Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1047 Moratorium Pending General Plan Update MEET ATE W TINUED TOSSED TO2NDPENNG5 -o JD3 CITY OF PALM DESE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of an ordinance instituting a moratorium for selected focus areas of the city pending approval of the General Plan Update SUBMITTED BY: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: April 24, 2003 CONTENTS: Legal Notice Draft Ordinance Recommendation: Pass to second reading Ordinance No. 1047 instituting a moratorium pending approval of the General Plan Update. Discussion: A general plan is a long-term document which attempts to anticipate the community's long- term land use, housing, circulation, open space, public facility, economic development needs and market demand over a 20-year period. Private property owners and developers are interested in land use policies which provide the most rewarding financial returns based on demand in the next 18 months. Unfortunately, these long-term and short-term goals may be in conflict especially when development based on current demand precludes the attainment of long-term objectives. After two years of debate, a draft General Plan Update has been endorsed by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) including a preferred land use plan and three alternatives. The consultant is now preparing the public review draft and Environmental Impact Report including traffic modeling of the four alternatives. Completion of the public review and hearing process should not extend longer than six months. Staff Report Moratorium Page 2 April 24, 2003 When the General Plan Advisory Committee formulated its preferred land use alternative recommendation for the area north of Frank Sinatra between Cook Street and Monterey (University Park), it concluded that land use policies needed to be responsive to the unique long-term demands and opportunities created by a growing Cal State University and the five million square feet of future mixed commercial/industrial to be developed adjacent to the interchanges and along the 1-10 corridor, even though that demand may take up to 15 years to fully materialize. If developments occur purely in response to existing market conditions, then the longer-term opportunities could be irrevocably lost. Ideally a master plan should be designed which incorporates and balances short, medium and long-term needs. The upcoming public General Plan discussion will provide the appropriate forum for that balance to be determined. The process should not be prejudged or negated altogether through piecemeal consideration of individual projects prior to the General Plan discussion. We are receiving applications for individual projects within the University Park area which are inconsistent with one or more of the proposed alternatives and might preclude effective implementation of important proposed goals and policies. It is therefore recommended that a moratorium be instituted blocking approval of applications within identified areas (or any other area identified by the Council) until the General Plan Update is approved and consistency determined. Without a moratorium, the City can only apply currently adopted ordinances and policies which may be non-responsive to the GPAC's recommendation. There is also a question concerning how to deal with small project applications throughout the city which require a change of zone or general plan amendment. A current application has been received for a small office building on Deep Canyon including a change of zone and general plan amendment from single family residential to office. These cases may be covered by the moratorium or considered on a case by case basis. To minimize delay, applications could be accepted and processed through the Architectural Commission, but would not proceed to public hearing before the Planning Commission or Council prior to General Plan approval. If required by the time limits of the Permit Streamlining Act, applications will proceed through the public hearing process, but may be denied if inconsistent with the moratorium. It is not anticipated that these limits will come into play prior to the expiration of the moratorium. The risks involved by the applicants would be similar to any normal request requiring a General Plan or zoning amendment. The moratorium would not be applicable to projects covered by development agreements including Wonder Palms, Marriott Shadow Ridge and Desert Gateway. Residential projects • Staff Report Moratorium Page 3 April 24, 2003 on Shepherd Lane and the industrial subdivision associated with the Dinah Shore extension (PM 24255) would also be exempted. These exceptions should not present a problem since they are consistent with all the proposed alternatives. The proposed term of the moratorium shall be nine (9) months from the effective date of the ordinance or approval of the General Plan, whichever occurs first. If necessary, the term may be extended. Based on the merits of a particular application or master plan, the Council may amend the boundaries or reduce the term. There was some discussion of including areas within the Hillside Planned Development zone in the moratorium due to concerns over recent state legislation involving residential down-zoning and Housing Element consistency. After careful review of the state law, it has been determined that the required findings can be made allowing the Council to act on the proposed HPR general plan and zoning text amendments eliminating the need for inclusion in the moratorium. Conclusion: Only those focus areas identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee's preferred alternative are being recommended for the moratorium. Inherent in the GPAC's recommendation is the need for a thoughtful master plan which integrates a balance of housing, safe and efficient streets, open space, public facilities, and commercial services. If property owners and developers within these areas collaborate in the preparation of a master plan, the Council may elect to consider their plans as additional General Plan alternatives or review them separately in advance with consideration of the GPAC's recommendations. Submitted itted y: Approva/ PhilipDrell Homer Croy Y / Director of Community Development ACM for Devel6,pr(ient Services Approval: Carlos L. Ortea City Manager (W pdocs\tm\sr\u rgord.gp5) • CITY Of POlM DES 1 "#1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE I • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 1 ��; i,,-,-, FAX: 760 341-7098 info palm-deserr.ors CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an ordinance establishing a moratorium on the approval of entitlements or permits of any nature within selected vacant areas of the city currently under consideration for, or significantly effected by, proposed amendments to land use goals and policies included in the pending General Plan Update. The proposed moratorium would expire within one year or with adoption of the General Plan Update, whichever occurs first, unless extended. The area to be covered by the moratorium would generally include vacant land north of Frank Sinatra Drive and south of 1-10 between Monterey Avenue and Cook Street, and those areas designated Hillside Planned Residential on the city zoning map. Existing development agreements that apply to property within the General Plan Amendment Areas and that require the City to allow development of those properties consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations would be exempt. Also exempt would be residential projects on Shepherd Lane and the industrial subdivision associated with the Dinah Shore extension (PM 24255). SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 24, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk April 14, 2003 City of Palm Desert, California • NOBLE & COMPANY, LLC 42-620 Caroline Court, Suite 101 •Palm Desert, California 92211 •Tel. (760)836-9073•Fax(760)836-9074•E-mail: Noblecompanyllc@aol.com April 23, 2003 IV C) ;J9 Honorable Jean Benson ; r,s Mayor -0 City of Palm Desert -, HAND DELIVERED r nc) m Dear Mayor Benson: The purpose of this letter is to set forth my concerns regarding the moratorium that the council is considering for the Cahuilla Hills and/or University Park areas of Palm Desert. Since I am not involved with any property in the Cahuilla Hills area, my comments are directed toward the University Park property only. Basically, I oppose the moratorium for the following reasons: first,the burdens of the moratorium will fall on a disproportionately small percentage of Palm Desert landowners and that is unfair; second, it is inconsistent with the development philosophy and past history of the City of Palm Desert; third, it will hurt business, specifically the development business, in the City;and fourth, it will not accomplish its goals if it is imposed. The Fairness Issue. There are only seven owners of the 600+acre University Park Area, in addition to the City of Palm Desert.' Thus, only seven private entities in this large area will be subject to the moratorium. Using the mechanism of a moratorium to control such a small number of property owners smacks of overkill and heavyhandedness. It's an unnecessary exercise of the Council's authority and it would single out a small group of people for the ultimate restriction. Rather than the imposition of a moratorium, it seems much more productive to continue with the City's long standing procedures of Staff, Architectural Committee, Planning Commission and City Council reviews and approvals. This process offers protection to all interests and has obviously worked very well for the city of Palm Desert up to now. A second example of unfairness is the assertion by Staff that it receives a number of proposals every week regarding this property. The clear, but false, inference is that there is a frenzy of development activity which must be brought under control. This isn't the case, since there are only seven property owners and they are not submitting proposals each week. What the Community Development Department appears to be doing is ' The City of Palm Desert owns the 170 acres at the northwest corner of Portola and Frank Sinatra. • Honorable Jean Benson April 23, 2003 Page 2 ,' counting as a proposal, every casual and random inquiry regarding the property— property that is already owned by entities which intend to be the developers thereof. In fact, the City is not being asked to process a continuing series of proposals regarding the property although there are, no doubt, ongoing inquiries from people who would like to acquire developable property in Palm Desert. Largely due to the positive environment that Palm Desert provides for small businesses, Noble & Company has been headquartered here for more than eight years. We have projects in the city ranging from raw acreage to completed and sold out developments. We plan to build an office complex in our Gateway Industrial Park for our own use as well as to provide rental space for other companies. Also, my wife and I have established our permanent residence in Palm Desert and we consider ourselves to be strong advocates of the benefits of living and working in this city. This proposed moratorium flies in the face of the fairness that we have come to expect from the City of Palm Desert. The Inconsistency Issue. The other owners with whom I have spoken clearly agree that the needs and vision of the City, as expressed by its officials, have been, and will continue to be, critical factors in determining the ultimate use of each segment of the University Park property. Those of us who have a history of dealing with Palm Desert have always found the city to be a reasonable and positive partner in the planning and development process and we sincerely hope that such a cooperative climate will continue. Bad for Business. To date, Palm Desert has enjoyed the reputation of carefully balancing fiscal and planning responsibility with tremendous service to its residents and fairness to the business community. An unprecedented and extraordinary action such as the contemplated moratorium would, in my opinion, create a level of uncertainty that would seriously lessen the ability of smaller firms, such as ours,to generate the equity and debt financing that are needed for our work. The development industry is becoming ever more concentrated in large, public corporations. A major reason for that fact is the inability of smaller companies to withstand unfair governmental actions which in effect"freeze" our investments. Unreachable Goal. I believe that attempt to require certain types of high density housing in the University Park area will not succeed. Why? Because people who live here would rather have their own home,their own backyard, their own garden, for themselves and their children. People who live here love the open space, the sense of room. One of the greatest assets of the desert is the availability of relatively inexpensive land. There is no reason to attempt to arbitrarily pack people together,to require them to live on small lots without private yards when single family homes on good sized lots can be provided affordably. Those areas outside the desert where a "university village"concept has • • • ✓A • Honorable Jean Benson April 23, 2003 Page 3 ,' succeeded have the population density and land prices that require more housing on a given amount piece of land. Think of the areas around USC, UCLA, and any of the major universities. Those "university villages" grew up naturally in response to population pressure. We have made a fine start with Cal State and the University of California annex,but we have one building with approximately 1,500 students, all of whom already have housing, and most of whom work during the day and attend school at night. These people would neither desire nor benefit from a"university village" concept with dense housing and stores and shops that would serve a more typical university-aged population. Put simply, there are no villagers to live in this village. There is, however, a continuing demand for single family homes and rental apartments in Palm Desert. Taking the subject property out of the supply chain will reduce the number of homes and apartments available and drive up the prices of available units to the detriment of current and future Palm Desert residents. Thank you for your attention to the matters I have raised in this letter. Very Truly Yours, Thomas S. Noble cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney Director of Community Development co,ik 44475 Monterey Avenue Palm Desert, California 3779 n tel 760-346-5637 /fax: 760-568-3779 CALIFORNIA DESERT info@real-property.com Association of R E A LT O R® REALTORS® _ real-property.com desertareamls.com desertareacie.com April 24, 2003 Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert, Calif. RE: Ordinance No. 1047 Honorable Jean Benson, Mayor Members of City Council, We would like to take this opportunity to comment upon the proposed Moratorium pending approval of the General Plan Update reference above as Ordinance No. 1047. Based upon our initial review, it appears this is a moratorium that would be limited both in scope and time frame to allow for consideration of (1) specific uses of property surrounding the University Campus, and (2) the issue of whether those uses should result from the current General Plan or the updated General Plan now under development. We further understand that approved developments "in the pipeline" are not affected. We know the issues and opportunities surrounding these matters are complex and will require all your best efforts to resolve. We will continue to monitor this matter and trust the council can come to a consensus that best serves all the interests and the citizens of Palm Desert. In the interim, should the scope or intent of this proposed moratorium change, or if we can be a resource for this or other matters affecting real estate, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Scott Newton Chair Local Government Relations Committee z'' :Z �d flz dd�Eooz 33Iido r-I j tad 17s "t 70A113 • PONDEROSA 0. �< April 23, 2003 5(C75Cq.(e7 Honorable Mayor Jean Benson City Council Members CITY OF PALM DESERT HAND DELIVERED ‘.57 RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM Dear Mayor Benson and City Council Members: This letter is intended to express our concern and opposition to a proposed moratorium on development approvals in the University Park area of Palm Desert. Ponderosa Homes is a privately held homebuilder based in Pleasanton, California with offices in Palm Springs. Founded in 1968, Ponderosa Homes has a well established reputation for combining creative design and quality construction to create neighborhoods with lasting value. Our repeat buyer and buyer referral rates are among the highest in the industry and we are constantly striving to improve our product and customer satisfaction. We currently have a 104-lot move-up family project located at Fred Waring and Jefferson in La Quinta. Upon our recent move into the Coachella Valley, Ponderosa Homes closely studied potential development sites in the area for additional home building opportunities. Of several sites available we selected and purchased in November 2002 an approximately 130 acre site located at the northwest corner of Gerald Ford and Portola. Significant factors in our selection were the property's location in the City of Palm Desert and the existing residential zoning on approximately 80 acres. We are attracted to Palm Desert because of its reputation as a well-run community and the positive environment it has created for its citizens, businesses and property owners. We have been advised that the City of Palm Desert is a reasonable and positive partner in the planning and development process. That the City of Palm Desert has worked hard to blend fiscal and planning issues with service and amenities to residents and fairness to businesses is evident around the community. These are the things which made it easy to choose Palm Desert for our next new home community. We understand that there may be some desire among city staff and elected officials to "freeze" development activity until a new vision for this area can be achieved. While we may not agree with some of the ideas we have seen on drafts of the plan, we are willing to work with the City of Palm Desert to create a plan for our property which we believe will be in the best interests of the 6671 Owens Drive • Pleasanton, California 94588-3398 Tel: (925) 460-8900 • Facsimile: (925) 734-9141 • • community. We believe this effort can be undertaken in concert with the General Plan update rather than creating the uncertainty associated with a moratorium. Our plans for the property will continue and enhance the reputation of Palm Desert as the place to live, work and play in the Coachella Valley. We do not think it fair or appropriate to single out a few landowners for detrimental treatment in order to experiment with land uses which are unprecedented in the region and which are unwanted by Palm Desert residents both current and future. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely yours, PONDE OSA HOMES II, INC. J frey C. chroeder Vice President, Land Acquisition&Planning