HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1233 CZ 11-493 Twenty-two Properties - Updated 2011 Housing ElementCITY OF PALM D
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CHANGES OF ZONE FOR TWENTY-TWO (22)
PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW TO COINCIDE WITH THE RECENTLY
UPDATED 2011 HOUSING ELEMENT.
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: C/Z 11-493
DATE: February 9, 2012
CONTENTS: Ordinance No. 1233
Legal Notice
Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated January 3, 2012
Letters
Recommendation
That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1233 to
second reading, approving changes of zone for twenty-two properties throughout
the City to be consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and to
accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations.
Planning Commission
On January 3, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of
C/Z 11-493 on a 3-1-1 vote with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Commissioner DeLuna
absent. The Commissioners heard testimony and one Commissioner was not in favor and
recommended that the property owners write a letter to the State of California objecting to the
State's mandate. The other three Commissioners approved the motion, so that the City would
be compliant with the State mandate and the General Plan.
Executive Summary
On May 12, 2011, the City Council approved an updated Housing Element as was required by
the State of California. This updated Housing Element planning cycle is for the 2006-2014
planning period. The updated Housing Element contains all the required components mandated
by the State, including new policies and programs required to assure that the City has sufficient
lands available to accommodate its Regional Housings Needs Allocation (the number of units
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 2 of 7
estimated by the State needed to accommodate growth in the City from 2006 through 2014).
The subject changes of zone are being undertaken to provide zoning that is consistent with the
new Housing Element of the General Plan and is supportive of residential uses and density.
Background
On May 12, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-24 approving a new Housing
Element and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for CEQA purposes. The Housing
Element is one of the State mandated components of the City's General Plan, and is the only
one that requires an update every five (5) years. The recently updated Housing Element
addressed the 2006-2014 planning period. The Housing Element is also the only Element of the
General Plan that requires review and approval by the State, specifically the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD).
With every planning period, changes in the law require that the City incorporate new
information. In the most recent cycle, two major changes were required:
Cities must identify the parcels available for affordable housing, and demonstrate that
they have sufficient land to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) units in the Very Low, Low and Moderate Income categories. This analysis
extends to a requirement to rezone lands if necessary, at a density of 20 units per acre
or more.
• The City must allow homeless shelters by right in at least one zone, and must also
explicitly allow single room occupancy, group homes, and similar facilities, although the
City has the option of requiring a Conditional Use Permit or similar planning tool.
The Housing Element also needed to be updated, since it: provides statistical data on the City's
population and households; analyzes how the previous Housing Element was implemented and
what programs were successful; provides data on the special needs households in the City,
including large families, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, and the homeless; describes
the existing affordable housing projects in the City; and concludes with the goals, policies and
programs needed to assure that the City facilitates the construction of sufficient housing units to
meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The State prepares the RHNA, which represents the required number of housing units, by
income level, that the State believes the City will need to meet the demands of growth during
the planning period from 2006 to 2014. The RHNA allocation for the City is shown in Table 1.
g:\planning\kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Table 1
RHNA by Income Category, 2006-2014
Household Income Category
Units
Extremely Low
553
Very Low Income
552
Low Income
759
Moderate Income
847
Above Moderate Income
1,875
Total Units Needed
4,586
Based on the current RHNA, the City must be able to accommodate 1,864 extremely low, very
low and low income units, and 847 moderate income units, for a total of 2,711 units. Please
note that it is assumed that all above moderate income and moderate income households will
be accommodated by the open market.
At the January 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, property representatives spoke during
the public hearing. Their comments were generally against the proposed rezone. One
representative commented that if the re -zoning of the parcels is to satisfy the Housing Element
and provide affordable housing, then the City has to be realistic on what can actually be built.
Another representative commented that she represents a landowner who owns a total of 80
acres, and sought clarification as to which portion of that property would be rezoned. Staff
stated that as long as 15 of the 80 acres are allocated, the precise location of the housing could
be determined during the submittal process. Another representative spoke stating that the
property owner would not be able to build on the parcel if the housing must be affordable, and
the City is not willing to contribute any funds.
Analysis
The City's RHNA for 2006-2014 states that a total of 4,586 housing units will be built in the
City. Of these, 1,875 units are expected to be constructed as above moderate income, and 847
units for moderate income households. These units are expected to be market -driven. 'The
remaining 1,864 housing units are to be provided for those of extremely low, very low, and low
incomes. The approved Housing Element requires changes of zone to 22 properties so that the
properties are readily available for development of housing units.
When a land inventory was prepared for the Housing Element it was determined that land in the
southern portion of the City is mostly built out, with only infill development opportunities
available at higher densities. The northern portion of the City, which includes the University
Park area, was designed to accommodate the higher densities. The 22 vacant parcels that
need to be re -zoned have been calculated at a density of 15 to 20 units per acre, and were
shown with the potential number of units that could be developed per parcel.
The City is obligated under the State requirement to demonstrate that there are sufficient lands
zoned to accommodate affordable housing. The table below lists the 22 parcels that require
rezones in order to meet the requirements of law. The table lists the parcels by Assessor's
Parcel Number, size of each parcel, potential number of units that could be developed on the
parcel, current zoning, and proposed zoning. Also, the requirement for the changes of zone is
g:\planning\kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 4 of 7
provided in the policies and programs of the updated Housing Element. With the completion of
the changes of zone provided in the Housing Element, the City will have sufficient land to
accommodate its RHNA requirements for the planning period.
Assessor's Parcel
Size
Potential
Current Zoning
Proposed Zoning
No.
(Acres)
Units
685-010-005 (A)*
30
432
Planned Commercial (PC
Planned Community
3)
Development (PCD)
694-120-012 (C)*
10
200
Planned Community
Planned Residential
Development (PCD)
(PR 22)
694-130-017 (D)*
10.21
176
Planned Community
Planned Residential
Development (PCD
(PR 22)
694-130-018 (D)*
3.48
72
Planned Community
Planned Residential
Development (PCD)
(PR 22)
694-130-012 (E)*
33.71
235
Service Industrial-SI
Planned Residential
(PR 22)
694-130-003 (F)*
18.92
302
Service Industrial-SI
Planned Residential
(PR 22)
694-130-021 (G*)
13
200
Planned Community
Planned Residential
Development (PCD)
(PR 22)
694-190-059 (H)*
15 of
160
Planned Community
Planned Residential
29.36
Development (PCD)
(PR 22)
694-200-014 (J)*
11.46
194
Planned Residential (PR
Planned Residential
5) and
(PR 22)
Planned Community
Development (PCD)
627-101-033
1.64
22
Office Professional (O.P.)
Residential Multiple Family
627-101-038
(R-3)
627-101-039
627-101-002
627-101-017
627-041-010
1.20
19
Office Professional (O.P.)
Residential Multiple Family
627-041-011
(R-3)
627-041-012
627-041-013
627-041-029
627-041-031
627-041-032
627-041-033
*The letters in ( ) after each APN correlate with the map on the next page.
gAplanning\Kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 5 of 7
It was noted when the Housing Element was approved that most land would be re -zoned to
Planned Residential, or its equivalent, which allows 22 units per acre. Eight out of the 22
properties would be rezoned to PR 22. These properties are located in the northern section of
the City where most of the City's affordable housing needs are proposed to be met with large
parcels of undeveloped land for sale at relatively low prices. The PR zone allows for two-story
developments, and allows clustering of units for common area amenities. Even with imposition
of the City's development standards, and assuming a unit size of 1,000 square feet, with two
parking spaces per unit and the required 40% open space, densities in excess of 22 units per
acre could be achieved.
Parcel number 685-010-005 (which is designated "A" on the map and the table above), is
located north of Dinah Shore Drive and west of the Costco shopping center and will be rezoned
gAplanning\kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 6 of 7
to Planned Community Development. Staff has been in discussion with a developer who is
proposing a mixed use project consisting of the 432 housing units allocated to the site,
commercial properties, and a potential RV park.
The remaining thirteen parcels would be rezoned to Residential Multiple Family (R-3), which is
consistent with the surrounding zoning and will allow the proper density.
As a result of these new legal requirements by the State, Programs 1.F and 1.H were added to
the Housing Element. Program 1.F details the sites that require rezoning, and Program 1.H
requires that the rezones be at a density of 20 units per acre or greater. It is important to note
that the changes in the law also provide that if the rezones are not completed by the end of the
planning period (2014), the units that these lands should have accommodated will be added to
the City's next RHNA. In other words, if the City does not complete the rezones described in
Program 1.F, 2,491 additional units would be added to the City's RHNA.
The City is not responsible for the construction of any of these units, and the 4,586 units do not
need to be constructed during the 2006-2014 planning period. Housing Element law requires
only that the City's policies and programs facilitate the development of affordable housing, and
set aside land to accommodate the units. In this case the City must complete the changes of
zone in order to meet State law.
In response to comments made at the January 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, staff
wants to be clear that if a developer proposed a non-residential project that was supported by
good design and was in an appropriate location, then City Council may approve the project. If
that were to happen, then another piece of land somewhere in the City that's not currently
designated for housing would have to be changed to make up for the lack of units. Further,
changing the zone of a property to a residential designation does not mean that the land has to
be used for affordable housing. Staff believes that some of the sites designated for re -zoning
are better suited for affordable housing than others. Staff will recommend that these parcels
have either all, or a large percentage, of the housing on site be affordable.
It is not possible to evaluate the environmental impacts of these changes of zone until the City
has specific projects to analyze. The City will comply with the full California Environmental
Quality Act requirements when specific projects are brought forward for consideration by the
Planning Commission and City Council. This means that the property owners for the 22
properties cannot construct any of the units until their future projects have been fully entitled by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The State law requires that zoning be consistent
with the General Plan. By re -zoning these 22 properties the zoning will be consistent with the
General Plan and the City will meet the State law of the Housing Element.
A. Findings of Approval:
1. The proposed zone changes will comply with State law and be consistent with the Housing
Element. Development of housing for residents of all income levels will also reduce the
vehicle miles traveled in the city, which will improve the regional air quality and reduce wear
and tear on public streets and infrastructure, all of which is in the public interest.
gAplanning\kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
Staff Report
C/Z 11-493
February 9, 2012
Page 7 of 7
2. The proposed changes of zone are consistent with the goals and policies of the Housing
Element within the General Plan, and implement policies and programs directly relating to
residential land uses.
3. The required rezoning of the 22 parcels will be consistent with existing zoning districts and
standards for the single-family, multi -family, and planned residential districts.
Environmental Review
The proposed zone changes are undertaken as regional housing needs determination planning
activities for possible future projects that the City has not studied, approved, adopted, or
funded. Therefore, the zone changes are statutorily exempt for the purposes of CEQA and no
further review is necessary at this time.
On May 12, 2011, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration approving an update of the
Housing Element of the General Plan. The Initial Study found that the Housing Element would
have no impact on the environment. It can be concluded that the existing zoning designations
would generate more trips than the proposed zoning designations, and therefore the potential
traffic impact is less. All other impacts associated with development within the zone change
parcels would be similar or equivalent to those which would occur as analyzed in the General
Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the amount of land disturbance would be similar.
Impacts associated with air quality and green house gas would be less, as the reduced trips
would result in reduced emissions of both traditional pollutants and green house gas.
The proposed Zone Changes are consistent with, and will not cause any more significant
impacts than, those studied in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. In this case the
City must complete the changes of zone in order to meet State law.
There are no specific projects proposed at this time, so a detailed analysis cannot be
performed. The City will require that future applicants who want to develop on the rezoned
lands comply with the full California Environmental Quality Act requirements when specific
projects are brought forward for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Submitted by:
Kevin Swartz
Assistant Planner
i M. Wohlmuth
Manager
Department Head:
G '"fir
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
gAplanning\kevin swartz\word\cz 11-493\cc staff report housing element zone changes.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CHANGES OF ZONE FOR
TWENTY-TWO (22) PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA STATE LAW TO COINCIDE WITH
THE RECENTLY UPDATED 2011 HOUSING ELEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9tn
day of February, 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the changes of
zone for twenty-two properties throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 2011-84, and the Director of Community Development has determined
that the proposed zone changes are undertaken as regional housing needs
determination planning activities for possible future projects that the City has not
studied, approved, adopted, or funded. Therefore, the zone changes are statutorily
exempt for the purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary at this time; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the said changes of
zone:
1. The proposed zone changes will comply with State law and be consistent with
the Housing Element. Development of housing for residents of all income levels
will also reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the city, which will improve the
regional air quality and reduce wear and tear on public streets and infrastructure,
all of which is in the public interest.
2. The proposed changes of zone are consistent with the goals and policies of the
Housing Element within the General Plan, and implement policies and programs
directly relating to residential land uses.
3. The required rezoning of the 22 parcels will be consistent with existing zoning
districts and standards for the single-family, multi -family, and planned residential
districts.
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the City Council on this matter.
SECTION 2: The changes of zone for twenty-two properties throughout the City
are consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and to
accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations
and are described in Exhibits A through H, respectively, attached
hereto.
SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper
of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm
Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30)
days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this
day of , by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "A"
FCOZ, ��] ERALD FORD DR, ! o
ORD837 o
P.R.-5, P.C.D.
's
�0
4
P.R.-5
PR.. 5. P.C.D. P.C. (3)
��. PR,-5
P. RA7
m
m
00
91
a
0
0
0
u
0�
C.-D., FC(3Z
P.C.D.
P..C.-D.
P.C.D.
P.R.-5
P.R.-5
^° Proposed
Zoning
Change
PCD
To
PR 22
(15 of 80 Acres to PR 22)
City of Palm Desert Case No. CZII-493 CITY COUNCIL
n4Af.Np
ORDINANCE NO 1233
CHANGE OF ZONE
—44
Date: February 9, 2012
� "�vtiEXHIBIT A
3
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "B"
P.C.D. ^ 'f
FCL7Z P. D., FCDZ
P,R.-5, P.C.D. P.C.D., GERALO FARO OR,
FCDZ, 2
ORD837 4 P.R.-5
P ;C I P. C.D., FCDZ
,q�FCOZ,�
--Ct?RD8137
P.R: 5, P.C.D.
`+ PR-5
4,P
f� �� 9GROGR RD
P.R,-5: P.C.D,
P.C.-(3)
1, 694200014
PR-5
P.R.-17
a
0
u
ZP.R.-5
P.R.-5 PR-5
FRANK SINATRA OR
Proposed
PA-5 Zoning
P R _5 Change
PR 5, PCD
To
PR 22
City of Palm Desert Case No. CZI I-493 CITY COUNCIL
5reryop
—��T ORDINANCE NO. 1233
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBIT B
pate; February 9, 2012
1 yQ1,
AI
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "C"
y EE:)
3 a S1
MD
01S' jmm �`i1� 11'ptll i� �}' � M
U IUD am Um UD ® irvi[R aR
S, f.
FFFKuw[ °l� _y1.CID
3 mn
\
l\ \�
v \ 894130612
P C D \\ " Re \ �ro
N"SSG RR
J{
[mc! wv[ xlcReLARo[Lo a C•P:R.-5
RwxilRSRr wT _
plRMi
°p' .
M[LLwNAK x
■ ' F �P.C,D.
p U S GRAxrcA °R. yn. .! hp� M/RlR6 LR
LLUJJ......LL 3
3mm T Vmwm iT
DR GERALD FORD OR
PA-5 P
I Proposed
P•R• 5 t9 P [eNiLMLRw icR Zoning
i�
� PA-5 Change
S/
To
�'— PR 22
City of Palm Desert Case No. CZ11-493
� PALNp
CHANGE OF ZONE
EXHIBIT C
5
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO 1233
Date: February 9, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
*:/:11 31 M IM
4
P.C,43)i;l7Gv4* ' W
P.C.{3),,FCOZ �
6Ngp 8 1}N
O
CARVERR FLZ-Y CARVERS,' P.C.-(3), FCOZ \
DINAH SHORE DR
} P.C.-(3); FCOZ
4
R
IW-
�� � Proposed
Zoning
Change
\tea
PC 3 , FCOZ
To
PCD
City of Palm Desert
PAL- pA
t�n ,•r�-�aM. taS�
Case No. CZ11.493 CITY COUNCIL
CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO 1233
0,M, M Ipal Tw J
9
Date: February 9, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "E"
cam"
S.l.
>.1. S.l.
4P?o�Q
O
0 �NN�NA
\L4h G
pR
P. C.D.
���f � iIUBENB I.i�
ID DR GERALD FORD DR
J
P.R.-5 = p
P.R.-5 RC.D. Proposed
d
ry g /g SCZoning
seHOLARLNW Hd"R*.NE P,fi. ly P.C.L. Change
WINDFIOWER CY' �-
I Fr PCD
To
PA-5. RC., , PR 22
City of Palm Desert
�y YAfMp
x�
Case No. CZ11-493 CITY COUNCIL
CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT E
Date: _ February 9, 2012
II
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "F"
FRED WARING DR
o -120-0
l.P R-3y OP
V rN-0
ca
S
.O.cqx. 0 i75 o
038 -
SANTA RCgA WAY m SANTA ROSA WAY SANTA ROSA WA
-R-3y M"
M,2y -SS. . 0
I I J
U
1T
R 3y
Proposed
x Zoning
0. Change
C47ALINA WAY CATALI W4
OP
TO
T R3
City of Palm Desert CITY COUNCIL
Case No. CZI 1-493
CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT F Date: February 9, 2012
1.01
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "G"
3 0.
f �
ALUMNI WAY
5
Q
J
M
15(
I
z
FRED WARING DR 3 9 FRED WARING DR
r W O.P. Q.Pyl s le m iv ra b r ■
0-2
SANTAROSAWAY
w SANTA ROSA WAY m SANTA RC
r
- Am
_ f )r 3y n
p
SANNICHOLASAVE UA Proposed
a
o A Zoning
- ` Change
CATAL/NA WAY
OP
+� ya To
`L (7) R3
I I -
(City of Palm Desert Case No. C/Z 11-493 CITY COUNCIL
4Af y
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
y'/z. F CHANGE OF ZONE
g. s
,`A EXHIBIT G Date: February 9, 2012
� �P, -
601
ORDINANCE NO. 1233
EXHIBIT "H"
P,C.-(3)16
V1 to
��P?R13N
fIT'> �I1Tp �I_ a WTlLI pIfD
`= q=R q Ell:FLECTIONIM QJZ� MSPTDcm
OTl'a IqN H H qqqqq [l1.WAY �/+��
ER
01D IRAZURE A— P:R,w13 CD.
RAIN 3 W ✓�
DICK KELLY DR OfCK KELLYOR
1.6 _ DICKKFLLYDR
P.C.D, \: 694130 17 D�
6941360 t
�e 1g�qq
6 K
it
W O
P. C.D. "
P.C.D.
AGS OR
OOLCE AVE MICHELANGELO
I LNI_
W ,"2y(��{7j� a CIEltRA 5T KANOINSKY WY
(9 Y a" Proposed
Ali rt+ S m Zoning
qP.C.-(2) P,R.=13 AVELLANAPL PR,-5 _ Change
VE J�J —m
n
O ORAMITA DR—
BIQ
TRAYERS ST
� PCD
-- ° To
CaERALD FORD DR _ PR 22
1
City of Palm Desert Case No. CIZ 11-493 CITY COUNCIL
YAf Np
ORDINANCE NO. -1233
CHANGE OF ZONE
*,� EXHIBIT H Date: February 9, 2012
'OnRx�
W]
CIIy 01 Ph[1"II
73-510 hum WANING DmL
PAI.na DES111U, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEu 760 346—o6n
IAx:760 341-7098
infoC,'pah-dcsr--g
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. C/Z 11-493
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council on Thursday, February 9, 2012, to consider a request by the City of Palm
Desert for approval of changes of zone for 22 properties throughout the city to coincide
with the recently updated Housing Element of the 2004 City of Palm Desert General
Plan. On May 12, 2011, the City Council approved the updated Housing Element that
was required by the State of California. The current Housing Element planning cycle is
for the 2006-2014 planning period. The updated Housing Element contains all the
required components mandated by the State, including new policies and programs
required to assure that the City has sufficient lands available to accommodate its
Regional Housings Needs Allocation (the number of units estimated by the State to be
needed to accommodate growth in the City from 2006 through 2014). The subject
changes of zone will be undertaken to provide zoning that is consistent with the General
Plan and supportive of residential uses and density. The APN's are: 694-130-017, 694-
130-021, 694-130-018, 694-200-014, 694-130-012, 694-130-003, 694-190-059, 685-
010-005, 694-120-012, 627-041-010, 627-041-011, 627-041-012, 627-041-013, 627-
041-029, 627-041-031, 627-041-032, 627-041-033, 627-101-033, 627-101-038, 627-
101-039, 627-101-002, 627-101-017
9 O.P.
O.PrSPIJ 0
i
R 2(7) O P.'.
R 2(7) R-3,
» SO.
R 2(7)
�cl
'R-2(7)�
,�9�e}I�iu•^^•, e-EXHIBIT B o. -e.ur.o. e.....e..
.G.
IP
,,.'....., "EXHIBIT �B o......r.o....o. .....
,,.'....., "EXHIBIT �B o......r.o....o. .....
�O.P -
R-3, O.P.
1n
�
OP,
S.O.
o...R2,SO�
SO
t
R.�3,
a
S.O.
]
W? EXHIBIT B e....
EXHI BIIT- B .. -o...r.o....o.
, or �ai�eaert Caae N�osos zone weae.ur,oa ao. w,oa
EXHIBIT B
'ay olWlm Deeen Gage No. slow
EXHIBIT . a........ewao.
i Ll 1)F
I l�
I
esr ' I#a„re Caso No. _ wrao..ur oa3•.o. a,oa
EXHIBIT B a...
I W. � EXHIBIT B ..—
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2012 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 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 Klassen, City Clerk
January 14, 2012 Palm Desert City Council
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
JANUARY 3, 2012
A. Case No. PP 03-19, Scotelle Development, LLC, applicant.
Approval of a two-year time extension for Phase III of Precise Plan 03-
19 (PP 03-19) located at 39-800 Portola Avenue.
Action:
Commissioner Limont moved and Vice Chair De Luna seconded approval of a
two-year time extension for Phase III of PP 03-19. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case No. CUP 09-236, T-Mobile West Corporation, applicant.
Approval of a one-year time extension for a new 60' high T-Mobile
mono -palm telecommunications facility consisting of six -panel
antennas, one GPS antenna, one emergency generator, one parabolic
antenna, four BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the
antennas to the BTS, power and telco utility connection to be installed
at 47-900 Portola Avenue, APN's 630-250-045 & 655-230-019.
Action:
Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approval of
a one-year time extension for CUP 09-236.` Motion carried 5-0.
Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Campbell announced that anyone who challenges any hearing
matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or
someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
A. Case No. C/Z 11-493, City of Palm Desert, applicant.
A recommendation to City Council for approval of a change of zone to
twenty-two (22) properties throughout the City to comply with State law
and to coincide with the 2011 Housing Element.
Vice Chair De Luna recused herself from this item because of a possible
business issue and left the chamber.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012
Mr. Swartz orally presented his staff report and on -screen presentation
to the Commission. He stated that the approved Housing Element
requires changes of zone to twenty-two properties so that the
properties are available for the development of housing units. With the
completion of the changes of zone provided in the Housing Element,
the City will have sufficient land to accommodate the State's
requirement. Eight of the twenty-two properties would be zoned
Planned Residential with twenty-two units per acre. These properties
are located in the northern section of the City where most of the City's
large parcels of undeveloped land are located. The PR zone allows for
two-story developments and allows clustering of units for common area
amenities. A map was shown on the overhead projector showing the
parcels that were recommended for re -zoning and a description of the
proposed zoning was given for each parcel.
Mr. Swartz commented that in the past, there was an applicant who
had proposed a mixed -use project and the City had determined that
the twenty-four acres dedicated to that site wasn't appropriate, and he
proposed removing the twenty-four acres and adding thirteen acres.
This would still allow allocating two hundred units for this particular
site. He stated that the City would not be responsible for the
construction of any of these units, but it must complete the changes of
zone to meet State law.
Chair Campbell asked the Commission if there were any questions of
staff.
Commissioner Limont asked for clarification of the proposal and
wanted to know if the City would be increasing the density allowable
under a particular zone and that it wouldn't specify that the parcels
have to be used for affordable housing. Mr. Swartz stated that this is
correct.
Commissioner Dash asked about parcel "D", which is located at
Monterey and Dinah Shore and wondered if this area is located within
the city limits of Palm Desert. Mr. Swartz commented that the area in
question, which is near Costco, was annexed to the City approximately
twelve years ago and it is within the city limits.
Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and asked the
applicant to address the Commission. Since the City of Palm Desert is
the applicant, Chair Campbell asked if there was any testimony either
in favor or opposition to this application. Speaker cards were received
C!
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012
by the Chair and those members of the public were called up
individually.
Mark Irving of 2000 E. Fourth Street, #205, Santa Ana, CA 92705
approached the lectern and stated that he is the owner of parcel "D" on
the exhibit. He thanked Ms. Aylaian for responding to his letter, which
he had reviewed and was also distributed to the Commission. Mr.
Irving stated that a couple of years ago, Urban Housing Communities
attempted to entitle a project on parcel "D" with a_density of fourteen
units per acre. The project was denied because the density was too
high. Mr. Irving explained that U.H.C. is in the affordable housing
business, which is why they purchased this particular piece of property.
The proposed project was in compliance with the open space and
parking requirements and they also had a height variance. Mr. Irving
stated that this project would not be feasible at twenty-two units per
acre. He felt that the design criteria would have to be modified for a
high density project such as this, although it may be achieved with a
senior housing project with much smaller units and lower parking
requirements. Mr. Irving commented that if the re -zoning is really to
satisfy the Housing Element requirements and provide affordable
housing, then the City has to be realistic on what can actually be
delivered as part of the re -zoning of these parcels.
Don Tannahill of 10113 Lakeview Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA
addressed the Commission. He stated that he was at the meeting on
behalf of the landowner of parcel "H" on the exhibit. He wanted to
clarify that on exhibit "A" the property is shown as being twenty-nine
acres and exhibit "H illustrates approximately fifteen acres. The
property is described as being "fifteen acres of twenty-nine acres",
however, the proposed zone change is on twenty-nine acres. The
landowner of this property also owns eighty acres on Portola and they
are opposed to the re -zoning of this particular portion of their property.
Mr. Tannahill commented that this is probably the best piece of
undeveloped commercial land with freeway access and visibility in the
Coachella Valley and that he is opposed to re -zoning twenty-nine
acres of this property to Planned Residential.
Susan Harvey of 77-933 Las Montanas, Palm Desert, CA approached
the lectern and stated that she is representing the landowner of parcel
"F" on the exhibit. She commented that High Point Development
previously had made a proposal for an apartment project with 80%
market rate units and 15%-20% affordable units. At that time, High
Point Development was told that this project would not be approved
because a minimum of 85% of parcel "F" would be required to be
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2012
extremely affordable, very affordable or affordable housing. High Point
Development then asked if the City was going to participate in
sponsoring the affordable factor of the proposed apartments and they
were turned down. The property owner is opposed to the proposed
zone change because they feel that they won't be able to do anything
with this property for years to come, given that the housing would be
required to be affordable.
Tim Palmquist of 1072 SE Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA addressed
the Commission and stated that he represents an ownership interest in
a thirty -acre parcel on Monterey. He commented that he's had the
privilege of working with City staff for several months as his application
is being processed for a commercialproject. He statedthat he was
told that a portion of the site was allocated for two hundred affordable
units and the City was very upfront with this information. The proposed
zone change map shows approximately twenty-four acres for two
hundred units. Discussions to date have been regarding a twenty-two
acre split allocated for retail use that includes 1`,200 feet along
Monterey and an eleven to twelve acre site for the apartments. Mr.
Palmquist stated that this is the information that he has based his
design on and is requesting that this be reflected on the zone change
map. He also requested some flexibility with the design so that they
could develop a project that would be feasible and move forward,
however, without financial assistance ` from the City, this would be
economically impossible. Mr.` Palmquist asked that the acreage
allocated for two hundred units be reduced from twenty-four acres to
eleven acres. Chair Campbell asked about the location of the property
in question and Mr. Palmquist stated that it's labeled as parcel "G" on
the exhibit. Ms Aylaian commented that parcel "G" will be changed
from thirteen acres out of the twenty-four acres that are currently
shown on the exhibit.
Chair Campbell asked if Mr. Swartz would like to make any further
comments. _ There being none, the public hearing was closed. Chair
Campbell asked for comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Limont asked Ms. Aylaian if the property owners will be
required to build affordable housing, per the State. She asked,
hypothetically speaking, if a property owner approached the City with a
project that has some sort of an exception, would there be any leeway
for the applicant? Ms. Aylaian commented that although the State has
shut down the Redevelopment Agency, the City still has control of local
land use decisions. She stated that if a particular project is proposed,
it will not go to the State for consideration. The one State law that
A
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 3, 2012
would come into play is one that states that if the General Plan
designates a property for housing and a project comes in and
proposes something other than that designation, then another piece of
land somewhere in the City that's not currently designated for housing
has to be changed to make up for the lack of units. Ms. Aylaian
commented that the City is currently in compliance with the State
mandate for our General Plan and also the updated Housing Element.
Currently, the City's zoning ordinance is not in compliance with the
General Plan, but this is what staff
developer proposed a project that h
supported with excellence in des
location, staff could give their reco
m
Commissioner Limont stated that regarding the letter received from
Mark Irving, she wanted to clarify that Lauri Aylaian's title is not
"Secretary" but: is Director of Community Development. Also, it's been
clarified at this meeting that to change the zoning of certain parcels in
Palm Desert to comply with the State requirement, has been very well
researched and well documented. Commissioner Limont commented
that the re -zoning is to keep the City within the mandates of the State.
Each project will still need to go through the complete approval
process. Commissioner Limont also stated that she took personal
offense to several comments that were included in Mr. Irving's letter
dated December29, 2011. One comment read that, "Previous actions
by the City indicate that the commitment to affordable housing is not
significant." Commissioner Limont stated that as a resident of Palm
Desert, this is insulting. The City has one of the finest affordable
housing programs around. It was recommended that Mr. Irving take a
tour of the City of Palm Desert's affordable housing. Also, it was
suggested that Mr. Irving review the reasons for denial, rather than
question the "City's sincerity to support affordable housing" in regards
to the City Council's denial of the Urban Housing Communities' project
on April 9, 2009. Commissioner Limont commented that she feels that
the City has been very sincere about developing affordable housing.
The City is also dealing with all of the conditions that will come with not
having Redevelopment money.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 3, 2012
Commissioner Tanner wondered that if two hundred units were added
to parcel "G" that were not in the affordable range, would the City have
to find another parcel that would be adequate for affordable housing in
order to comply with the State? Ms. Aylaian commented that staff
would look at the other parcels that have been designated for
affordable housing to add two hundred more affordable units.
Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be any leeway from the
State of California and commented that he was sympathetic with the
builders since they won't be able to financially make a project work.
Ms. Aylaian stated that it's not different from the current market where
people aren't developing land due to the economy. Affordable housing
usually takes assistance from many sources in order to make them
financially viable. Historically, one of those sources has been local
cities, however, the cities won't have that money available any longer,
making affordable housing even more difficult to produce.
Commissioner Tanner stated that hewould like tolet both sides take
another look at this proposal, unless there is no other alternative
because of what the State has mandated.
Commissioner Dash stated that the action that the Commission will
have to take is bringing the City into compliance with the State
mandate and the General Plan. The actual development will be done
later. This doesn't give the Commission much of a choice, in terms of
approving this proposal. Commissioner Dash commented that staff
should work closely with the developers so that they're not hurt
financially, but we are providing adequate housing. Ms. Aylaian stated
that if the City wants to remain in compliance with State law and the
Housing Element, the City is locked into providing this number of
housing units.
Chair Campbellaskedif there were any other comments. There being
none, the motion was made.
Action:
Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded
recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1-
1 with Commissioner Tanner opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent.
Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2581 recommending to City Council
approval of C/Z 11-493. Motion carried 3-1-1 with Commissioner Tanner
opposed and Vice Chair De Luna absent.
city of Palm Desert
t;ommunity ncvelopment
DEC 3 0 2011
December 29, 2011
Ms. Lauri Aylaian
Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Comments and Questions Regarding Case No C/Z 1 1-493
Dear Lauri:
Thank you for the notification regarding the public hearing on January 3`d when the City of
Palm Desert will submit for Planning Commission approval of a change of zone on 22
properties to an allowable density of up to 22 units to the acre in order to address the City's
Housing Element. Through this action to support the Housing Element, one receives the
impression that the City will encumber properties with an affordable housing requirement
without making any commitment to financially support affordable housing, nor compensate
owners for the devaluation of their property. The density of up to 22 units to the acre is
currently allowed within the General Plan on the property that UHC owns at the southeast
corner of what is now called Dick Kelly Drive and Gateway, and is one of the properties
proposed to have an increased density. Yet, UHC was denied entitlements by the City
Council in 2009 on a proposed affordable project with a density of 14 units to the acre
because the density was too high in the City Council's opinion. Previous actions by the City
indicate that the commitment to affordable housing is not significant. The rezoning of
properties to tit the Housing Element is a hollow action if the City does not modify the
development standards on these properties to make a density of 22 units viable, and commits
its $82 million housing set aside noted in the 2010 State audit to fund affordable housing on
the sites proposed for rezoning.
Some history regarding Urban Housing Communities' efforts with the City to entitle and
develop affordable housing on one of the proposed sites is appropriate. UHC began
conversations with the City of Palm Desert in 2006 to determine appropriate sites for
affordable housing, and was directed to the parcel that is at the southeast corner of what is
now called Dick Kelly Drive and Gateway. UHC was informed by the City that the City
bylaws prevent entering into any agreements regarding affordable housing until an entity
physically owns the property. UHC closed on the property that the City indicated an interest
to have as an affordable site in 2008.
Prior to the January 2, 2008, pre -application submittal to the Planning Department, UHC had
met with staff many times to discuss the site. Conceptual designs with a mix of two and three
story buildings totaling 180 units at a density of 15.25 units to the acre were proposed but not
allowed because of the height restrictions and the minimum open space requirements in the
General Plan and allowable zoning for the site. After the pre application submittal, UHC
submitted a Precise Planning Application in April 2008 to entitle the property with 144 units
of affordable workforce housing and a daycare center. The property went through 7 months of
Architectural review, which included full working drawing landscape plans, utility designs,
detailed civil and architecture plans at a cost over $292,000 to satisfy the Architecture Review
requirements. The proposed project fulfilled the minimum parking requirements of 2 cars per
unit, and provided the exact 40% minimum open space. The project required a height
variance to account for the pitch of the roof. The density of the project was 14 units to the
acre, well within the allowable 10-22 units to the acre within the General Plan. In December
2008, the project was submitted and approved by the Planning Commission in a 4-1 vote.
When the project went to City Council On April 9, 2009, it was only for the entitlement of the
site; no funding was being requested to develop the affordable housing. By Minute Motion,
the City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial with a 4-1 vote.
The approval of rezone that the City is requesting directly contradicts past actions on our
property and UHC would like to understand the City's sincerity to support affordable housing.
We believe that a commitment to fund affordable housing in combination with multiple
changes to the development standards in order to achieve a viable density of 22 units would
be proof that the rezoning is sincere and the City is ready to develop affordable housing. We
have the follow questions:
1) Through this action, will the city be reducing the amount of minimum open space
requirement on these properties? If so, what will be the requirement?
2) Will the City increase the height limitation of 24 feet on such properties as the one
UHC owns? If so, will they increase it to a height of at least 41 feet which allows for
three story buildings with pitched roofs?
3) Will the City reduce the minimum amount of parking required per unit? If so, what
will this minimum be?
4) Will landowners be able to entitle projects that are less than the increased density
level?
5) Will landowners be able to develop market rate product instead of affordable?
6) What will be the minimum percent required as affordable housing on these properties?
7) How many units of affordable housing has the city started and completed in 2009,
2010, and 20l 1? How many of these projects were family and at a density of 22 units
per acre?
8) Page 11I-33 of the Housing Element notes that two projects were developed at
densities of 25 and 28 units per acre. What were these projects and were any of them
family projects? If not family projects, what other family projects have been
developed at a density of 22 units to the acre?
9) Page III-33 of the Housing Element also notes that two affordable housing developers
stated that a density greater than 16 units prevents projects from providing the
amenities to create a healthy living environment and limits the marketability of the
project. In light of this comment, why is the City pushing to rezone many of these
properties at a density considerably higher than what is viable?
10) What is the City's intent to develop the Northern Sphere for affordable housing?
1 1) How much of the City's $242 million of total CRA dollars and specifically the $82
million of housing set aside funds are going to be committed to develop affordable
housing in the Northern Sphere?
12) When will the City make a financial commitment to fund affordable housing in the
North Sphere?
UHC is please to have this opportunity to ask these questions and certainly hopes that the City
of Palm Desert is sincere in making a commitment to affordable housing. From our
experience, UHC knows that a density on our property of 22 units is not possible unless the
development standards are modified. Regardless of zoning and development standards,
affordable housing in Palm Desert is only possible if the City is willing to partner with
developers and landowners and provide the funding needed to create affordable housing.
Absent a clarification on the above questions, UHC cannot support a Change in Zoning at this
time.
We look forward to seeing you at the Planning Commission meeting and receiving the
answers to these questions.
Best Regards,
Mark Irving
Director of Acquisitions and Entitlement
Urban Housing Communities, LLC
CRE LJ CA LLC
2450 Broadway St., Suite 500
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 449-2328
December 30, 2011
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: GPA l 1-089
CD
cJ rJ rv.
O r' �#
:30 U "--
n�
�n
rn
Dear Honorable Mayor Benson, Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel, Council Member Harnik, Council Member
Finerty, Council Member Kroonen:
We are the owners of the approximately, 18.92 acres located at the northwest corner of Portola and Dinah
Shore (assessor parcel number 694-130-003) also known as Site F on the city's Housing Element Exhibit
I Sites to be Rezoned. Our representative attended the May 12, 2011 meeting and public hearing for the
proposed zone change to Very High Density with an Affordable Housing overlay, ft was our
understanding from the public hearing that the city would not require the site to be developed as an
affordable housing project with a mininum of20 to 22 units per acres but rather this zone change would
allow an uffordable development with this high of density. Subsequent to that public hearing High Pointe
Communities, who at the time was under contract to purchase the subject property, proposed to build an
apartment project on the site with 80% to 85% market rate and 20% to 25% affordable. High Pointe was
told by Ms. Aylaian and Ms. Moore that this site is required to have 302 units with at least 85%
affordable, anything other than that would be recommended for denial by staff. High Pointe asked what
type of assistance the city would provide for this type of development since a project with 85% affordable
is not economically feasible to build and was told the city would not provide any assistance. Given these
constraints being placed on the property by this proposed zone change the site is essentially being deemed
unusable and will sit vacant for many years to come, if not decades. Accordingly we object to the
proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment GPA 11-089 and request the city remove this site
from the list of properties to be rezoned very high density with an affordable housing overlay.
Sincerely,
CRE LJ CA LLC
By:
Frank R Coari
Authorized Signatory