marketplace comes back. He asked if there would be a conflict with commerce in terms of people building, developing, and taking over projects (from the banks) and the City building housing that is competing with their potential marketplace. Staff said the City, would not want to compete with them. The City would love to see the private side of things come in and develop affordable housing without having to be subsidized by the RDA. The RDA has a certain obligation and responsibility for a number of units, but there are more units identified in the Housing Element than the RDA is obligated to address. We certainly would support that, but the bottom line is historically we haven't seen that. Developers' interests are typically associated with some type of a subsidy that helps pencil out a project to make it profitable. Commissioner Wilkinson asked what the solution was for that balance. Staff responded there may not be just one answer for that question. Commissioner Wilkinson said the City had an obligation to provide affordable housing, things are less expensive now than they used to be, but people are making less than they used to. He did not know if that equation had balanced out or not. Staff said they had recently amended the Municipal Code per State mandate to offer additional incentives for affordable housing. There are now means for relief of ('.ABeportt, PC\2009'.10'-27-09\PC WN 10 13-09_ Draft.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 certain code provisions that might generate a greater interest in the private side pursuing affordable housing projects. Chairman Alderson asked if there had been any presence from any Andalusia residents during the community outreach meeting. Principal Planner Nesbit said the community outreach occurred before the City was into the land inventory process, so there was no input from Andalusia about this site being selected. The community outreach was more of a general community outreach input process to get the community's opinion about housing issues and what they felt the City needed. There being no further questions of the staff, and with the applicant being the City, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, La Quinta introduced herself and said she spent some time going over the Housing Element. She said she was very impressed with the comprehensiveness of the document and congratulated the City for their efforts. She also commented on the age of the data which was based on the 2000 census through 2007. The whole picture of income and housing has changed in the past 18-24 months. It struck her that there was no mention of the part the foreclosures would play in adjusting the amount of available homes in certain income brackets. The high unemployment rate and the number of under -employed people would raise the number of people who would fall into very -low and low- income brackets. She said she would favor putting in a disclaimer saying the actual situation has changed a lot. She commented that the need for affordable housing was a lot higher now and she recently spoke with John Mealy about the high number of applicants for the Wolff Waters project. She commented on the large numbers of people needing affordable housing; especially senior citizens and how she thought low income housing was great. She urged the City to maintain their usual positive attitude towards meeting this need in the community. People that are poor and lower income work, shop, and go to restaurants and we should do the best we can and continue to demand high quality, well -managed facilities for them to live in. Chairman Alderson commented on Ms. Wolff's point about foreclosures. He asked if the newly established Housing Authority Rapart P'12009 10 27 091PC MIN,_1013 09 1)mftAor„ 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 13. 2009 would be dealing with foreclosures. Planning Director Johnson said yes. He said part of the reason for forming the Housing Authority was not only to maintain the existing homes in the Cove but to pursue the potential of securing bank -owned homes. He went on to explain the Authority is finding that though the number of foreclosed homes is dwindling, the opposite is happening on the high -end homes. A number of homes, in need of a lot of repair are still on the market and those are the ones the City is hoping to obtain and overhaul to include energy efficient improvements. The improvements would include water efficient landscaping and would help the neighborhood by turning a blighted situation to a positive one. Chairman Alderson asked if the homes in the Cove, and throughout the community, were going to be put into the housing inventory, and were they reflected in what was currently being presented. Staff said no. Those potential units had not been identified in the Housing Element but would help draw down the City's allocation. Commissioner Wilkinson said it was good to hear the City was pursuing some of the foreclosures. He commented on the benefits of scattered affordable housing in typical neighborhoods versus an island of affordable housing. When affordable housing is disbursed throughout the community it removes the stigma of "the projects". There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson left the public participation portion of the meeting open. Chairman Alderson asked if the Power Point graph, presented at this meeting, could be included in the upcoming packet. Staff said it would be included. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to continue the 2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2009. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: A. Chairman Alderson distributed a Fresh & Easy mailer he received. P .Report; P;:?Or�9A10-27-09"PC MIN 10 1-1 09. DrwI,(wc 11 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council Meeting of October 6, 2009, from Chairman Alderson, with comments on the following items: • Noise complaints from the Cove. • The local police and the SAFE Team. • A presentation made by Kathy Strong of the Living Desert. • Encouraged everyone to attend the upcoming Veterans' Day ceremony. • Council Member Evans' concerns on SilverRock. Staff provided information on finances and future options were discussed. • Residents of PGA West asked for a continuance of the public hearing items. Council continued them to the meeting of November 17, 2009. B. Chairman Alderson noted Commissioner Barrows is unable to attend the City Council Meeting of October 20, 2009 and he offered to attend in her place. Commissioner Barrows said she would be happy to take one of his upcoming turns. C. Chairman Alderson noted the Commission's Quarterly Attendance Report had been included in the packet and complimented the Commissioners on their attendance. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. 2009/2010 Work Program Report Planning Director Johnson referred to the memo included in the Commissioners' packet, and briefly went over the items listed in the memo. Included were some of the key items facing the Commission in the upcoming year such as: • The General Plan Update • Zoning Code Amendments. • Parking Ordinance Update. • Communication Towers Ordinance Update. • Miscellaneous Projects, including the 2010 Census. :ft2pons PC,200,2V10-27 09\PC MIN 10-1A 09. DrAt.doc 12 Piann�ng Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 B. Update on Discussion Items selected by ALRC for inclusion at the Joint PC/ALRC/CC Meeting of October 27, 2009. Discussion following regarding the topics, selected by the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Members to be presented at the Joint Meeting including, but not limited to: • Final landscape Plans and the review of those plans. • Establishing provisions that encouraged the use of native plant and tree species in landscaping plans. ■ Establishing provisions that encouraged solar control, increasing shade requirements for parking lots and requirement of installation of conduit and upgrades the future installation of solar panels on new commercial buildings. Staff advised the Commissioners their portion of the Joint Meeting would take place from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and the items previously submitted by the Planning Commission and ALRC would be included in the Staff Report. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on October 27, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. on October 13, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California P:Sduporls - R'2009110' 27 MIN 10-13-09 Draf'[.doc 13 PH # A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 (CONTINUED FROM 10/13/09) CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118 REQUEST: 11 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATING THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITYWIDE 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 BACKGROUND: On October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the staff report and related materials for the La Quinta Housing Element Update (Attachment 1). Staff presented an overview of the housing element process and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. It was recommended 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. The State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) submitted their second -round review response letter, which staff received on October 13, 2009 (Attachment 2)• OCTOBER 13 PLANNING COMMISSION At the October 13 Planning Commission meeting, discussion of the Housing Element focused on how the RHNA numbers were developed, and concerns regarding the use of 2000 Census and 2007 housing data, specifically due to the radical changes in market conditions that have occurred over the past couple of years. The only speaker under the public hearing was Ms. Kay Wolff, who also commented on the current market and its relevance to the Housing Element data. A summary of the RHNA, and how the City will accommodate its requirements, are provided as Attachments 3 and 4. The minutes of the October 13 Planning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment 5. The prime concern was that housing and land costs have declined significantly, and new construction is at a standstill. The projected housing need should account for this. Unfortunately, due to the housing element review draft submittal deadline of July 1, 2008, the timing of data used in preparation of housing elements made it the best available. While staff did make some changes and references that reflect the difficulties of the current condition prior to initial submittal to HCD, a wholesale revision of the element would have been necessary to prepare and incorporate more current data. The Housing Element contains many policies and programs designed to promote affordable housing, some of which are directly related to the Planning Commission's responsibilities in terms of land use review. Staff has identified several sites that will require rezoning actions to increase densities such that the remaining unmet RHNA requirements can be achieved through the remainder of the 2006-2014 planning period. These sites were previously discussed at the October 13 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 6). Rezoning also includes revising zoning district development standards in order to accommodate development of affordable housing on other sites without changing their current zoning designation. These changes would be reviewed and undertaken as part of the 2009 La Quinta General Plan Update process just getting underway. Under Housing Element law, the City must identify these sites and establish zoning changes within 2 years of the Housing Element's adoption. Due to the lack of available land resources and sensitivity to density, the land inventory took several months to develop, and is still a point of contention with the state HCD. ONGOING HCD CONCERNS The City and its consultant have held several prior conversations with the State on their concerns during the first -round review period. Staff believed those concerns had been addressed by the second -round submittal of the revised Housing Element Draft. However, in their response letter dated October 12, 2009, HCD cited several concerns with the City's draft element, many of which are a reiteration of previous comments. Staff arranged a phone conference with HCD on October 21 to discuss their concerns 0) and try to gain an understanding of the specific nature of their outstanding issues. Those which are directly related to land use considerations are outlined below. Realistic capacity and zoning to encourage/facilitate low income housing — HCD commented that the element still does not demonstrate how density allowance determinations for mixed -use sites were made. Staff will be providing HCD with more information on how those determinations were made, based on existing site examples and realistic estimates based in part on those examples. Lot consolidation — HCD would like to see expanded discussion on parcels suitable for consolidation into larger parcels, including how the City would encourage and facilitate such consolidation. Staff has referenced prior lot -merger incentive programs and how they could be applied to promote affordable housing. Zoning to encourage and facilitate housing for lower -income households - There is concern expressed that the City will not be able to stimulate affordable projects at 20 units/acre without City assistance. HCD wants more detailed explanation of how the City believes it can achieve affordable housing for low-income needs at 20 units/acre with minimal subsidy. Staff provided examples of affordable projects which had little or no City subsidies, such as Villa Cortina, in addition to a proforma analysis of an affordable housing project constructed by an affordable housing developer. Despite such examples and analysis, the State continues to require that the City adopt a density strategy above the maximum of 20 units/acre proposed in the draft element. Legislation that passed three years ago provides a target density threshold for lower income housing of 30 units/acre for all jurisdictions in the SCAG region with a population above 20,000 residents. It is likely that the State is using this as guidance when examining density standards in La Quinta. 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 has remained open since the continuance of this item on October 13, 2009. Public Agency Review On March 4, 2009 the City released a Public Review Draft of the Housing Element 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, which has been periodically updated to advise visitors seeking information on the Housing Element of the review progress and scheduling. As of this report's preparation, no additional comments had been received on the proposed draft Housing Element since the October 13 Planning Commission meeting. 7 STATE REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT Staff would like to prepare additional information for a response to HCD's latest comments. Based on the conference call with HCD held on October 21, it is conceivable that staff could receive a verbal certification from HCD in the next 2-3 weeks, but a written certification would not likely be received for 4-5 weeks. Staff would prefer that a formally certified element be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. As a result, staff is recommending continuance of this item to the December 8, 2009 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 December 8, 2009. Prepared by: lve�' Aj.....G✓f Wallace Nesbit Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Commission staff report, dated 10/13/09 2. HCD 2nd review letter, dated 10/12/09 3. Mandated Housing Goals - table 4. Accommodating the RHNA - table 5. Planning Commission Minutes — 10/13/09 6. Sites proposed for rezoning 4 ATTACHMENT #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-599 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-118 REQUEST: 11 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. 5 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 M 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. 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 Housing 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). 8 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 9 ➢ 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 E increase maximum densities from 16 to up to 20 units/acre (Programs 1 .5, 1.6). With the advent of SIB 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. 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: l U_ 1q Wallace Nesbit Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory Map 2, 2008 Housing Element Update Draft document 12 ATTACHMENT 1 (2 PAGES) Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory ^lii� 1 i I t i c.nwu. Proposed Zoning j RL CC L� RM ® CP ® RMH ® CR u CN VC QRDA Project Area One RDA Project Area Two sawn:cuyaiso .Ww rV3 13 2005 to Q ml. H.A9 Ell-W UP"a lDe rvanvng ume. ATTACHMENT 1 — PAGE 2 0 v on 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS T ANSPORTATIO� ry ARNOLO SCHWAR7 N R. •overnor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT # 2 DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 Third Street, Surte 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3177 I FAX (916) 327-2643 w .hcd.ca.gov October 12, 2009 Mr. Les Johnson Planning Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92247-1504 Dear Mr. Johnson: CITY OF LA OUINTA RE: Review of the City of La Quinta's Revised Draft Housing Element Update O�� y C'�4FOpTl\�`• Thank you for submitting La Quinta's revised draft housing element received for review on August 13, 2009 along with draft revisions sent by e-mail on September 18, 2009. The Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A telephone conversation on October 8, 2009 with you and Messrs. David Sawyer, Planner Manager, and Wallace Nesbett, City Planner, facilitated the review. The revised draft element addresses some of the statutory requirements described in the Department's June 30, 2069 review (enclosed). However, the following revisions are still needed for the element to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code): Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). Realistic Capacity: While the element indicates capacity estimates for mixed -use sites account for 1,159 units, it must still demonstrate how estimates of residential capacity were determined considering the potential for non-residential development on commercial and mixed -use sites. As noted in the June 2008 review, projected residential development capacity should not assume residential -only development on all mixed -use or commercial sites. Lot Consolidation Opportunities: The element was revised to indicate where there are opportunities for consolidation of sites in Tables C-1 and C-2. The element, however, should also describe the potential for lot consolidation, including conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for redevelopment, trends and how the City will encourage and facilitate lot consolidation. Additional information and sample analyses are available on the Department's Building Blocks' website at hftp�//www.hcd.ca.gov/hr)d/housin-q element2/SIA zoning.php. 15 Mr. Les Johnson Page 2 Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Housinq for Lower -Income Households: The element was not revised to demonstrate how the maximum allowable density of 20 units per acre in the in the VC, CC, CR, CID, and CP zones can accommodate the development of housing affordable to lower -income households. The element continues to require revision to address the statutory requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(A), requiring an analysis including, but not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility or information based on project experience within a zone(s) that provide housing opportunities for lower -income households. As noted in the previous reviews, for communities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for La Quinta), this analysis is not required pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). For your information, other Coachella Valley cities are zoned to provide densities of 20 units per acre or greater. For example, the City of Coachella has residential densities at 30 units per acre and Cathedral City has an established minimum density of 20 units per acre in its higher density residential zone. Pursuant to conversations with local developers, densities of 20-30 units per acre maximize efficient use of land and financial resources to promote affordable housing development. It is recognized that housing affordable to lower -income households requires significant subsidies and financial assistance. However, for the purpose of the adequate sites analysis and the appropriateness of zoning, identifying examples of lower density subsidized housing projects alone is not sufficient or appropriate to demonstrate the adequacy of a zone and/or density to accommodate the regional housing need for lower -income households. 2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner -occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low-income households (Section 65583(c)(1)). As detailed in Finding 1, the element does not include a complete sites analysis and, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Program 1.5 commits the City to allowing densities of up to 20 units per acre in the VC, CC, CR and CID zones; however, as noted in the previous review, based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites with appropriate zoning. An adequate sites program must make sites available in accordance with subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2 to meet 100 percent of the remaining lower -income housing need. 16 Mr. Les Johnson Page 3 Among other things, the Program must include sites zoned to permit owner -occupied and rental multifamily uses by right, ensure sites allow at least 16 units per site, at a minimum density of 20 units per acre, and accommodate at least 50 percent of the remaining need for lower -income households on sites zoned exclusively for residential uses. For additional information, refer to the Building Blocks' website at http-//www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/PRO adgsites.php. In addition, as the element is relying on vacant an underutilized sites with the potential for mixed -use development to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation for lower -income households, it should include specific program actions to promote redevelopment of underutilized sites and encourage and assist in lot consolidation. For example, Program 1.5 should include incentives to encourage and facilitate additional or more intense residential development on non -vacant and underutilized sites such as organizing special marketing events geared towards the development community and identifying and targeting specific financial resources. 3. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, low- and moderate -income households (Section 65583(c)(2)). The element was not revised to include or expand existing programs to specifically assist in the development of a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of extremely low-income households. Please refer to the previous review for additional information on this statutory requirement. Once the element has been revised to address these requirements, it will comply with State housing element law. The Department hopes these comments are helpful. If you have any questions or would like assistance, please contact Mario Angel, of our staff, al (916)445-3485. Sincerely, i E. Creswell Deputy Director Enclosure 17 ATTACHMENT # 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Plan hector Les Johnson said staff had received notit;igauernnat the applicant t going to proceed wi name change. Because the request for wl red after publication of the hearing notice, the ite to be p d at the Commission meeting. a or further action was neede . y of the stinq memo is on file in the Planning Department.) B. 2008 La Quinta Housing Element; A request by staff for consideration of a recommendation for adoption of the proposed draft of the 2008 La Quinta Housing Element update document for the City of La Quinta. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Wally Nesbit presented the staff report, which included a request to open the public hearing portion of the meeting and continue this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2009. (A copy of the staff report is on file in the Planning Department.) Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber referred to an item on Page 6 of the staff report, which states: "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 acres, permit multi -family development by right." He asked if the allocation could not be accommodated, would State Law then allow developers to bypass some portion of the permitting process. Staff responded that was correct. Staff also explained "by right" means is that it is a permitted use "by right" in a zoning district. It means a requirement for a conditional use permit or specific plan or other use -related requirement can not be attached. Additional permits can be required for the development of the property, but use conditions can not be added. 20 .Reports 27- 09,PCM IN_ 101309_ Draf t. dor Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 Commissioner Weber commented that was one way the State could make sure of compliance. Staff said the State could also require heavier density if the City did not make an effort to find a sufficient number of sites. Commissioner Weber asked about the appropriateness of La Quinta's allocation numbers and if any other municipalities had asked for "pushbacks" of inappropriate numbers for their jurisdictions. Staff responded, initially, they had some significant questions about the number, and thought it was very high. They then gave details of what had been done to accommodate affordable housing even though this was a very high assignment of RHNA; however the City decided not to contest it. Planning Director Johnson said the State appeal process was fairly arduous and it was extremely difficult to lower those numbers. He then gave the example of the City of Irvine and their unsuccessful appeal. La Quinta carefully considered the options and did the best job possible to make it fit versus contesting the numbers. He then explained the difficult process, low success rate, what happens if cities do get their numbers shifted, and how it affects other jurisdictions. He added that the City just did not see the benefit of having to go through that challenge. Commissioner Quill asked if all the cities in the Coachella Valley were getting the same type of allocation, or was the City of La Quinta getting overburdened. Staff responded it did seem disproportionate. Commissioner Quill asked if more was being put on the City of La Quinta versus the City of Indian Wells. Staff did not comment specifically on that particular city, but said looking at all the cities and their per capita situation, La Quinta was one of two cities that received a fairly high allocation. Commissioner Quill asked if the City was being penalized for doing a good job. Staff said no. Staff then went on to explain that the numbers were based upon future growth projections. Staff presented the City's land use situation when they met with the SCAG staff. In addition they identified the inventory of vacant, underdeveloped, and under-utilized FA Pdflepnrs PC2009)00-27-09TC MIN_„10 13 09. O'«Ift-doc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 land in the community. SCAG took that into consideration amongst all the other information they received from other jurisdictions in allocating the numbers. Staff explained their efforts in trying to fit all this within the City's jurisdiction, including the potential of up -zoning. There are still outstanding matters to address, with the State, to get to the point of certification. However, staff has taken a very difficult task and tried to make it work within the fabric of our community without much of a difference from what had been planned for with the City's last General Plan update. Commissioner Weber asked if the 60-day review period had technically expired on October 12, 2009. Staff replied, it had, and they had received review comments. Commissioner Weber asked about the procedures for the review and comment periods. Staff responded there were generally at least two, but the review periods could go on indefinitely. Staff was hoping to address the State's remaining concerns in the next submittal, and obtain a quick response in order to bring this forward. If there was not an additional 60-day time period, these could be turned around and be addressed in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Weber asked if there was the possibility of municipalities being able to shift their allocation to others by buying them out. Planning Director Johnson said it was possible but would be extremely difficult to do. Commissioner Weber said he had heard rumors of that happening and was troubled by it. Staff responded their understanding was that the process was so difficult it was virtually impossible. Commissioner Quill asked about other cities being under -allocated and if it was a political process. Chairman Alderson also asked if per capita income was part of the equation. Planning Director Johnson responded it was not. Principal Planner Nesbit said there were many factors involved in the allocation, including numbers generated by the Department of Finance. The planning period started in 2006 and when the City experienced quite a bit of growth in the proceeding years they were using those numbers. He went on to explain about the trend -line analysis and the 22 (' �8t:p rt P<:A20C)9-10 27-09\FC NIIN, 10 13 09_ Dr. ('t.dw Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 assumption those numbers would continue. He explained the ramification of those formulas and said he couldn't speak to the matter of politics. However, there wasn't supposed to be any political influence and he doubted there was. His explanation of why the numbers went up so much was the growth that occurred. Commissioner Quill stated it appeared this was not a system that was subjective, but objective. Planning Director Johnson said it was supposed to be an objective process. He went on to confirm staff's previous comments. Commissioner Weber asked if there was going to be a square footage requirement on the second units and guest houses and were casitas anticipated as being part of that. He then asked about the definition of a guest house. Staff responded by saying a second unit guest house had additional amenities associated with it to allow occupants to live independently of the main house. A casita would be dependent upon the main house and the equivalent of a detached bedroom. The numbers staff used (500 units) were based upon the potential that is there. The City's Municipal Code supported those opportunities and hired help is residing on those sites. The City views that as a positive and, working with our consultant on this, it appears to be a realistic number to aim for in the future. Commissioner Weber asked if any other municipality had gone through the process of including these units and were they challenged. He asked if the City could actually use those numbers, or was this in a consulting stage. Planning Director Johnson said the City's Municipal Code actually encouraged those uses and there was nothing preventative in that area. It had been through the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) review and staff was not aware of any challenges. Principal Planner Nesbit said State law did specifically allow the use of second units as a potential housing accommodation and staff has not received any comments about using them. The State has challenged the capacity numbers, which included these, but has not said anything about the concept of using second units. Commissioner Weber asked for clarification on the definition of second units versus casitas and whether they were attached or detached from 23 (' %R,r..nts P(-,A200,9110-27-O91PC MIN. 10-13-09.')Mft. do 'o Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 the main residence. Staff responded, according to the consultant, a guest house or second unit were interchangeable but staff would double-check on that. Staff also commented that the consultant would be available at the next meeting to answer questions. Commissioner Barrows had some questions regarding the analysis of vacancy and under-utilized land and asked if the City could satisfy the RHNA allocation by including those parcels. Staff said yes. Commissioner Barrows said as the City further expands, or grows, vacant land tends to be used for other purposes; to which staff agreed. She then said she was curious as to what extent we could predict how much of a turnover there would be in existing buildings that might become moderate density or public units. She referred to the Vista Dunes project and its success. Staff responded that was what the City hoped to do with the last remaining mobile park site. There were also some limited opportunities identified on Highway 111, with mixed -use allowance. Part of the re -zoning program the City was putting forth would allow residential in selected commercial zones. This was not specifically a re -zoning in terms of actually up -zoning or re -zoning property but a change in the Municipal Code allowing more sites to accommodate more housing. Staff then explained the possibilities of using storefronts or other non-residential permitted uses in that zone. These sites could be developed as market rate or other residential -type uses that are not affordable. The Housing Element is periodically updated, as well as the land inventory, in an on -going process. A lot of this re -zoning would be looked at in more detail during the General Plan update and staff may be able to identify additional sites. Commissioner Barrows acknowledged that the City could satisfy all of their requirements with vacant land and the difficulty in predicting what might happen in locations with existing buildings and their conversion. She said she would like to see more above -second -story or above -retail provisions occurring. Commissioner Quill had a question about the Housing Element, Section 7.1 - Constructed and Approved Housing Units, Paragraph 4, which included numbers for what was considered moderate, as well as the rental rates for many multi -family units. He commented that affordability had definitely improved over the last two -and -a -half years 24 Pr�f�cr 10-27-091f'C MIN _1013-09 D)Mf(.d0f7 Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 and gave an example of rental rates in the La Quinta Cove. He said the rates were very affordable, even though they were market rates. He commented on staff saying the only market rate housing available was only for the above -moderate folks, but then the report gave numbers of $12OO to $159O as being affordable -moderate housing. He said he owns homes in the Cove and has had to drop his rental rates to fill them; since there was so much available single-family product in the affordable range. Planning Director Johnson said the numbers at the income levels change on an annual basis. The information in the Housing Element draft was based on one time frame, and there has likely been a downward adjustment since this was drafted. There will be annual adjustments throughout the life of the Element. A lot of that was based on historical trends. The current market was providing opportunities for housing today that wasn't there 18-24 months ago. How long that would last and what would transpire over the next year to five years no one knows. But the City had to take a conservative position and continues, to focus in on the issue of adding more affordable housing for very -low and low- income residents in the community regardless of the current economic situation. The Council recently established a Housing Authority to try to expand and diversify affordable housing stock as well as the ability to provide those opportunities not only today, but many years into the future. Commissioner Quill asked if market rate housing could be considered, if it is affordable and in the price ranges for low to moderate. He asked if it could be included in the equation, even though it was market rate, or did it have to be subsidized government -type housing. Staff responded there was nothing that required it to be subsidized. There is the ability to provide that housing because of the current economy. The City may or may not be able to get credit for that with our housing element, but the interest is to give those folks a chance and opportunity to obtain affordable housing. There is continued interest with RDA to secure properties for new construction and possibly securing existing available projects to make sure that not only today, but in future years, we can provide opportunities for those in need. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the report being prepared based on the peak of the housing market and the determination of 25 f' iRepo�ts - PC\2009.10-27-09VPC MIN_10 13-09. rhaf[.0,C Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 averages based on a previous high and now the market is off over 40% in value. He asked if the report would be more accurate if the peaks and valleys were leveled out and the numbers were figured on a straight-line graph. He asked how the cities could get the State to consider that. Staff said there could be some advantage to that but conditions are always changing. They explained the fluctuations and said they believed this was a reasonable approach to try and address the allocation that had been given to us. The General Plan update process would clear up any incorrect zoning. Commissioner Wilkinson asked how long had parcels U1 and U2 been in the City. Staff responded they were added in late 2007. Staff then commented on an affordable housing group's acquisition of property in northern La Quinta and its future potential. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on the numbers of total residents in 2006 versus 2007 and said he suspected there were fewer people in the City today than in prior years, based on vacancies and people moving out -of -the -area for work. Staff responded those numbers were obtained from the State Department of Finance as the City had no way to validate or confirm those numbers as it was a fairly arduous task to track them. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on nearby cities being able to avoid providing these high numbers and asked if, realistically not statistically, the need was really that high. Staff responded, probably not with the economic downturn, since the affordability line had dropped. There's much more opportunity today than there was two or three years ago, but we are not the only Valley City struggling with a disproportionate number. There are other cities that have had difficulty. He gave the examples of Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage as well as what they were going through. He commented on SIB 375 and the whole effort to combine affordable housing/transportation and linking those and future land use all together. The City will be re- visiting this issue during consideration of the sustainable community strategy (SB 375) with an even better and more realistic approach. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if Parcel 2 met the State's criteria for an affordable housing location since it was not close to shopping, schools, and public transportation. Staff said they would like to have it within certain distances of those amenities, but that particular site 26 F''Reports PC.12009i10-27-001PC NIIN_1013-09 DI;At.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 could be more conductive to a moderate housing opportunity. The City is not bound to particular sites, but identified them because we have to identify sites to the State. As staff goes through the General Plan update process the issue will be the ability to accommodate those units and we may find there are other properties that might be more conducive. Staff identified those sites based upon current General Plan Land Use designations and the obligation to accommodate those allocated units. Commissioner Wilkinson commented that the criteria appears to be modified based on the total need, not the distance to shopping, schools, transportation, work centers, etc. He asked if all of that was factored into the equation for any kind of affordable housing. Staff responded there was an interest in doing that and added that was a key for sites the RDA may be interested in for future development. Staff then explained the reasoning for choosing various sites. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the City was not creating an area of conflict when the marketplace comes back. He asked if there would be a conflict with commerce in terms of people building, developing, and taking over projects (from the banks) and the City building housing that is competing with their potential marketplace. Staff said the City would not want to compete with them. The City would love to see the private side of things come in and develop affordable housing without having to be subsidized by the RDA. The RDA has a certain obligation and responsibility for a number of units, but there are more units identified in the Housing Element than the RDA is obligated to address. We certainly would support that, but the bottom line is historically we haven't seen that. Developers' interests are typically associated with some type of a subsidy that helps pencil out a project to make it profitable. Commissioner Wilkinson asked what the solution was for that balance. Staff responded there may not be just one answer for that question. Commissioner Wilkinson said the City had an obligation to provide affordable housing, things are less expensive now than they used to be, but people are making less than they used to. He did not know if that equation had balanced out or not. Staff said they had recently amended the Municipal Code per State mandate to offer additional incentives for affordable housing. There are now means for relief of 27 P:�Nc=(Jt�rta PC;2009%1G 27-09TC MIN _10-13-09,,, Draft.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 certain code provisions that might generate a greater interest in the private side pursuing affordable housing projects. Chairman Alderson asked if there had been any presence from any Andalusia residents during the community outreach meeting. Principal Planner Nesbit said the community outreach occurred before the City was into the land inventory process, so there was no input from Andalusia about this site being selected. The community outreach was more of a general community outreach input process to get the community's opinion about housing issues and what they felt the City needed. There being no further questions of the staff, and with the applicant being the City, Chairman Alderson asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, La Quinta introduced herself and said she spent some time going over the Housing Element. She said she was very impressed with the comprehensiveness of the document and congratulated the City for their efforts. She also commented on the age of the data which was based on the 2000 census through 2007. The whole picture of income and housing has changed in the past 18-24 months. It struck her that there was no mention of the part the foreclosures would play in adjusting the amount of available homes in certain income brackets. The high unemployment rate and the number of under -employed people would raise the number of people who would fall into very -low and low- income brackets. She said she would favor putting in a disclaimer saying the actual situation has changed a lot. She commented that the need for affordable housing was a lot higher now and she recently spoke with John Mealy about the high number of applicants for the Wolff Waters project. She commented on the large numbers of people needing affordable housing; especially senior citizens and how she thought low income housing was great. She urged the City to maintain their usual positive attitude towards meeting this need in the community. People that are poor and lower income work, shop, and go to restaurants and we should do the best we can and continue to demand high quality, well -managed facilities for them to live in. Chairman Alderson commented on Ms. Wolff's point about foreclosures. He asked if the newly established Housing Authority 28 f va.(p«rts PC\2009 10 27-091PC IMIN, 10-13 09 Droft,doc Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009 would be dealing with foreclosures. Planning Director Johnson said yes. He said part of the reason for forming the Housing Authority was not only to maintain the existing homes in the Cove but to pursue the potential of securing bank -owned homes. He went on to explain the Authority is finding that though the number of foreclosed homes is dwindling, the opposite is happening on the high -end homes. A number of homes, in need of a lot of repair are still on the market and those are the ones the City is hoping to obtain and overhaul to include energy efficient improvements. The improvements would include water efficient landscaping and would help the neighborhood by turning a blighted situation to a positive one. Chairman Alderson asked if the homes in the Cove, and throughout the community, were going to be put into the housing inventory, and were they reflected in what was currently being presented. Staff said no. Those potential units had not been identified in the Housing Element but would help draw down the City's allocation. Commissioner Wilkinson said it was good to hear the City was pursuing some of the foreclosures. He commented on the benefits of scattered affordable housing in typical neighborhoods versus an island of affordable housing. When affordable housing is disbursed throughout the community it removes the stigma of "the projects". There being no further public comment, Chairman Alderson left the public participation portion of the meeting open. Chairman Alderson asked if the Power Point graph, presented at this meeting, could be included in the upcoming packet. Staff said it would be included. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to continue the 2008 La Quinta Housing Element Update to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 2009. Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE Alderson distributed a Fresh & Easy r''tii ai4e a received. 29 C� Fiept r s PC,2009i10 27-09APC MIN. 10-13-09. Draft(Joc Qll 0s