Loading...
1999 10 26 CC Minutesd__9 LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER26, 1999 Special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at the hour of 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Pefia, followed by the pledge of allegiance. Council Roll Call: PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None Planning Commission Roll Call: PRESENT: Planning Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, Chairman Kirk ABSENT: Commissioner Abels PUBLIC COMMENT None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Confirmed WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE None BUSINESS SESSION None STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING GENERAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE INCLUDING POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS. Community Development Director Jeriy Herman introduced Principal Planner Fred Baker who introduced General Plan Consultant Nicole Cri Criste of Teffa Nova Planning and Research, Inc. Ms. Criste gave a summary of the proposed land use changes to the General Plan and Land Use Map. She explained this was a frame of reference to go by for the ultimate buildout of the City. In regard to the status of the General Plan Update, they are drafting the Master Environmental Assessment MEA) and each of the Elements for the General Plan text. That document is still missing the Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, and Noise Elements. In order to proceed with the Traffic and Noise Elements they need to finalize the Land Use Element. It is anticipated that public hearings before the Planning Commission will be held in May, 2000 and the City Council in June, 2000 for final adoption. BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 2 October26, 1999 Ms. Cri Criste went on to explain that the existing Land Use Map is as the City operates with the current land use designation as well as the current land use designations for the Riverside County areas that are within the Planning Areas. The Preferred Alternative Map shows proposed City land use designations for all lands within the Planning Areas. Ms. Criste noted a correction: the Existing Map correctly shows the Palm Royale Country Club site, whereas the Preferred Alternative should be changed to include the golf area and medium designation. Ms. Criste went over the major changes as listed numerically on the map: 1. East side of Washington Street north of Whitewater Channel Change: HDR to 10 acres of Park, 10 acres of TC, and 30 acres of MDR 2. East side of Washington, between 48? Avenue and 471h Avenue Change: RC to CC 3. Northeast corner of 48? Avenue and Jefferson Street Change: RC to MDR 4. Northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue Change: RC to HDR 5. West side of Eisenhower Street, north of La Quinta Hotel Change: LDR to TC 6. The Ranch: west of Jefferson Street north and south of 52nd Avenue Change: LDR to TC 7. Northeast corner of Madison Street and 54th Avenue Change: VLD to TC 8. Thermal portion of Planning Area All agriculturally zoned land proposed for LDR 2-4 units per acre) The balance of the area within both the Planning Areas, Bermuda Dunes and Thermal, were given City land use designations equivalent to their designations within the County. The Preferred Alternative and the existing General Plan generate different numbers as shown in Tables 3 and 4. The potential population based on the existing General Plan designation for buildout of the City and Planning Area would be 83,450 people living in 40,719 dwelling units. The total commercial square footage that is estimated for the Planning Area and City limits under the existing General Plan is just over 17 million square feet with an estimated 14,800,000 square feet of industrial land, currently designated within County property. Under the Preferred Alternative, converting the agriculture lands to Low Density Residential, the City would have a buildout population of 156,525 people living in 77,627 dwelling units with 22 million square feet of commercial and 14,800,000 square feet of industrial space. Tables 1 and 2 gross acreage calculations are provided for each of the land uses. Currently, within the City there are 9,700 acres of residential land and 1,270 acres of commercial. With the proposed changes there would be 9,100 acres of residential and 1,740 of commercially designated land. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS?PC-CC1 O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9 October26, 1999 City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 3 Council Member Sniff stated the City appears to be working with a lot of land that is not currently annexed in the City and the zoning designations would be contingent upon the City annexing this land. Ms. Criste stated the text of the General Plan separates out the City limits from the Planning Area. It is not required that the City annex the property as part of the General Plan process. It is part of the City's long range planning efforts. Mayor Pen a stated the land shown that is not currently within the City limits is basically the same designation as it is currently zoned. Ms. Criste stated that was true. Council Member Henderson asked if the Planning Area that is shown is the same Planning Area that existed before and isn't it legal for the City to have a Planning Area outside its City limits or Sphere of Influence to enable the CitY to plan for what it would like to see in that area. Ms. Cri Criste stated that was true. Council Member Henderson asked if any part of this Planning Area overlapped with any other city. Ms. Criste stated it did not encroach into any other city's Sphere of Influence. She did not know if anyone else had included this area in their Planning Area. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the City of Coachella had included most of the area to the south in their Planning Area. Council Member Sniff stated that if the City was planning beyond its City limits, or Sphere of Influence, it would seem that the City was getting into tenuous territory where other city's may have plans for that area and we may have competing General Plan areas. Ms. Cri Criste stated that in terms of development of the two areas, that was possible. Council Member Sniff stated he was concerned about the vast area between 56th Avenue and 64th Avenue and potentially the new configuration of 86th Avenue as it is currently agricultural; does the City have any realistic expectations that agriculture is going to disappear from that area and if we do what is it based upon. Ms. Criste stated that agriculture is already beginning to disappear in that area as evidenced by the two existing specific plans, Coral Mountain and Kohl Ranch, and both propose Medium or Low Density development for long range development. Urbanization is heading eastward. Agriculture may not disappear, but the concentration of agriculture in this area for the long term is less likely. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent of the General Plan is to recognize the agriculture land use and allow it to exist until such time as they want to change. The underlying designation will be Low Density Residential so that if they want to change their designation it can be done without much effort. There is no compulsion to require the change at this time. Council Member Sniff stated his concern that some of the farmers will not be comfortable with this. He recognizes that a lot of the farming industry has disappeared, but a large portion has actually just moved southeastward. Council Member Adolph asked if this would include the Travertine project. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this project was already within the City limits and zoned residential. The grape vineyard is able to continue farming until it is ready to transfer over to Low Density Residential as development takes place. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CCl O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 4 October26, 1999 Council Member Perkins stated he was a strong supporter of annexation of this area, but he also was a strong supporter that the City not force the agricultural interest out of there. As he looks at the Preferred Land Use Map, unless it is explained properly to the residents of that area, it appears the City is going to eliminate the agriculture and go for Low Density zoning, and he could not support that. Ms. Cri Criste stated policies would be included in the text of the General Plan to support the continued preservation of agricultural lands as long as they wish to be agricultural. Council Member Perkins stated this needs to be emphasized at the public hearings. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff could make a designation on the Land Use Map to denote the agricultural use will be allowed to remain and see that it is distributed in that way. The Land Use text wi? clearly state that it remains, but has a residential overlay. Council Member Perkins stated the success of any annexation eastward will depend on the cooperation of the agricultural interests. The diversity of the land uses adds to the beauty of this City. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was staff's intent to help the farmers realize that if they want to get out of the agricultural business they have an opportunity to develop their property with single family development and sell it as such so they can increase the value of their property. They have the right to continue farming and they have the right to develop in the future, without much process, or review by the City. Council Member Henderson stated they would not be required to process a General Plan Amendment when they were ready to sell their land. Staff stated that was correct and it would make the annexation process easier. Council Member Perkins stated he thought the process should be the reverse. The map seems to say we will have residential and maybe permit agriculture. It needs to be reversed. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this could be taken care of with an overlay. Council Member Sniff stated it was important to have prominent, definite language to make it explicit that the City is protecting the farming interest and has no intent on forcing them out of business, or even to encourage them to go out of business. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if someone is wanting to annex into the City it is usually because they want to obtain a return on their land. Council Member Adolph stated he too believes we are losing our agriculture land. In regard to the exhibits, Existing and Preferred, who determined the Preferred". Ms. Criste stated the Preferred Map was based on some housekeeping changes and requests by staff and the consultants. Council Member Adolph asked if there was any other way of using more distinguishing colors; not so many reds, but maybe dots or something else. Ms. Cri Criste stated they would continue to work on the color separation. Council Member Adolph stated he had a concern about Area #5 as the citizens who live in that area are going to be interested in what is going to happen if their area is rezoned to Tourist Commercial, especially up against the mountains. He is not sure what is proposed by KSL for this area; whether it will be low profile residential type casitas units, or what. The designation of Tourist C:\My Documents?WPDOCS\PC-CC1O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9 City CouncilIPlanning Commission Minutes 5 October26, 1999 Commercial will allow a multitude of things to be developed and this area needs to be looked at carefully as to what will be allowed to be developed. The City could be criticized if KSL moves forward with high-rise units and they are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff is processing an Environmental Impact Report for the development of Club Real which has a Specific Plan for commercial uses. It will have two-story, timeshare type of units. KSL is processing the FIR and doing their application and staff is placing it on the Land Use Map so it can be included in the traffic calculations. The zoning has been changed from Residential to Tourist Commercial and tbe Preferred Map reflects what is proposed. Staff is intending to address the concerns through the application process through height limits and other ways. Planning Commissioner Robert Tyler stated he assumes the County area between Miles Avenue and Fred Waring Drive, west of Washington will be annexed by the City of Indian Wells and that is why it is not addressed on the map. Staff stated that was correct. Planning Commissioner Tyler stated the proposed changes for the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street from its current zoning to an even lower density is a step in the wrong designation. This is a very important corner with all the development across the street, the Tennis Complex and hotels planned for this area, and with the abundance of noise from the current traffic as well as what will be generated by the proposed development, will make it less than desirable for high quality low density residential. Some portion of this comer should have commercial zoning to capitalize on the commercial activity. He shares the concern about the takeover of the agriculture land and would hope that whatever the City does will not be for the sake of urban sprawl, but will focus on what the City currently has and also factor into the General Plan various State provisions that provide the means for those who want to stay in agricultural to do so. Commissioner Butler stated the City Council members have stated his concerns in regard to the farm lands. The abundance of Tourist Commercial zoning hopefully will start to show some revenue generation for the City. He believes the Land Use Map has been planned well. The issues brought up by Planning Commissioner Tyler in regard to the property at the northeast comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue can be mitigated as that property is developed. Commissioner Robbins stated he was pleased to see the northeast comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue was rezoned to Low Density Residential as there are several developers considering this property for development of residential units; therefore, he believes this is the proper designation. He agrees with the agriculture designation and the need to be sure the property owners do not believe the City is trying to eliminate agriculture. The other minor issue he has is with the southwest comer of the City that is behind the stormwater dike, a large portion of land that is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and he finds it odd that the area is zoned Low Density Residential as he doubts it would ever happen. Chairman Kirk stated he too focused on the potential annexation. The question he has is on the new alignment for Highway 86; are there any proposed interchanges for the area shown as the eastern boundary of the annexation area? Ms. Criste stated that without looking up that information, she is not sure. Chairman Kirk then asked if the City is going to plan this area, or will the City mimic the C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC1 o-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 6 October26, 999 current County designations. There are good reasons for doing either. On Table 4 under the Sphere and Planning Area under Low Density Residential, it shows 13,000 developed acres, and he interpreted that as being 13,000 acres of agriculture land that falls now within the Low Density Residential on the Preferred Plan. Ms. Criste stated that includes the conversion of 11,000 acres of agriculture to a low density use. Chairman Kirk stated it appears to be misleading to suggest that it is currently developed as Low Density Residential when it is agriculture. Ms. Criste stated that was correct. Chairman Kirk stated that in regard to the area to the south and east that has been changed from Agriculture to Low Density Residential, the City has two choices: 1) to look at the annexation area and actually plan it. How this fliture part of the City can be incorporated into the City and look at how the land uses could be developed; look at interchanges and think about major circulation, and what effects wo?d take place with the incorporation of this area. We either go all the way and considered it developed whether it is ten years or 100 years from now, and incorporate those changes into the General Plan. The second option is to mimic the County's General Plan designation and create a new designation for the City, an agriculture land use designation and mirror what is in the cwrent General Plan for the County and our study area for the time being. We either do it right and plan for the future urbanization, or do it right and mimic the County designations. What we are doing now is somewhere in between and does not make a lot of sense to him. It overestimates impacts and might draw a lot of concerns. If we are going to annex the area, then they need to look at the entire area and think about how, in particular, the airport can be incorporated into the fabric of the entire City. Mayor Pena stated he too shares the concerns that have already been articulated. There appears to be a consensus on the issue of the agriculture land. In regard to Chairman Kirk's point, it does raise the question as to whether the City wants to adopt the County's designation. The City has adopted the County's designation for planning p?oses to not make any dramatic changes in the current uses. Maybe the City should look at some alternative uses for the future. He then asked staff to explain the designation on the property that is located opposite 64th Avenue and Madison Street as it appears to be a small portion of Neighborhood Commercial on both maps. Ms. Criste stated it has a Tourist Commercial designation. Council Member Henderson stated it was never assumed that the City was looking towards interfering with the current agriculture zoning, but rather to provide the property owners with the option to change their zoning designation if they chose to. It is critical to place safeguards for these changes. This community has so many things happening. Annexation and the desire of the City Council to move forward with some boundaries that haven't even been set yet, is happening on one hand while the General Plan process is happening. In fact when the decision is made whether or not it is appropriate to annex and whether or not the property owners in this area support annexation, it is critical that the City Couricil sit down with the property owners to master plan the area at that time and not now. The City cannot plan an area without the input from the property owners in that area. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that is correct. In order to do an annexation you have to prezone the property and in order to prezone the property you have to have a land use designation to be compatible with the zoning that you want to attach to the property. It is staffs attempt to let the property owners know that the City recognizes the current zoning and will allow the Low Density Residential. If the annexation is processed first the land would be prezoned as part C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC1 O-26-99wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9 City CouncilIPlanning Commission Minutes 7 October 26, 1999 of that process. If the City's desire is to annex the property with the Low Density Residential zoning, which is two to four units per acre, which is what staff understands the property owners in the area support, it will depend on what process takes place first. If the annexation is processed first, the area would be prezoned as part of the annexation and the General Plan would reflect that zoning. If we complete the General Plan Update first, the City would designate the area and the property owners, through public hearings, can determine the zoning. Council Member Henderson stated that somewhere in the filture if we adopted t? General Plan as presented, it is nothing more than a Planning Area. Therefore, when this area is annexed, the City could bring this area back and prepare a master plan to meet all the needs of the property owners. Community Development Jerry Herman stated the City could also consider annexing only a part of the area and deal with only that portion and leave the remainder. Mayor Pena asked if the City does move toward annexation in that area, at what point do we consider buffers to the airport. As it exist5 on the Preferred Map, there is Low Density Residential abutting the airport. Council Member Henderson stated the airport also has a master plan for the adjoining areas. Mayor Pena stated those are some of the concerns he sees on the Preferred Plan. The City is adding a significant amount of Tourist Commercial designation that abuts the Low Density Residential. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the reason for the Tourist Commercial designations is to allow the timeshares or single family units with hotel and golf components. It is not intended to be all hotel or retail. Mayor Pen a stated there currently is a Village designation. Is it appropriate to extend that Village Commercial to other areas that would be annexed into the City? Staff stated the thought of having more than one village in the City was never considered. Council Member Henderson stated that property owners from Thermal had stated that if we were looking to annex Thermal, they would want the City to consider having a Thermal Village. Council Member Perkins stated there seems to be a lot of time spent on what to him is simple. He concurs with the ultimate goal, but right now the City should leave that portion of land the City is looking at for annexation alone and not change any of the designations. If, and when it is annexed it will be up to the property owners to determine their zoning. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent of creating the Planning Area is to reduce the amount of time it would take to annex an area. We would have it zoned and designated and ready to take to LAFCO with the annexation request, without having to conduct separate public hearings. Council Member Perkins stated he could agree with this process so long as the City can assure the property owners that the City is not out to change the zoning of the agriculture area. It would be up to the individual property owners to make the zone changes. Council Member Henderson asked if this could be done with an overlay. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated yes, as there are other ways to map the area to be sure the agricultural use is allowed both on the Map as well as the text. C \My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CCl O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 26, 1999 Mayor Pefia stated there are significant changes that are being proposed in the Preferred Plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent behind this presentation is to enable staff to do the traffic analysis. If the area is designated agriculture, and the traffic analysis is based on that designation, the City will have two lane facilities. Therefore, when a developer comes in with a tract map, the City will not have the designation in the General Plan to handle the traffic. Staff is trying to consider the inost intensive land use that we believe should happen in this area, create the road designation and design st?dards for that circulation, and make sure it is capable of handling that traffic in the luture. Council Member Perkins stated that cwTently the City has areas with two lane roads and if a developer wants to develop the land, we require the developer to widen the road. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that was correct, except that the developer only has to develop the road to the extent it is classified in the General Plan. This is why we are doing a traffic analysis. If the area calls for a four lane facility and there is only a two lane facility, then we require the developer to build it to a four lane facility. This is why we have proposed designations. Everyone understands that if they want to develop in this area, this is the type of road and circulation that will be required. The traffic analysis is needed so it can be included in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update. Council Member Sniff stated that in regard to Planning Commissioner Tyler's comments, he believes they are very good. He is particularly interested in what may, or may not happen with the Tennis Complex facility. The City of Indian Wells has not stated they will be annexing this area. He believes they have major concerns about what they will be required to do in conjunction with the annexation, and maybe the City should not eliminate this area. If Indian Wells decides not to annex, the City should be prepared to make an effort if we decide to do so. Next, the northeast comer of Washington Street and Miles Avenue; it seems the City should maxinuze commercial uses wherever there is the greatest opportunity for success. This intersection is extremely important and the traffic will be enormous and the City should not preclude this opportunity. Chairman Kirk's comments are excellent, but a total plan for a total area is a tall order. The City should keep it simple to minimize the concern of property owners that the City will annex with the agriculture designation and the potential residential overlay. In regard to the airport, there should be some thought to some commercialization around the perimeter of the airport. That airport may become a major commercial venture with commerce both import/export and the City needs to think about what can be done around the perimeter to accommodate the eventual major importance of the airport. No one has the wisdom to master plan the entire area. need to keep the potential annexees as unconcerned as possible and assure them that this is an advantage to them with safeguards. In regard to streets, the City needs to think boldly. The City will need major thoroughfares to handle the bulk of the traffic. If the City does annex this area, we will need several major east west streets to handle the traffic. We need to plan our streets adequately, plus. A city without sufficient streets is doomed. Lastly, he would prefer the word recommended" be used on the maps. Planning Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about discussions that changes within the City limits are being made to accommodate a development that is being proposed. It seems the General Plan should be done independently of what is being planned and not accommodate developers, but look at the overall benefit for the entire City. We should not be concentrating on near term events. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC1O-2?99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9 City Council/planning Commission Minutes 9 October 26, 1999 Mayor Pen a stated that is the purpose of the Planning Commission to take those things as they come up on a case by case basis. Planning Commissioner Tyler stated that was true, but they should not be included in the General Plan process. Chairman Kirk stated we do not want to master plan to the infinite detail knowing that we do not know enough. At the satne time, we should look at major thoroughfares, planning around the airport, and planning streets adequately. Right now we are just moving colors on a map. Is this enough, or not? In his opinion, staff should look at going one way or the other; either mimic the current County General Plan, or take a hard look at the long range traffic and circulation issues and not react on a project to project basis. Mayor Pefla stated that in the future it may be wise to break the City down by segments and look at each segrnent in detail. On an overall basis it is easy to blend things in, but if we focus on the areas independently, there may be some other issues to be addressed. Planning Commissioner Butler asked when they would be reviewing the General Plan again Is there a preset date for another General Plan review. Ms. Cr1 Criste stated the Housing Element is mandated by law for review every five years. The General Plan by law, is to be reviewed as the need arises and conditions change in the City. Commissioner Butler stated that what was being discussed might be a mute point because the ideas for the southeastern portion of the Valley are such that within five years we could have a completely different idea for this area and doing a traffic circulation based on what this zoning would do for this area seems to be somewhat of a waste of money as we are planing for an area that in five years we would have a better idea of what will be happening. Council Member Henderson asked staff to explain the process of annexation before it is submitted to LAFCO. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated LAFCO will not consider an annexation request by a city unless the property is prezoned. In order to prezone the property the City has to conduct public hearings on the land use designation, the zoning, create petitions with those designations for each parcel within the annexation area, the property owners either do, or do not support the annexation. If the City gets a majority of the property owners supporting the annexation, it will be submitted to LAFCO through the petition process. Without a Low Density Residential Overlay, it could take four to five months, the petition process another month, and LAFCO can take up to a year. With the prezoning we would create the application for LAFCO, go to the property owners with the petitions and it could cut out five months or so of processing time Planning Commissioner Tyler asked what the next step was in this process. Ms. Criste stated they will incorporate the changes, as discussed, into a final Recommended Alternative and transmit that to the traffic engineer for the traffic modeling which is the crucial Element of any General Plan. After that report and the Noise Study are completed, they will prepare final draft documents for screen check review by staff and then transmit the Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan policy docurnent for public comments. Public hearings would be held at the end of the public comment period which should be in May, 2000. BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 10 October26, 1999 Council Member Sniff stated it would be useflil to have staff prepare a summary of what was discussed at this meeting for everyone to review. Mayor Pena stated they had not gone over the major issues presented by the consultant and the Council needed to give some direction to staff. Council Member Adolph stated his concern was the Tourist Commercial zoning at 52nd Avenue and Jefferson Street from residential to golf course and he is pleased to see that this is as it should be Item #6). Council Member Henderson stated she had no issues with any of the proposed changes. Council Member Adolph asked if Madison Street was intended to go north of 54th Avenue and if so, where will it end? Ms. Criste state the current extension is to 50th Avenue. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated there is no intention to extend Madison Street north of 50th Avenue. It is envisioned to go ftom 50th Avenue to 64th Avenue. Council Member Sniff asked when the General Plan will again come before the City Council. Ms. Cri Criste stated at the hearings which will be held in May and June, 2000 when the whole package will be before the City Council. Mayor Pen a stated they would like to see the draft before it goes through the public hearing process. Perhaps in late February/January. Ms. Cri Criste stated that if they are to bring a draft version back to the City Council/Planning Commission, they would prefer it be prior to initiation of the traffic work. Community Development Jerry Herman stated staff wants to start traffic work now. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the concern on timing is that the consultants need to obtain all the general information first so they can haye the environmental analysis done. If the Council wants it brought back in a short time, the consultants need all major input now. Mayor Pen a asked that staff and the consultant prepare a summary of this meeting for Council review and bring it back in a month or so. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the concern is that in order to continue on, staff needs to complete the traffic and noise analysis based on a recommended map. That map will be part of the environmental review process. If we delay that, we delay the whole process because we cannot start the traffic analysis. Mayor Pefia asked if delaying the process for one month was a problem. Ms. Criste stated the traffic analysis takes 45 days from the time they get their final map. Council Member Sniff stated that the Council could make a determination based on the summary of this meeting, whether or not they want the document brought back in two weeks or so. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if it was the intent of the City Council/Planning Commission to understand how staff perceives the comments made and direction that will be taken based on Council/Commission comments. Council Member Perkins asked that staff also give Council a time frame as to when these things will happen. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC 1 O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02 d__9 City CounciliPlanning Commission Minutes 11 October26, 999 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kirk recessed the Planning Commission to its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respecttully submitted, m/x j;;? e&k?ive Secretary City of La Quinta, California C:\MY Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC i O-26-99.wpd BIB] 11-22-1999-U01 01:57:04PM-U01 ADMIN-U01 CCMIN-U02 10-U02 26-U02 1999-U02