The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZOA 88-4 TIMESHARES 1989 PHONE CALL FOR �y DATE TIME t� .M. M OF TELEPHONED _ RETURNED PHONE YOUR CALL ARgAMIJE NUMBER EXTEN9 N PLEASE CALL MESSAGE WILL WILL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE VOU WANTS TO SEE YOU SI NED TOPS 0FORM 4003 CAOYIGj n v9t C ' YZc�icuA wo \V7 - d co 1 Cu P R1� zooms Lj �ha,�ar�.-.<sl1i� Gt Cuuvs 11� Pao aw- hY 70 I p 1 15145or9.dst O1/09/89 Chapter 25. 100 TIME-SHARE PROJECTS Sections: 25. 100. 010 Defined. 25. 100.020 Permitted zones. 25.100. 030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. 25. 100.050 Findings. 25. 100.060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. 25. 100. 070 Development standards for time-share project. 25. 100.010 Defined. As used in this chapter, "time-share project" means one wherein a purchaser receives .the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and includes but is not limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, and hotel/condominium. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 020 Permitted zones. A time-share project shall be permitted only in a Planned Residential (PR) zone, a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. Any time-share project shall be developed in conjunction with a resort hotel having 500 or more rooms and an 18 hole golf course of not less than 6400 yards, and then only if and when a conditional use permit has been obtained therefor from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25. 72 of this Code. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. In addition to the information required by Section 25.72 . 020, an applicant for a conditional use permit approval involving a time-share project shall submit in the application at least the following information: A. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to Article 12 . 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 472-1 (Palm Desert 7/86) 2810 wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete" application for a final subdivision public report are enumerated, excluding those documents so enumerated which are subject to the approval of the City and therefore otherwise availiable to the City. In the event such documents and information have not been filed with the California Department of Real Estate at the time an applicant applies for a conditional use permit, the applicant shall furnish such documents and information upon the submission of such documents and information to the Department of Real Estate, but in no event later than the issuance of the conditional use permit. B. In the event an existing condominium project is proposed to be converted to a whole or partial time-share project, a verified description or statement of the number and percentage of the current condominium owners desiring or consenting to the proposed conversion of some or all of the units to a time-share basis. Also, in such instance there shall be submitted a verified statement of the number and percentage of owners who have received notification, either personally or by receipted certified U.S. mail that application to so convert the project would be submitted to the commission together with when the city staff and the commission would consider such application. C. In the ca se of a new mixed project (i.e. time-sharing- condominium/rental) a description of the means proposed to be employed to disclose the number and location of all time-share units within the project. D. Description of time periods, types of units, and which units are in the time-share program (if less than all) , and the length of time each of the units are committed to the time-share program. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 035 Time-share in permitted zones. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share development in any permitted zone: A. With respect to time-share projects developed within a Planned-Residential zone, the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for residential projects; with repspect to time-share projects developed in a General Commercial zone or a Planned Commercial Resort zone, the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for general commercial or planned commercial projects. In determining the density of a time-share project, upon the request of an applicant, the planning officer shall have the authority to transfer the density permitted in other similarly zoned property owned by an applicant to the time-share project; 472-2 (Palm Desert 7/86) B. The time-share project must comply with all development standards for the zone in which it is located; C. The time-share project must be comprised of "time-share estates" as defined in California Business and Professions Code §11003 . 5; D All maintenance agreements and CC&R's must be approved by the city; E. The minimum time-share use period shall be for one week (seven days) ; F. Project sponsor shall post a maintenance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit to assure the maintenance of any landscaping along the perimeter of the project abutting any public right of way. The amount of the bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be equal to 25% of the annual budget of the owner's association having the duty to maintain the exterior of the project which is for such landscaping expenses. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall run to the City and shall remain in place for the life of the project. G. For the purposes of this section -a "time-share project" shall be defined as all of the real property which is subject to a single conditional use permit for time-sharing purposes and a plan of time-sharing set forth in covenants, conditions and restrictions encumbering such real property, and all real property which is subject to the single conditional use permit and which shall be subsequently annexed under such plan. With respect to a time-share project, all interests created therein shall be subject to a public facilities impact mitigation fee of $150 per week share. With respect to each week share in a time-share project, a public facilities impact fee payable under this section shall be paid on the first day of the first calendar month following the sale and conveyance of such week share by the sponsor of a time-share project to an individual consumer (excluding bulk sales from one sponsor to another, in which case the successor sponsor shall have the obligation to pay the public facilities impact fee described herein upon the sale and conveyance of a week share to a consumer) . On the first day of each calendar month, or less frequently if required by the City Council, a sponsor of a time-share project shall also submit a written report to the City which specifies the number of week shares in the time-share project which have been sold and conveyed in the preceding calendar month. 25. 100. 040 Conditions of approval. The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for "time-share" subject to conditions as set forth in Section 25.72.060. 472-3 (Palm Desert 7/86) 25. 100. 050 Findinas. Prior to the granting of a conditional use permit for "time-share" the planning commission shall determine that the findings delineated in Section 25.72 . 070 are met. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. The minimum number of units in a "time-share" project shall be fifty (50) . (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 070 Development standards for time-share project. "Time-share" projects shall be designed to conform to the standards for hotel developments in the event the time-share project is located in a Planned Commercial Resort or General Commercial zone. (Ord. 280 § (part) , 1981) . 472-4 (Palm Desert 7/86) PLANNING 0a44ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1327 A RESOLUTION PLANNING OCI[MSSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECUNNNIDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Carmission of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE that Section 25.100.000, Time Share Projects, shall not be amended for the following reasons: 1. The timeshare industry is too new and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. 2. The planning commission is concerned with past marketing practices of the timeshare industry. 3. Long range investment potential in timeshare has not proved reward PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Oamussion, held on this 3rd day of January, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: LADLOW, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK, ERWOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: DOWNS ABSTAIN: NONE RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Se t /tm 1 ND'NLYIES PALM DESERT PLAWM OCTYISSICN DECIRN]BER 20, 1988 Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions as attached to the resolution. Upon questioning by Chairman Erwood, Mr. Diaz explained that the reason for the parcelization was to allow development of the parcels separately. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or 0PPOSITION to the proposed. Mt. DAN STICELE, 74-360 Angeles Camp Road, asked commission if any changes had been made from the council hearing. Chairman Erwood replied it was still the same. MR. HUMPHRIES, 74-444 Angeles Camp Road, requested further details on the proposal; Chairman Erwood provided the information. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony and asked for comments. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Ccmrtissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1325, approving PM 22794. Carried 3-0. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Case No�ZOA 88 4�,' CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Adoption of the resolution recommending denial of an amendment of Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ladlow, seconded by Chairman Erwood, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Notion failed with a 2-1 vote (Commissioner Whitlock voted no). Moved by Commissioner Ladlow, seconded by Chairman Erwood, continuing ZOA 88-4 to January 3, 1989. Carried 3-0. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLAMING OCPIK SSION DE CEMBER 6, 1988 B. Continued Case No.CZOA 88-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to zoning Ordinance Chapter 25. 100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Commercial (PC-4) zones. Ms. Sass informed cunnission that due to what is being proposed, the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in conjunction with hotels. She stated that the Marriott Desert Springs Resort has submitted an application for a timeshare project and most recent legislation changes will be applied. The code presently allows timeshare in planned residential and resort commercial zones, only with a conditional use permit and in conjunction with a hotel. Ccmmissioner Richards requested further clarification. Mr. Diaz explained that under present timeshare regulations, timeshare projects must be in conjunction with a hotel. However, the projects are limited to C-1 and PC zones. Hotels are allowed with PR zoning. He indicated that were two ways the Marriott could have applied: 1) rezone present property to PC-4 or 2) amend the code to allow timeshare with conditional use permit in the PR zone. This amenchnent was generated by the city and council indicated they would consider the proposal along with ccmnission's reccamtendation. He explained that the transient occupancy tax would be eliminated on timeshare units, as well as allow timeshare units in the PR zone. Commissioner Richards asked if there were any examples of timeshare units in the city. Mr. Diaz replied that there were no timeshare units presently in the city, but indicated there might have been in 1980-81. Commissioner Richards noted that the city has no timeshare units and is considering some and will not be getting any taxes, too. Chairman Erwood asked what the advantage would be to the city and what had changed since the adoption of the original ordinance to justify the change. Mr. Diaz replied to allow applications to be made to the city in this additional zone. Camrissioner Downs asked what the financial advantage would be to the city. Mr. Diaz replied that property taxes would be received. Crnmissioner Ladlow indicated that the text states it is the intent of city council to permit only well financed and properly managed timeshare projects in the city and questioned how that would be determined. Mr. Diaz explained that each project application would be judged on its own merit and that questions regarding management 9 t. MINUrEs PALM DESERT PLC COM MION DEC3r BER 6, 1988 could be asked at that public hearing. CamLissioner Ladlow noted that if Marriott is going to be heard, then commission will be allowed to address that specific issue as part of that application. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the crnmission. MR. SOOTP TURNER, an attorney from Irvine, stated that he worked with the city attorney to redraft the ordinance and was available for any questions. He stated that he has experience with timeshares. Commissioner Richards indicated that he wished to state his objections. He felt that timeshare as a long-range investment potential had not been proven rewarding and expressed concern over past marketing practices. Mr. Turner indicated that timeshare in this state has been done in an incorrect way many times. He stated that timeshare is nothing more or less than a means of owning property and the Marriott Corporation is a new player in the field. He indicated that the development as a group will not market timeshare like other projects, and Commissioner Richards' reservations could be alleviated. Commissioner Richards stated that the Marriott has stood the test of time and quality and he might be slightly persuaded if they could come before the commission and show a proven history. He stated that the Desert Sun rims three to four pages on defaults daily and wondered why a rational person would put up a good amount of money to stay in a place for one to three weeks a year. He did not feel it made economic sense. He also cited past dealings with a person in the timeshare industry. Mr. Turner agreed with comments by Commissioner Richards and indicated that he had spent enough time with the Marriott and had been a member on the real estate commission. He indicated that he could give the commission information on Marriott's other projects on the east coast; an entirely different product that what the commission has seen. Mr. Diaz explained that part of the conditional use permit can be that the city approve the sales program. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the timeshare use in the PR zone and he stated it exists in other zones. He understood the concern expressed on timeshare, but noted that the ordinance will allow people to ask for timeshare, but does not guarantee approval and with the conditional 10 f � . MIN[TPFS PALM DESERT PLANU2rU OCMMICN DECEMBER 6, 1988 use permit the city can asked for any information. Legally timeshare cannot be prohibited. Commissioner Richards asked how a conditional use permit can be used to halt the practices that are currently used. If Marriott were bought out tomorrow the city would not have control if they were to make changes. He did not feel that Palm Desert needed to embark on a pioneering adventure when it has been demonstrated that the industry has not cleaned up their program and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. Mr. Turner replied that the Marriott has a substantial history on the east coast. Commissioner Richards asked for how long and Mr. Turner indicated 12 years. MR. ED McMULLEN, Executive Vice President of Marriott Resorts, gave a description of his background/previous timeshare ownership and noted that the industry has changed. He indicated that they do business all over the world and he has been in the business for 12 years with a current total of 25,000 owners and growing rapidly. He stated that a presentation was given to the city council some months ago. From a standpoint of marketing, Marriott Corporation and his previous company has the highest standards. Ftcm standpoint of default, Melon Corporation is their partner and they could be contacted for verification. He indicated a quality project would be built. They came to the city council with a presentation and looked at ordinance and felt the ordinance should be changed. He stated that if the ocnmissicn would allow them past this "first hurdle", they would present a presentation he felt would eliminate concerns. Commissioner Downs requested clarification regarding the number of owners and Mr. McMullen replied 25,000. He indicated that Hilton, ITT, and Disney would soon be proposing timeshare and felt the value of a long-term plan of leisure activity has increased and has a better and better market. Commissioner Ladlow asked if this was Marriott's fourth year in timeshare and Mr. McMullen replied yes. Commissioner Ladlow questioned the number of total timeshare units involved; Mr. McMullen indicated that he would gladly get her the information. Chairman Erwood asked why ordinance amendment method was chosen. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff suggested the ordinance amendment due to the fact that because hotels are allowed in the PR zone, the city might wish to consider timeshare for other hotels (i.e. Westin). 11 f � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COD14MICN DECEMBER 6, 1988 Chairman Erwood stated that it seemed when the ordinance was first discussed, timeshare was purposely designated in the two zones and asked what has changed to justify then changing this ordinance, rather than changing zoning of the Marriott. Mr. Diaz stated that hotels had not been envisioned and Marriott, as well as Westin, should be considered and felt it was more appropriate to consider a zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioner Richards expressed concern regarding the people and sales practices used by the timeshare industry and indicated that these would be the type of people Marriott Corporation would bring to Palm Desert. Mr. McMullen indicated that Marriott Corporation was not going to tarnish their image by doing anything other than the job its already done. He stated that it is a value project with a value product and totally acceptable. He indicated that one requirement is an above $50,000 per year income. He also stated that everyone that doesn't buy is surveyed, and they receive feedback about the sales people and over 40% that did not buy said they would like to buy and intend to bey. Commissioner Richards asked what fee would be charged and Mr. McMullen indicated $10,000 and an annual maintenance fee of $250-300. Ccnmissloner Dawns asked when an owner stays the week if maid and cleaning services are included or extra. Mr. McMullen outlined which services were provided. He also described the type of architectural standards and noted that they had received national awards for architecture and landscaping. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the project. There being no one, he closed the public testimony. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she was present for the Marriott presentation before the city council and felt that it was done very professionally. She suggested that the commission hear the presentation by Marriott, which would denxx strate the changes that have taken place in the timeshare industry. Chairman Erwood asked haw many units in a hotel were necessary before it can be classified for timeshare units. Commissioner Whitlock replied 50. Mr. Diaz indicated that the minimum number of hotel roans can be increased to whatever amount the commission would be comfortable with. 12 MINUPES PALM DESERT PLANNIM QCFMSSICN DECUIBER 6, 1988 Commissioner Richards stated that he was not against the Marriott, but had owned a hotel here and had experience with the timeshare industry, and he felt it has not proven itself and would be more appropriate for discussion in a few years. Mr. McMullen indicated that this year the industry would do $2 billion in sales. He stated that the are listed with the New York Stock Exchange and felt the industry has matured in the last four years and will increase tremendously in the next few years. He indicated that they were willing to give a formal presentation to cover all points. He reiterated that the industry has matured and is well regulated. Commissioner Richards asked if Mr. McMullen knew how many people sit on the California Real Estate Board and does nothing but regulate timeshares. Mr. Turner indicated that there were 380 employees with approximately eight senior people, but with a great number of other support staff. Ccmrtissioner Richards felt that this was a very small amount of people and they just handle complaints. Mr. Turner disagreed. Commissioner Richards stated that eight people were regulating this industry. Mr. Turner replied that there were more, that the eight spend time evaluating specific projects, but there was other staff. Commissioner Ladlow asked for and received information on the location of the potential timeshare units. At the completion of the discussion, Chairman Erwood asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Erwood, Ladlow, and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Co missioner Ladlow, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the December 20, 1988 planning ocnmission meeting. Carried 3-2 (Downs and Whitlock voted no). Mr. Diaz asked about the findings for denial. Commissioner Richards stated that they could be taken from his oaments. Mr. Turner asked if a continuance could be granted to allow for a presentation to the cKemdssion. Chairman Erwood explained that the matter had already been voted on and had Mr. Diaz explain the appeal process. 13 Y � l INTEROFFICE MUPM UM City of Palm Desert TO: Planning Commission FROM: Catherine Sass, Associate Planner DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Timeshare Ordinance Amendment/ZOA 88-4 A continuance . was requested on this case at the last planning commission meeting to incorporate new information into the ordinance text. Revisions to the text incorporate the most recent legislative changes, which affect the levy of transient occupancy taxes. Clarification has also been made as to when impact fees will be collected. A strikeout document with foot rotes explaining the changes is included with this memorandum. "Exhibit A" demonstrates the revised chapter text and is included as part of the resolution. O_ �c CATHERINE SASS ASSOCIATE PLANNER /tin 15145er6.dst lIf 29188 Chapter 25. 100 TIME-SHARE PROJECTS Sections: 25. 100.010 Defined. 25 . 100.020 Permitted zones. 25. 100. 030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. 25. 100. 050 Findings. 25. 100.060 Minimum number of units in a time-share deve}epmentr proiact. 25. 100. 070 Development standards for time-share e3eve}ep�ne�tbr nro jeet.� 43r�8.6r98A �ra�e3eenb-eecupane�-�eae-arpp}ieab}er 8'Sr}A6r8.9� gxeepti�aer 25.100. 010 Defined. As used in this chapter, "time-share project" means one wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and includes but is not limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, and hotel/condominium. (Ord. 260 3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100, 020 Permitted zones. A time-share project shall be permitted only in 0-aener when a Planned Residential (PRI zone. a General Commercial Zone or in a Dunned -Commercial Resort (PC-41 zone, Any time-share rrooiect which is deyeloRed in a Planned Residential or Planned Gom_mergJLA Resort zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hate}-er getierer}-eeam�ereia}-(8-}}-rerecr hotel. and then only if and when a conditional use permit has been obtained therefor from the p}&nitknq-eandk sairex Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this ceder Code. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) .2✓ J The reference in the table of contents to "time-share development" has been changed to "time-share project" because the first term is not defined in the ordinance. V This revision is intended to permit a time-share project use within a PR; General Commercial or PC-4 zone. It is further intended to limit time-share uses in PR and PC zones to those i RCV BY:Xsrox Telecopier 7020 ;12- 2-88 ; 11 :21AM 7144760256� 6193400574;# 4 25.100.030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. in addition to the information required by Section 25.72 . 020, an applicant for a conditional use permit approval involving a time-share project shall submit in the application at least the fallowing informations A. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to Article 12.2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 2810 wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete" application for a final subdivision public report are eammerated,r enumerated, excluding those documents so enumgrated which are subject to the approval of the City and therefore otherwise availiable to the City. In the event such documents and information have not been filed with the California Department of Real Estate at the time an applicant aRRl es fog as conditional use perms , the aRgl cgnt shall fu=ish such documents and information upon the submission of such documents and information to the Department of Red�Eetate, but n no event later than the-issuance of a conditional use permit " Br--apt-drserlps}erl�-'tr!!e-mRalts-prepereot�b0 be-e�s}ope&-j~C preperiy►-ate�l�feeb}re �-a}3eertr-and-resit-to bile-ej"- he traaeieffL_ paner�axes-wtt �►}}}-��eeeme-one n&-parable-from t}me-te-t= it e_1%tmre W Slr8, In theeven t an existing condominiu m project is proposed to be converted to a whole or partial time-share project, a verified description or statement of the number and percentage of the current condominium owners desiring or consenting to the proposed conversion of some or all of the units to a time-share basis. Also, in such instance there shall be submitted a verified statement of the number and percentage of owners who have received notification, either personally or by receipted certified U.S. mail that application to so convert the project would be submitted to the commission together with when the city staff and the commission would consider such application. time-share projects which are associated with and proximate to a hotel. Presumably time-share projects which are not associated with a hotel would be denied a CUP. 2J This addition is intended to relieve the planning staff of handling documents which have already been submitted to it. A/ Transient occupancy taxes may not be levied by the City against time-share estate projects, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code 17280(b) . This revision of the ordinance 1 been eliminated. P ce has accordin accordingly b RCV BY:XRrox Telecopier 7020 ;12- 2-66 :11 :22AM 71447602564 6183400574;# 5 Hr Q, In the cast of a new mixed project (i.e. time-sharing-condominium/rental) a description of the means proposed to be employed to disclose the number and location of all time-share units within the project. Hr 2, bescription of time periods, types of units, and which units are in the time-share program (if less ,than all) , and the length of time each of the units are' committed to the time-share program. (Ord. 280 3(part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 033 Time-share in permitted zones. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share development in any permitted zone: A. %a With rest to time-share brojects developed within a Planned-Residential zone. the density of the time-share ' project shall not exceed the density permitted in the A= zone for residential projects; with rensnaet to time-share projects devaloed J General Commercial zone or a Planned Comm rcial Resort zone the density of the tj,me-share 1?roiect shad no exceed the density nermittad in such zone for general commercial 2aianned_commercial projects. In determining .thit density of a time-share Rroiect. upon the rgauest of g_a2nlicant the Planning officer shall have the authority to transfer the density permitted in other similarly zoned nroBerty owned by an a=lieant to the time-share nroj&QtL27'— H. The time-share developmei project must comply with all development standards for residerrtifak-�rejtw-}a-the-gR-aet�eT the zone in which it is 1 a ed A/ :+✓ This provision is intended to authorize the transfer of density from property owned by a time-share project developer to property on which such developer wishes to construct a time-share project. For example, if property on which a time-share project is to be constructed is zoned PR-4, a time-share project having a density of only 4 units per acre could be developed. If, however, the owner of the project owns property proximate to the property zoned PR-4, the City could find that the density limitation imposed by this provision is satisfied by transferring the density from the proximate property to the property to be developed. V This modification clarifies that time-share projects could be developed in General Commercial or Planned Commercial Resort zones. ROV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;12- 2-88 ;11 :23AM 71447602564 6183400574i# 6 Ear--�Pke-trtrt�re-a><cra�epmerrb-f abbitl�tbbs�r4 lr#tt-the-prejeet} mast-be-bfms-erls3ra�gti�tsf�+� Dr-- Tile-prejeeb-+mash-bb�-'�fss-elnlsrsilfp'L-bilft share? C. The time-share RrQiect must be co nrisgd of "time-share estates" as defined in California Business and Professions Code IIQ2LILJV Er 12 All maintenance agreements and CC&R's must be approved by the city; Pr XL The minimum time-share anit use Qeriod shall be for one week (seven days) ; A r---Pre�aaB-epasser�+aef�west�a-:�frrteraave-bs�-ie�t:ar-ef eredri�-or�rasls-dapesft-Fer�3te-�fft-ef�kte�rejeet'-eQ�sfraler;!-tie ixat�f3�re-pereazrb-ef-the-entrraa��ei�arianae-badga�-Fer�e P�#a ,--Alas-reserres-fer-aeaer�regsfr- -rap3 aaeme9Rtt F Project eRonsQr shall nest a maintenancg bond utter of credit or cash deposit to assure the maintenance of an lands aging along the nerimater of the Project abutting any public rigbt of way. The AMOUnt of the bond latter of credit L This deletion is necessary to permit the possibility of mixed use projects. Mixed use projects are contemplated by §25. 100. 030 (s) , (C) and (D) above. Without this deletion, the ordinance would be internally inconsistent. V This modification is intended ri to clarify the definition of a "fee ownership" time-share interest. Business and Professions Code §11003.5 defines a "time-share project" as ". . . one in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, or segment of real property, annually or on some other periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted form the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided. " The same section defines a "time-share estate" as: " . . . a right of occupancy in a time-share project which is coupled with an estate in the real property." We believe incorporation of the statutory definition in the ordinance is consistent with the original intent of the city Council, and serves as an accurate and convenient definition of the type of time-share interest the City council wishes to permit. RCV BY:K,erox Telecopier 7020 ; 12- 2-88 ;11 :24AM 71447602564 6193400574:# 7 or cash deposit shall be a ual to 25I of tha annual budget f the owner's association havincr the duty to maintain he exterior 0 the Project which is for such landscaping expenses. The bond. letter o a remain in place for the 1,_fa of to proiac Hr- --t-IMO-.eha"-&Mts,tillY3 b-b*-s%b}eet-to-a-ens-h%FAred fHtT-4e1+ar-PeP Week-she" G. For the nurposas of this section a "time-share project" sha the real vroperty wh#ch is subject to a single Gonditione1 usa Dermit for covenants,nacr PUZ22SAL-U time-sharing not forth in property, and all real proRerty which is subiect to the _sin_q3& conditional usa permit and which sha> > be + se n ly annexed under such plan. With resgact to a t r %ght $roiec+ all interests created therein shall be subject to a public facilities impact mitigation Yee o! $150 per week share With respect to each week share in a time-share DTOiaGty a public fartilif ies impact fee nay�Q undo - this section shall be paid on the first day of the first natendar month following the sale and eQnvevance of such weak share by the on spsor of a time-share project to an individual canalme (excluding bulk sales from one sponsor to another- in which Base the successor sponsor shall have the obligatjon nay the public facilities impact fee described herein !non the sale and cony¢yance of a week share o $ sorisumerl on the first day of each calendar month or less fraguent7y if rerjuired by the City Council, a sponsor of a time-share project shall also submit a written repo the City which specifies the number of week shares in the time-share project yhich have been sold and conveyed in the precadi ng calendar Month.AW 25.100.040 Conditions of approval. The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for "time-share" subject to conditions as set forth in Section 25.72. 060. This revision is a clarification of the prior provision. Under this provision, the City holds a financial guarantee to assure that the landscaping of a project visible from the public streets is properly maintained. 12/ This provision is a clarification of the prior provision. This provision clarifies what a time-share; project is, that each week share in a time-share project is subject to the public facilities impact fee and when the fee is to be paid to the City. In order to assure that the fee is being paid when due, a sponsor of a time-share project is obliged to make periodic reports to the City regarding how many use weeks were sold in the prior period. RCV BY:xerox Telecopier 7020 ;12- 2-BB ; 11 :25AM 71447602564 6183400574;# 6 25.100. 050 Findings. Prior to the granting of a Conditional USA permit for "time-share" the planning commission shall determine that the findings delineated in section 25.72.070 are met. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100.066 Minimum number of units in a time-share develegle roiect. The minimum number of units in a "time-share" project shall be tweVyv fiftykgjI / (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) , 25.100. 070 Development standards for time-share developmenby . grajact. "Time-share" e "Obermeats nXr jests shall be designed to conform to the standards for hotel developments in the ae"4ft-whk0k•+bh*-VVOP ;•ty 40-}eeatedy event the time-share Commercial one (Ord. 280 (part) , 1991) . Z5r}99 r88$-Jf'1"Rl�l� -eCvepaasey�!`37!-apg}#vab}Q si:are�re}eat�-elsa}3--be-s�}aalr�l■e�he�reMi�fene�P�L•lte�ibrLs brat�aisabroee►xpaner�a7ebrdi�tarieerl�--f6r�r-2�6--3fpa2�b}r-398�}r 25.100.090 Exceptions. This chapter is not applicable to those projects which applications for approval from the state Department of Real Estate have been filed prior to December 4, 198o, or projects which the city as approved prior to December 4, 1980. (Ord. 280 3(part) , 1991) . This modification increases the minimum number of units in a time-share project from 20 to 50. It is consistent with the intent of the City Council to permit only well financed and properly managed time-share projects within the City. 1V This provision clarifies that time-share projects constructed in a PR zone need not be constructed to hotel standards. IV This provision has bean deleted because the City cannot collect transient occupancy taxes in a time-share estate project pursuant to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code 17280. PLANNING COM-ITMION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PLANNING CJv]MISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOAvE(DING AMUMIENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 25.100.000, Time Share Projects, and the same hereby is, amended to read as shown in the attached "Exhibit A". SECTION 2. That Sections 25.100.080 and 25.100.090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same here by are, repealed. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /tm Exhibit A Chapter 25. 100 TIME-SHARE PROJECTS Sections: 25. 100.010 Defined. 25. 100.020 Permitted zones. 25. 100.030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. 25. 100.050 Findings. 25. 100. 060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. 25. 100. 070 Development standards for time-share project. 25. 100.010 Defined. As used in this chapter, "time-share project" means one wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and includes but is not limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, and hotel/condominium. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 020 Permitted zones. A time-share project shall be permitted only in a Planned Residential (PR) zone, a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. Any time-share project which is developed in a Planned Residential or Planned Commercial Resort zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel, and then only if and when a conditional use permit has been obtained therefor from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25. 72 of this Code. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100.030 Information to be submitted with C.U. P. application. In addition to the information required by Section 25.72 .020, an applicant for a conditional use permit approval involving a time-share project shall submit in the application at least the following information: A. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to Article 12 . 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 472-1 2810 wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete" application for a final subdivision public report are enumerated, excluding those documents so enumerated which are subject to the approval of the City and therefore otherwise availiable to the City. In the event such documents and information have not been filed with the California Department of Real Estate at the time an applicant applies for a conditional ,. use permit, the applicant shall furnish such documents and information upon the submission of such documents and information to the Department of Real Estate, but in no event later than the issuance of the conditional use permit. B. In the event an existing condominium project is proposed to be converted to a whole or partial time-share project, a verified description or statement of the number and percentage of the current condominium owners desiring or consenting to the proposed conversion of some or all of the units to a time-share basis. Also, in such instance there shall be submitted a verified statement of the number and percentage of owners who have received notification, either personally or by receipted certified U.S. mail that application to so convert the project would be submitted to the commission together with when the city staff and the commission would consider such application. C. In the case of a new mixed project (i.e. time-sharing- condominium/rental) a description of the means proposed to be employed to disclose the number and location of all time-share units within the project. D. Description of time periods, types of units, and which units are in the time-share program (if less than all) , and the length of time each of the units are committed to the time-share program. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share development in any permitted zone: A. With respect to time-share projects developed within a Planned-Residential zone, the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for residential projects; with repspect to time-share projects developed in a General Commercial zone or a Planned Commercial Resort zone, the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for general commercial or planned commercial projects. In determining the density of a time-share project, upon the request of an applicant, the planning officer shall have the authority to transfer the density permitted in other similarly zoned property owned by an applicant to the time-share project; 472-2 n i i I B. The time-share project must comply with all development standards for the zone in which it is located; C. The time-share project must be comprised of "time-share estates" as defined in California Business and Professions Code §11003 .5; D All maintenance agreements and CC&R's must be approved by the city; E. The minimum time-share use period shall be for one week (seven days) ; F. Project sponsor shall post a maintenance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit to assure the maintenance of any landscaping along the perimeter of the project abutting any public right of way. The amount of the bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be equal to 25% of the annual budget of the owner' s association having the duty to maintain the exterior of the project which is for such landscaping expenses. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall run to the City and shall remain in place for the life of the project. G. For the purposes of this section a "time-share project" shall be defined as all of the real property which is subject to a single conditional use permit for time-sharing purposes and a plan of time-sharing set forth in covenants, conditions and restrictions encumbering such real property, and all real property which is subject to the single conditional use permit and which shall be subsequently annexed under such plan. With respect to a time-share project, all interests created therein shall be subject to a public facilities impact mitigation fee of $150 per week share. With respect to each week share in a time-share project, a public facilities impact fee payable under this section shall be paid on the first day of the first calendar month following the sale and conveyance of such week share by the sponsor of a time-share project to an individual consumer (excluding bulk sales from one sponsor to another, in which case the successor sponsor shall have the obligation to pay the public facilities impact fee described herein upon the sale and conveyance of a week share to a consumer) . On the first day of each calendar month, or less frequently if required by the City Council, a sponsor of a time-share project shall also submit a written report to the City which specifies the number of week shares in the time-share project which have been sold and conveyed in the preceding calendar month. 25. 100. 040 Conditions of approval. The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for "time-share" subject to conditions as set forth in Section 25.72 . 060. 472-3 i 25.100.050 Findings. Prior to the granting of a conditional use permit for "time-share" the planning commission shall determine that the findings delineated in Section 25.72.070 are met. (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). 25.100.060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. The minimum number of units in a "time-share" project shall be fifty (50). (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). 25.100.070 Development standards for time-share project. "Time-share" projects shall be designed to conform to the standards for hotel developments in the event the time-share project is located in a Planned Commercial Resort or General Commercial zone. (Ord. 280 SubS. (part), 1981). 25.100.080 Exceptions. This chapter is not applicable to those projects which applications for approval from the State Department of REal Estate have been filed prior to December 4, 1980, or projects which the city has approved prior to December 4, 1980. (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). 472-4 I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTNENT OF QM4UNITY DEVELOPMEW STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 1, 1988 CASE NO: ZOA 88-4 REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Cbnnercial (PC-4) zones. APPLICAM: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROM: Pt2 2° Due to the maturin of the industry the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in conjunction with a hotel and, therefore, has initiated this zoning ordinance amendment. The improvements in the timeshare industry are such that staff is confident these types of developments can be designed to conform to the standards the city upholds. In the Planned Residential and Resort Cormnercial zones timeshare shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel. In all three zones, C-1, PR, and PC (4) timeshare shall be permitted only as a conditional use. II. RE0041E lMTION• A. Approve the findings. B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 88-4 to city council. III. ATTACHMRM: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. Prepared by C- Reviewed and Approved / CS/tm PL.ANNIM C WEssIw IWOIL"TON NO. A RESOLUTION PLANNING CM IISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECMJ0IDING AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHERFAS, the Planning Comtissicn of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 25.100.020, Permitted Zones of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100.020. Permitted Zones A timeshare project shall be permitted only in a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) Zone or Planned Residential (PR) Zone. Said development in the PR or PC-4 Zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel, and then only if and when a Conditional Use Permit has been obtained therefore in any zone from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this Code.'1 SECTION 2. That Section 25.100.060, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100.060. Minimum Number of Units in a Timeshare Development "The minimum number of units in a "timeshare" project shall be fifty (50)." SECTION 3. That Section 25.100.070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: Section 25.100.070. Development Standards for Timeshare Development " 'Timeshare developments' shall be designed to conform to the standards in the zone in which the property is located." SECTION 4. That Sections 25.100.080 and 25.100.090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same here by are, repealed. SECTION 5. The.City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PLANNIIG 0C MISSICN RESOLUrICN NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /tTn 2 1• K'1V�F a Sri } ('f'tu�OF off lPaIlLl a 7=Dcw;ca�1Nta 73-510 FRED WARINO DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 -� TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 18, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT . LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by amending Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 1, 1988, at 7:00 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. 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 planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary October 21 , 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission PROOF PUBLICATION Thisspai for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) "CEI'_ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ,B;J FEB ;j p;Ll 3 C6 County of Riverside C I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DESERT resident of the County aforesaid; I am over - the age of eighteen years,and not a party to PrpDf of,Publication of or interested in the above-entitled matter. 1 CASE NO. ZPA 88-4 am the principal clerk of the printer of the ..................•••••......••••...................•••••• DESERT POST .................................................... . CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 ............................................. ..... NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the a newspaper of general circulation,printed Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by amending Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. Bi-weekly SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,January 12';1989,at 7:00 and published .................................. p.m.inthe Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which time and place all inter- Palm Desert ested persons are invited to attend and be heard.If you challenge the pro- in the City of .................................. posed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in tt��Iss notice,orm 1 County of Riverside, and which news- written correspondence delivered to the planning corTIT.Sion for city paper has been adjudged a newspaper council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. RAMof general circulation by the Superior Palm D e D fanAZ, Secretary c rotary Palm Desert Planning Commission Court of the County of Riverside, State of (Pub. D.P. Dec. 30, 1W8) California,under the date of...0/5.,..... 196.4 Case Number 83658.......;thatihenotice, of which the annexed Is a printed copy (set In type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wii: ............12130 ............................... i all in the year 19. 88 I certify (or declare) under penalty of 4 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at... alm Desert California,thlsl!. 30t�h ,dayyoAfDec .., 19 BB Signature Fret coolts of this blank form maybe sec„rod,rem n CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU,INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 west Second St.,Los Angeles,Calif. 9DO12 Telephone: 1213) 625.2541 ►Ina aau w,Mh Oe deeAL► farF/t+llnllrn ' nornine thiss farm. ,:OX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS GEORGE M. COX JOHN R. CAVBLE, JR. ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL PHILLIP R. NICHOLSON' GARY A. GLICH RICHARD N. CASTLE "WHENCE TEPLIN LORA LEE MDORE 19800 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD LAWRENCE J. TRACY' RONALD I. SILVERMAN' STANLEY W. LAMPORT SUITE 600 ROBERT G. HAYHURST STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R. UPPER W. McUN LINES MARIO CAMARA RANDALL D, NAIMAN IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9271S LAMES E. BARNETTI GEORGE O. CALKINS, II RANDALL W. BLACK HOWARD GOLDSTEIN JOHN H. KUHL D. SCOTT TURNER TELEPHONE (7I41 476-2111 PERRY D. MOCCI.PO PHILLIP E. HIMELSTEIN SANDRA C. STEWART MARK P. MCCLANATHAN ARTHUR O. SPAULDING, JR. JUNE AILIN JOHN A. KINCANNON J EFFREY LAPOTw JE55 R. BRE551 FACSIMILE 1714) 476-0256 - LOS ANGELES OFFICE DAVID S. MILLER, J STEVEN E M. NG FACSIMILE 17 41 833-3 > JOHN 5. MILLER, JR. MILHEL LE M, OSBORNE 2 049 CENTURY PARK FAST KENNETH B. BLEY BRIAN J. MURPHY TELEX 5101006096 TNENTY£IGHTH FLOOR IRA J. WALDMAN STEVEN M. KRAUS LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 80067 JOHN F. NICHOLSON BARRY R. MEEPOS RD)277-w222 SAMUEL H. GREENBAUM CME H. LCE CHARLES E. MONEMAN KENNETH WILLIAMS WILLIAM KAMER MICHAEL O. MACKNESS OUR FILE NO: MARLENE D. GOODFRIED DAVID S. ROSENBERG EVERITT G. BEERS SUSAN J. JACKSON BARRY P. JABLON EVAMARIE C. HERHUSKY December 2, 1988 JEFFREY 0 MASTERS MATHEW A. WYMAN ROBERT O. INFELISE MICHAEL J. KAMINSKY EDWARD G. SHIPLEY' CHRISTOPHER P. GARCIA BRADLEY D. FRAZIER STATHI G. MARCOPULOS TAMAR C. STEIN ADAM D. GROSSMAN DAVID M. WEBER LISA A. STERES 15145 HERBERT J. KLEIN PHILIP J. COLLIAS EDYTHE L. BRONS70N BARRY C. SEATON CAROL M. LIFLANO DONNA R. OLIVA DOUGLAS P. 5NYDER THOMAS S. TENGAN Ms. Catherine Sass, Associate Planner Mr. Phil Drell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Timeshare Ordinance Dear Ms. Sass and Mr. Drell: Pursuant to the requests of Ms. Sass, I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 25. 100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code pertaining to Time-Share Projects. The copy is the same as that which I sent you under my letter of November 30, 1988 except that I have included footnotes which explain the proposed modifications. With kindest regards. Sincerely, J � D. Scott Turner DST/sc Enclosure cc: David Erwin, Esq. Mr. Raymond Diaz 1202L01.dst r 1 - MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16. 1988 I. ROLL CALL Present: Hank Stokes, Chairman Bruce Altman George Berkey Kirby Warner John Ceriale Ray Diaz Frank Goodman Catherine Sass Don Hedlund Dick Folkers Romeo Pulugi Walt Snyder Dave Tschopp Roy Wilson Donna Gomez II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Mr. Hedlund, seconded by Mr. Berkey to approve the minutes of November 17, 1988 as amended. Carried unanimously. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: TIME SHARE ORDINANCE/PRESENTATION Mr. Diaz explained that Catherine Sass was handling the zoning ordinance amendment regarding time share. He noted that city council, knowing that this item would be before them in January, asked that the EDAC review and make a recommendation on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as it pertains to economics. The current ordinance allows time share within the commercial zone and in the planned commercial zone in conjunction with a hotel. The proposed amendment would allow time-share in conjunction with a hotel in the planned residential (PR) zone. Staff had recommended to planning commission that they recommend to city council approval of the proposed amendment. Staff felt the project before them merited consideration. Planning commission voted against the ordinance amendment with a 3-2 vote. Their reasons for voting against the amendment were the methods of sales and they felt time-shares were not good investments. Mr. Diaz explained that the sales program can be made a part of the CUP approval. He noted that as a part of the ordinance they can define the type of hotel that must be built in conjunction with the time-shares. Mr. Ed McMullen was introduced and proceeded to explain his background and experience with Marriott and time-share projects. He introduced Mr. Bob Miller and Mr. Bob Eckenroth who are also working on this project. He proceeded to discuss the time-share industry and the success of Marriotts existing time-share projects. He reviewed the amenities, building layout, floor plans, landscaping and types of services they provide at their projects. Marriott manages all of their time-share projects themselves. Mr. McMullen ran a video tape of Mr. Bill Marriott expressing his support for this project. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 1988 Mr. Eckenroth presented a booklet to each member and proceeded to review the contents. This information included details on site layout, floor plans, socio— economic impacts on local economy, demographics, newspaper articles and letters. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Diaz if there was a problem between time—share and collection of room tax. Mr. Diaz explained that you can not collect transient occupancy tax on vacation owned units. He indicated that a fee of $7600 per unit c has been established to be paid up front. Mr. Goodman asked if there was a density problem on this site, if they would be in excess of the units allowed and if this would open up time—share to all hotel sites in the city. Mr. Diaz explained that the density they are asking for is within the allowable for the zone. The ordinance amendment would allow time—share in these zones in conjunction with a hotel. He explained that you can define a "hotel" as a specific size. He indicated that he would want to have a sales program outlined as a condition of the CUP. Mr. Puluqi asked if they could build a 300 unit hotel on the proposed site. Mr. Diaz indicated they could but noted that the traffic and the benefits to the city would be the same. Mr. Puluqi felt that a hotel would be better for the city economically. The city would be collecting the TOT continually rather than just one up—front fee. Mr. Miller explained that they have built the maximum number of hotel rooms they can operate because of the down season. He indicated if the market can support the up—scale hotel rooms they will be built. He noted the time—share will be an added revenue for the city. An additional fee will be paid to the city when the units are rented. Mr. Diaz noted that this particular area is zoned for single family detached homes and not hotel. Mr. Stokes indicated that the choice would then be between single family homes and time—share. Mr. McMullen stated they would like the endorsement of the committee. Mr. Stokes indicated there are two questions; 1) is this particular project one we could endorse and, 2) should the ordinance be amended and state that only projects of this caliber be allowed. Mr. Berkey asked if there would be a considerable difference in the cost of using these units in January or in July. Mr. McMullen indicated that in Hilton Head their time—share goes for about half the price in the off season. Mr. Puluqi asked if they would work with the hotel when necessary. Mr. Miller indicated that they sometimes filter over bookings of the hotel into these units which may be done .here. 2 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 1988 Mr. Puluqi indicated he had no problem with the proposal. He could see the direct benefits to the city but not necessarily to the core area. Mr. McMullen explained that they did not give a presentation to the planning commission. They did discuss the investment issue. Typically these units are used as vacation homes and are not for investment purposes. Mr. Warner asked how Marriott would handle units that can not be resold or if someone was not paying their fees. Mr. Miller explained that they had conducted a survey which indicated 90% of the owners said they were very satisfied. If owners do not pay their maintenance fees Marriott has the right to foreclose and resale the property, which they would do if necessary. He noted that the better the product and higher the quality the less likely this is to happen. Marriott would never let this project deteriorate because of if being located adjacent to the hotel site. Mr. Sandy Baum explained that there are a lot of people that should be paying TOT to the city and they are not. He felt this project would help control that problem. He thought that time—share was coming back again and recommended that they approve the proposed amendment. Mr. Altman indicated that Marriott is the city's number one sales tax producer and felt that the time share would solidify that. He noted that this was right in line with what the AP Committee has been discussing. Aerc.ae:�r p.a...,c;ms Mr. Ceriale indicated the people in these units will be more apt to come into the community than the hotel guests. The hotel guests stay in the hotel more because of meetings and conferences they are attending theft~ Mr. Chuck Davis felt that from a marketing aspect the project would provide productive exposure. Mr. McMullen indicated they would be putting a lot of money into the marketing of this project. This would include using the Palm Desert name in publications and telling what a great place Palm Desert is to vacation. He noted that they have the funds available to do the marketing. MOTION Mr. Puluqi made a motion to inform city council that the EDAC felt the project would be economically feasible to the city. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. Mr. Stokes indicated that the committee hoped that the zoning ordinance amendment would be approved in a way that would enhance the high standards that Marriott seems to be setting. Mr. Tschopp felt that Marriott was a top notch organization and thought they would run the time—share in a top notch manner. He felt it was very important that the high standards be upheld for every time—share project. 3 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 1988 Mr. Diaz indicated the ordinance could be read to state that it must be a resort hotel which could be described as a minimum of 500 rooms and have an 18 hole golf course. The motion was amended to include the recommendation that city council amend the ordinance in a way that will allow only the highest quality time—share projects. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Mr. Ceriale abstained). IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Donna Gomez Economic Development Secretary I 4 Wc�O� d°1 AGENDA wl�aln I; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY — DECEMBER 15, 1988 — 3:00 P.M• Davy ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM 73-610 FRED WARING DRIVE DPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Review of minutes from the meeting of November 17, 1988. i III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: I. Consideration of proposed ordinance amendment related to time share as referred by City. Council. A presentation will be given by Marriott representatives. Ik�'�F : �d• V�c ww li-c �. IV. COMMENTS FROM CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN V. , ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the Economic Development Advisory Committee at this point by giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the committee. 2. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non—hearing items. It should be noted that at committee discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the agenda as the Item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the committee. VI. ADJOURNMENT /dig �^ I At 9 i f i e LAO a� woF aC( Q i rt= K. i d • 6 SSA nok obi Covt,c 6re�l PLANNING, CatLLSSION RFSOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PLANNING CO[MISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RE00[MMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Cbmnission of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE that Section 25.100.000, Time Share Projects, shall not be amended for the following reasons: 1. The timeshare industry is too new and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. 2. The planning commission is concerned with past marketing practices of the timeshare industry. 3. Long range investment potential in timeshare has not proved rewarding. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /tm 'off Q .l�,d QC-1 1 is NG C l lu �s �, o�� „ 124 Noke, s , or ha}e1S ol� poor t�^1 �� Nod et rl y in+esh�.re AeSigned �nR- UA �T � t rw(s ' G v too � �e �9 �G } _. • (��D GIB- VIJI� 1 d e &an.c,� p,eta�a �. r, rn `C13� MAP,,�e' E CSC � t- GU \� :5 CITY OF PALM DESERT t DEPARTMENT OF OLi+ 4WTY DEVELOPDEW TRXV3 r TAL LErM I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. RDOIEST: Approval of amendment of Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. IIfs III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert p 51 IV. CASE NO: Z0A 88-4 V. DATE: January 12, 1989 VI. CONJENIS: A. Staff recamVndation- B. Discussion- C. Draft Ordinance No- D. Planning Ccmnissicn minutes involving Case No. ZOA 88-4. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6 1988, F. Interoffice mamrandLm to planning oannissice dated December including strikeout docimie t. ted November l 1988. H. Planning CCMTLDevelssicetst�tteerepo mmi.nnuutes datedDecember 15, 1988. H. Related Development exhibits. I. Related maps J. Legal notice. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ A. STAFF RE DATION: Approve the findings and adopt Ordinance No- B. DISCUSSICN: A request for amendment to the timeshare chapter of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance was brought before the planning c=dssicn on November 1, 1988 and again on December 6, 1988. At that time the planning ca mission recam�erxded denial of the amendment to the city council (3-2) . They expressed concerns over the newness of the industry, past marketing practices and long-range investment potential. on December 15, 1988, the Palm Desert Econcnuc Development Co mdttee (EDC) made a recamiendatice of approval for amendment to the-timeshare ordinance (unanbrpus), The EDC found that there were econc mic benefits to the city resulting from this type of land use. Aside from minor revisions to the text to incorporate the most recent legislative changes, the most significant issue is whether timeshare should be allowed in the planned residential zone (PR)- TRANSMTTAL r•ETrER 7.OA 88-4 JANUARY 12, 1989 1 6t-, �¢ First, in the-current ordinance, is permitted in the planned commercial resort zone (PC-4) when deve in conjunction with a hotel or �in the general' (C=1) zone: The only PC-4 and C-1 parcels in the city are on Highway 111. There are really no parcels large enough for thV_ type of development t. (The largest PC-4 at Fred Waring and Highway 111 is only 32 acres). %5 1�ecity has come to think of a "Resort Hotel" as a major hotel with a championship golf course and a restaurant or two. The only such hotel Palm Desert has is, in fact, in the PR zone. Future resort hotels will also be in the PR zone which encompasses most of the north sphere. Staff recommends revising the zoning ordinance text to redefine "Resort Hotel" as such. Finally, the concezns expressed in opposition to allowing time share are in opposition to timeshare generally, not specifically in the PR zone. These kinds of concerns have been addressed by revisions in state law prohibiting street solicitations and "mutual right to cancel" provisions. A sales program can be outlined as part of a CUP. Staff'3s-Cbr fident=that'the-PR i-evised timeshare chapter aYe sound.enough -.to- provide for architecture, landscaping, unit size, maintenance, and amenity considered acceptable in Palm Desert. 'The requirement- of- a conditional-use permit-allows considerable review and individual scrutiny of any proposed project. The requirement that timeshare exist in conjunction with a hotel assures the city of long-term upkeep of timeshare units. So, what remains a concern is what specifically each applicant will do that is different from the objectional practices that gained the negative reputation. Under the CUP process the applicant can provide this information. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: /t p, �4�^ �U ^� 4i ccw\Mn2 �vJ�}�. CUP. �ifi1Ut�� QWA v14� G•"' `^^RJ` ��^�JC c n4. 1�� 2 CEDnNArCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN RMEEl ET]T TO CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE CITY OF PALM , DESERT ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT FOR TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of January, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above mentioned request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify its action as described below: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning ordinance, 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendnent would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve a zoning ordinance Text Amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A." 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, 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 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: S. ROY WILSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /tm ` Exhibit A Chapter 25. 100 TIME-SHARE PROJECTS Sections• 25. 100. 010 Defined. 25. 100. 020 Permitted zones. 25..100. 030 Information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. 25. 100.050 Findings. 25. 100. 060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. 25. 100. 070 Development standards for time-share project. 25. 100 010 Defined. o As used in this chapter, time-share project' means one wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and includes but is not limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, and hotel/condominium. (Ord. E part) 98��_ 5. 100. 020 Permitted zones. A time-share project shall be ted only in a Planned Residential (PR) zone, a General cial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. me-share project which"is*developedloin'�a°Pl'annedntial' or "Planned 5O�nm ercial Resort.,zo-ne shall be developed junction with aR'HoEel, and then only if and when aional use permit has been obtained therefor from the ° g Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 198 a�.0 c.hoke.,, ��.tM �.o ow s L a \8)^ote�tfccv pYards 25. 100, 030 Information to be submitted with C U P. tr application. In addition to the information required by Section 25.72 . 020, an applicant for a conditional use permit approval involving a time-share project shall submit .in the application at least the following information: A. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to Article 12 . 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 472-1 r i 2810 wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete'e application for a final subdivision public report are enumerated, excluding those documents so enumerated which are subject to the approval of the City and therefore otherwise availiable to the City. In the event such documents and information have not been filed with the California Department of Real Estate at the time an applicant applies for a conditional use permit, the applicant shall furnish such documents and information upon the submission of such documents and information to the Department of Real Estate, but in no event later than the issuance of the conditional use permit. B. In the event an existing condominium project is proposed to be converted to a whole or partial time-share project, a verified description or statement of the number and percentage of the current condominium owners desiring or consenting to the proposed conversion of some or all of the units to a time-share basis. Also, in such instance there shall be submitted a verified statement of the number and percentage 'of owners who have received notification, either personally or by receipted certified U.S . mail that application to so convert the project would be submitted to the commission together with when the city staff and the commission would consider such application. C. In the case of a new mixed project (i.e. time-sharing- condominium/rental) a description of the means proposed to be employed to disclose the number and location of all time-share units within the project. D. Description of time periods, types of units, and which units are in the time-share program (if less than all) , and the length of time each of the units are committed to the time-share program. (Ord. 280 §3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 10.0. 035 Time-share in permitted zones. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share development in any permitted zone: A. With respect to time-share projects developed within a Planned-Residential zone, the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for residential projects; with repspect to time-share projects developed in a General Commercial zone or a Planned Commercial Resort zone., the density of the time-share project shall not exceed the density permitted in such zone for general commercial or planned commercial projects. In determining the density of a time-share project, upon the request of an applicant, the planning officer shall have the authority to transfer the density permitted in other similarly zoned property owned by an applicant to the time-share project; 472-2 I e ' B. The time-share project must comply with all development standards. for the zone in which it is located; C. The time-share project must be comprised of "time-share estates" as defined in California Business and Professions Code §11003.5; D . All maintenance agreements and CC&R's must be approved by the city; E. The minimum time-share use period shall be for one week (seven days) ; F. Project sponsor shall post a maintenance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit to assure the maintenance of any landscaping along the perimeter of the project abutting any public right of way. The amount of the bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall be equal to 25% of the annual budget of the owner's association having the duty to maintain the exterior -of the project which is for such landscaping expenses. The bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall run to the City and shall remain in place for the life of the project. G. For the purposes of this section a "time-share project" shall be defined as all of the real property which is subject to a single conditional use permit for time-sharing purposes and a plan of time-sharing set forth in covenants, conditions and restrictions encumbering such real property, and all real property which is subject to the single conditional use permit and which shall be subsequently annexed under such plan. With respect to a time-share project, all interests created therein shall be subject to a public facilities impact mitigation fee of $150 per eek share. With respect to each week share in a t me-share project, 'a public facilities impact fee payable under this section shall be paid on the first day of the first calendar month following the sale and conveyance of such week share by the sponsor of a time-share project to an individual consumer (excluding bulk sales from one sponsor to another, in which case the successor sponsor shall have the obligation to pay the public facilities impact fee described herein upon the sale and conveyance of a week share to a consumer) . On the first day of each calendar month, or less frequently if required by the City Council, a sponsor of a time-share project shall also submit a written report to the City which specifies the number of week shares in the time-share project which have been sold and conveyed in the preceding calendar month. 25. 100. 040 Conditions of approval. The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for "time-share" subject to conditions as set forth in Section 25. 72 . 060. 472-3 1 25.100.050 Findings. Prior to the granting of a conditional use permit for time-share the planning commission mission shall determine that the findings delineated in Section 25.72.070 are met. (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). 25.100.060 Minimum number of units in a time-share project. The minimum number of units in a "time-share" project shall be fifty (50). (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). 25.100.070 Development standards for time-share pro ect. "Time-share" projects shall be designed to conform to the sta:da��s for hotel developments in the event the time-share project is located in a Planned Ccomercial Resort or General Commercial zone. (Ord. 280 SubS. (part), 1981). 25.100.080 Exceptions. This chapter is not applicable to those projects which applications for approval from the State Department of REal Estate have been filed prior to December 4, 1980, or projects which the city has approved prior to December 4, 1980 (Ord. 280 SubS. 3 (part), 1981). it 472-4 M]NUr S PALM DESERT PLANNING 03n4ISSION DEC EMER 6, 1988 B. Continued Case No. ZOA 88-4 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25. 100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Commercial (PC-4) zones. Ms. Sass informed ocnmissicn that due to what is being proposed, the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in conjunction with hotels. She stated that the Marriott Desert Springs Resort has submitted an application for a timeshare project and most recent legislation changes will be applied. The code presently allows timeshare in planned residential and resort Crnmeroial zones, only with a conditional use permit and in conjunction with a hotel. Commissioner Richards requested further clarification. Mr. Diaz explained that under present timeshare regulations, timeshare projects must be in conjunction with a hotel. However, the projects are limited to C-1 and PC zones. Hotels are allowed with PR zoning. He indicated that were two ways the Marriott could have applied: 1) rezone present property to PC-4 or 2) amend the code to allow timeshare with conditional use permit in the PR zone. This amendment was generated by the city and council indicated they would consider the proposal along with commission's reccmTendation. He explained that the transient occupancy tax would be eliminated on timeshare units, as well as allow timeshare units in the PR zone. Commissioner Richards asked if there were any examples of timeshare units in the city. Mr. Diaz replied that there were no timeshare units presently in the city, but indicated there might have been in 1980-81. Commissioner Richards noted that the city has no timeshare units and is considering some and will-not be getting any taxes, too. Chairman Erwood asked what the advantage would be to the city and what had changed since the adoption of the original ordinance to justify the change. Mr. Diaz replied to allow applications to be made to the city in this additional zone. Commissioner Downs asked what the financial advantage would be to the city. Mr. Diaz replied that property taxes would be received. Commissioner Ladlow indicated that the text states it is the intent of city council to permit only well financed and properly managed timeshare projects in the city and questioned how that would be determined. Mr. Diaz explained that each project application would be judged on its wan merit and that questions regarding management 9 1 MI111TES PAIM DESERT PLAN IM 03MMSSICN DECR43ER 6, 1988 could be asked at that public hearing. Commissioner Ladlow noted that if Marriott is going to be heard, then commission will be allowed to address that specific issue as part of that application. Chairman Erwood o ened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. SODI T TURNER, an attorney from Irvine, stated that he worked with the city attorney to redraft the ordinance and was available for any questions. He stated that he has experience with timeshares. Commissioner Richards indicated that he wished to state his objections. He felt that timeshare as a long-range investment potential had not been proven rewarding and expressed concern over past marketing practices. Mr. Turner indicated that timeshare in this state has been done in an incorrect way many times. He stated that timeshare is nothing more or less than a means of owning property and the Marriott Corporation is a new player in the field. He indicated that the development as a group will not market timeshare like other projects, and Commissioner Richards' reservations could be alleviated. Corynissiomer Richards stated that the Marriott has stood the test of time and quality and he might be slightly persuaded if they could come before the commmissicn and show a proven history. He stated that the Desert Sun nuns three to four pages on defaults daily and wondered why a rational person would put up a good amount of money to stay in a place for one to three weeks a year. He did not feel it made eocrrinic sense. He also cited past dealings with a person in the timeshare industry. Mr. Turner agreed with comments by Commissioner Richards and indicated that he had spent enough time with the Marriott and had been a member on the real estate eamussion. He indicated that he could give the commission information on Marriott's other projects on the east coast; an entirely different product that what the commission has seen. Mr. Diaz explained that part of the conditional use permit can be that the city approve the sales program. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the timeshare use in the PR zone and he stated it exists in other zones. He understood the concern expressed on timeshare, but noted that the ordinance will allow people to ask for timeshare, but does not guarantee approval and with the conditional 10 MINUI�S i PALM DESERT PLANNIIM CLkT•LLSSICN DECEMBER 6, 1988 use permit the city can asked for any information. Legally timeshare cannot be prohibited. Commissioner Richards asked how a conditional use permit can be used to halt the practices that are currently used. If Marriott were bought out tomorrow the city would not have control if they were to make changes. He did not feel that Palm Desert needed to embark on a pioneering adventure when it has been demonstrated that the industry has not cleaned up their program and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. Mr. Turner replied that the Marriott has a substantial history on the east coast. Camdssioner Richards asked for how long and Mr. Turner indicated 12 years. MR. ID MCMULLIN, Executive Vice President of Marriott Resorts, gave a description of his background/previous timeshare Ownership and noted that the indust ry has changed. He indicated that they do business all over the world and he has been in the business for 12 years with a current total of 25,000 owners and growing rapidly. He stated that a presentation was given to the city council some months ago. - From a standpoint of marketing, Marriott corporation and his previous company has the highest standards. From standpoint of default, Melon Corporation is their partner and they could be contacted for verification. He indicated a quality project would be built. They came to the city council with a presentation and looked at ordinance and felt the ordinance should be changed. He stated that if the commission would allow then past this "first hurdle", they world present a presentation he felt would eliminate concerns. Commissioner Downs requested clarification regarding the number of owners and Mr. McMullen replied 25,000. He indicated that Hilton, ITT, and Disney would soon be proposing timeshare and felt the value of a long-term plan of leisure activity has increased and has a better and better market. Commissioner Ladlow asked if this was Marriott's fourth year in timeshare and Mr. McMullen replied yes. Commissioner Ladlow questioned the number of total timeshare units involved: Mr. McMullen indicated that he would gladly get her the information. Chairman Enaood asked why ordinance amendment method was chosen. Mr. Diaz indicated that staff suggested the ordinance amendment due to the fact that because hotels are allowed in the PR zone, the city might wish to consider timeshare for other hotels (i.e. Westin). 11 MII�UPFS PALM DESERT PLANNING 014-USSICN DBM43ER 6, 1988 Chairman Erwood stated that it seemed when the ordinance was first discussed, timeshare was purposely designated in the two zones and asked what has changed to justify them changing this ordinance, rather than changing zoning of the Marriott. Mr. Diaz stated that hotels had not been envisioned and Marriott, as well as Westin, should be considered and felt it was more appropriate to consider a zoning ordinance amendment. 'Commissioner Richards-expressed-concern -regarding the people and sales practices used by the timeshare industry and indicated that these would be the type of people Marriott Corporation would bring to Palm Desert. Mr. McMullen indicated that Marriott Corporation was not going to tarnish their image by doing anything other than the job its alread y done. He stated that it is a value project with a value product and . totally acceptable. He indicated that one requirement is an above $50.000 per year in oame. He also stated that everyone that doesn't buy is surveyed, and they receive feedback about the sales people-and over 40% that did not buy said they would like to buy and intend to buy. Commissioner Richards asked what fee would be charged and Mr. McMullen indicated $10,000 and an annual maintenance fee of $250-300. Commissioner Downs asked when an owner stays the week if maid and cleaning services are included or extra. Mr. McMullen outlined which services were provided. He also described the type of architectural standards and noted that they had received national awards for architecture and landscaping. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITICN to the project. There being no one, he closed the public testimaiy. Commissioner Whitlock stated that she was present for the Marriott presentation before the city council and felt that it was done very professionally. She suggested that the commission hear the Presentation by Marriott, which would demonstrate the changes that have taken place in the timeshare industry. Chairman Erwood asked how many units in a hotel were necessary before it can be classified for timeshare units. Commissioner Whitlock replied 50. Mr. Diaz indicated that the minimum number of hotel roans can be increased to whatever amount the commission would be comfortable with. 12 I MIIV[IPES PALM DESERT PLANNNIIW3 CXTTDSSICN DEC EMBER BER 6, 1988 Commissioner Richards stated that he was not against the Marriott, but had owned a hotel here and had experience with the timeshare industry, and he felt it has not proven itself and would be more appropriate for discussion in a few years. Mr. McMullen indicated that this year the industry would do $2 billion in sales. He stated that the are listed with the New York Stock Exchange and felt the industry has matured in the last four years and will increase tremendously in the next few years. He indicated that they were willing to give a formal presentation to cover all points. He reiterated that the industry has matured and is well regulated. Commissioner Richards asked if Mr. McMullen knew how many people sit on the California Real Estate Hoard and does nothi.ng but regulate timeshares. Mr. Turner indicated that there were 380 employees with approximately eight senior people, but with a great number of other support staff. Commissioner Richards felt that this was a very small amount of people and they just handle complaints. Mr. Turner disagreed. Commissioner Richards stated that eight people were regulating this industry. Mr. Turner replied that there were more, that the eight spend time evaluating specific projects, but there was other staff. Commissioner Ladlow asked for and received information on the location of the potential timeshare units. At the completion of the discussion, Chairman ErWCod asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Erwood, Ladlow, and Richards voted no). Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the December 20, 1988 planning ccammission meeting. Carried 3-2 (Doran and Whitlock voted no). Mr. Diaz asked about the findings for denial. Commissioner Richards stated that they could be taken fran his comments. Mr. Turner asked if a continuance could be granted to allow for a presentation to the commission. Chairman Erwood explained that the matter had already been voted on and had Mr. Diaz explain the appeal process. i 13 � �I PIA[', CamLSSION REso1 riw NO. A RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELP.TING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE that Section 25.100.000, Time Share Projects, shall not be amended for the following reasons: 1. The timeshare industry is too new and hasn't had sufficient time to prove itself as a quality product. 2. The planning crnniission is concerned with past marketing practices of the timeshare industry. 3. Long range investment potential in timeshare has not proved rewarding. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /tm 1 IIdTEROFFICE City of Palm Desert TO: Planning C uudssion FROM: Catherine Sass, Associate Planner DATE: December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: Timeshare Ordinance Amendment/ZOA 88-4 A continuance was requested on this case at the last planning commission meeting to incorporate new information into the ordinance text. Revisions to the text incorporate the most recent legislative changes, which affect the. levy of transient occupancy taxes. Clarification has also been made as to when impact fees will be collected. A strikeout document with foot notes explaining the changes is included with this memorandum. "Exhibit A" demonstrates the revised chapter text and is included as of the resolution. part CATHERINE SASS ASSOCIATE PLANNER /tm 15145or6.�, • lIZ29/88 Chapter 25. 100 TIME-SHARE PROJECTS Sections: 25. 100.010 Defined. 25. 100.020 Permitted zones. 25. 100. 030 information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. 25. 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. 25. 100. 050 Findings. 25. 100.060 Minimum number of units in a time-share develep'me:ttr prolact. 25. 100. 070 - nevalopment standards for time-share derelepsnexbr aroject.1/ 53r�96r68A 'frares}ertt-eeettpaner�bax-app}i��tb� Z5rt8$r69� Exeeptieaev 25. 100. 010 Defined. As used in this chapter, "time-share project" means one wherein a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s) , or segment of real property, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided and includes but is not limited to time-share estate, interval ownership, vacation license, vacation lease, club membership, time-share use, and hotel/condominium. (Ord. 290 3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100. 020 Permitted zones. A time-share project shall be permitted only in bke-p�artna��eaneerei�a}�rrsert-Epe-+}-aener-+►hen a Planned Residential (PR) zone. a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-41 zone, Any time-share oroiect which is developed in a Planned Residential or Planned Commercial Resort zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel--or hotel , and then only if and when a conditional use permit has been obtained therefor from the pbarnni eg-eemmissien Planning commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this eed*r Coda. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) .2✓ J The reference in the table of contents to "time-share development" has been changed to "time-share project" because the first term is not defined in the ordinance. a✓ This revision is intended to permit a time-share project use within a PR, General Commercial or Pc-4 zone. It is further intended to limit time-shara uses in PR wnA ne ^na, « 4-►...-- 25. 100.030 information to be submitted with C.U.P. application. in addition to the information required by Section 25.72.020, an applicant for a conditional use permit approval involving a time-share project shall submit in the application at least the following informations A. Copies of documents and information required pursuant to Article 12.2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 2810 wherein the requirements for a "substantially complete" application for a final subdivision public report are ewm*ratede enumerated_ excluding those documents so enumerated which are subiect to the approval gf *he City and there nrn otherwise availiable to the City. in the event such documents and information have not been lamed d h the Califo Wia pgnartment of Real Estate at the time an apnlica p21ies for conditional use permit. the anolicensh•ll fuMish such documents and information ugon the MUmission of such documents and information to the Department of Real Estate. later than the issuance of the conditional use permit Hr--Jk�eser4p�i -eP- lse-seeaa�s-prepeee��be-be-emp}e -�Ly preDerlgr wand�ileebire}y-eeb}eetr-an#-rris�b-te-the bflr-�he trarrefar►t-eeeepaner-baxeawti} �r}}}-beeea�e-e8ee-andfable-*rem time-te-Mere-iis-the-fat�rre:S/ 9r %6 in the event an existing condominium project is proposed to be converted to a whole or partial time-share project, a verified description or statement of the number and percentage of the current condominium owners desiring or consenting to the proposed posed conversion of some or all of the units to a time-share basis. Also, in such instance there shall be submitted a verified statement of the number and percentage of owners who have received notification, either personally or by receipted certified U.S. mail that application to so convert the project would be submitted to the commission together with when the city staff and the commission would consider such application. time-share projects which are associated with and proximate to a hotel. Presumably time-share projects which are not associated with a hotel would be denied a CUP. -1J This addition is intended to relieve the planning staff of handling documents which have already been submitted to it. A/ Transient occupancy taxes may not be levied by the City against time-share estate projects, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation code 17280(b) . This provision of the ordinance has accordingly been eliminated. K.V BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ' 12- 2-66 ; 11 : 22AM 7144760256� o16;40Q574;A 6 v By QL In the case of a new Mixed project (i.e. time-sharing-condominium/rental) a description of the means proposed to be employed to disclose the number and location of all time-share units within the project. Br Q,. Description of time periods, types of units, and which units are in the time-share program (if less than all) , and the length of time each of the units aro' committed to the time-share program. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) . 28: 100.035 Time-share in permitted zones. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following conditions must be met by any time-share development in any permitted zone: A. %a With roanect to time-share projects developed density of the tlme_sharg project shall not exceed the density permitted in tM A= zone - for residential projectsi xith rensneet to timeme-sh—a-re pro ects a General Resort zone. the densit4y of the time-share yroieet shall not exceed the density y�ermit !d in e„! gone for 4eneral commercial or planned commer ial p oie ts, In determining the density of a time-share project upon the r*crlflst o! an applicant_ the planning officer shall have he Au ho i y to transi•.r thedensity other nimllaxly zoned Rerty applicant to the time-shad nrolect• B. The time-share devebepmer, nroiect must comply with all development standards for z"identt}e}the zone in -which it is 19SAtsSILA/ .pre}eeta_}a.. e_pR_zp I✓ This provision is intended to authorize the transfer of density from property owned by a time-share project developer to property on which such developer wishes to construct a time-share Project. For example, if property on which a time-share project is to be constructed is zoned PR-4, a time-share project having a density of only 4 units per acre could be developed. If, however, the owner of the project owns property proximate to the property zoned PR-40 the City could find that the density limitation imposed by this provision is satisfied by transferring the density from the proximate property to the property to be developed. A/ This modification clarifies that time-share projects could be developed in General Commercial or Planned Commercial Resort zones. ti e d nEr'ux ! e ! ecop er IJGu ; ic- c-Jo ca a 1 �54 (J�GJJ" . Ja..e,i . ri er--- he-enure-�rre�ep:ee:+1s-Ea��-asebteeiri e-pre}eat} WOrt-be-b�.-i►lsare-ern .f 9r--fie-pre j set-�e+llrt-be-el-'�leeroMMl'fkfpa�la�e-skareT C. The time share orot et must ba comprised of "time-share OrnIA Business and Projessiona Code l 001 3.+Sr Br Q All maintenance agreements and CC&R's must be y ; b the city; Y pr g,,, The minimum time-share unit use period shall be for one week (seven days) ; Ar---Pre}eet`ePanser-must �peet�s-sa�rrtena�tos�end-�ebttr-e! eredwtr r'as1t-MOP esZt-fer-base-bile�� the-prs#eet-e4e�ra�enle-te lrent�gi�re''peree;►b-e f-tke-aatmsab-aeslattanaree-fit'lbr�t�se per;.p}as-reaes�r s-iier-ma}er-repet�r-end-rep�aeemettM Y pasJeCt epo'--" 'ti"1l ""-} ' mg n*enance bond. letter of credit or cash deposit to assure the maintena ce or any landscap�na alone the perimeter og *fie project abuttinet env pyblio right. o wny. The amount of the bond. letter_of credit Z/ This deletion is necessary to permit the possibility of mixed use projects. Mixed use projects are contemplated by 525.100. 030 (B) , (C) and (D) above. Without this deletion, the ordinance would be internally inconsistent. V This modification is intended to clarify the definition of a "fee ownership" time-share interest. Business and Professions Code §11003.5 defines a "time-share project" as ". . . one in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unite or segment of real property, annually or on some other periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted form the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided. " The same section defines a "time-share estate" as: " . . . a right of occupancy in a time-share project which is coupled with an estate in the real property." We believe incorporation of the statutory definition in the ordinance is consistent with the original intent of the City Council, and serves as an accurate and convenient definition of the tvpe of time-share interest the City Council wishes to .1.. J! •ne�' .c . c , eep.e." irGr , G' e-JJ . . Grn,'A ... , wG::" v . JJ. .. , - w O owner's thepr_oiect which is for such landscaping exlonses letter of credit or cash 11 run to tba ty and Awl The hens 81 remain in pt_ace for the 1 to of tt+�Wjam` Ifr--- gubs eeb-be.R-ene-h%ft& ed f} -de}iar-per-xerk-&bare i on 'Ime-aharecroject" covenants, shall be deflneld an all of property, and all real n subiact to the sinsim conditional use nermi - and which shall be gubse +e**ty an�ngxe6 respect to a time she a proiec 1 impact mitigation leer--{8rdr-44}--$ }ygb pclic taCilities T- }* g9g oc $ISO ek share, With rem week share in a this esction shall be Daid on the first day of the first calendar month follow and c ce of such week shareshare by thth sDOnsor of a t no-shareproiect to an individual nww.gw.�r (excludingales Prom One soonse Q h + h h cast esuccessor—nonsor ghall have -the obligation to Ray thff_=12 conveyance of a week she a a cons rst day ofeach calendar month. or lass freau url btv the city 9�!! in the timg-share project which hays been sold an!a lReciflas the number of week conveyed in he Drec�dinq calendar A2n :L 25.100. 040 Conditions of approval. The planning commission may grant a conditional use permit for "time-share" subject to conditions as set forth in Section 23.72. 060. 2/ This revision is a clarification of the prior provision. Under this provision, the City holds a financial guarantee to assure that the landscaping of a project visible from the public streets it properly maintained. 14/ This provision is a clarification of the prior prevision. This provision clarifies what a time-share project is, that each week share in a time-share project is subject to the public facilities impact fee and when the fee is to be paid to the City, in order to assure that the fee it being paid when due, a sponsor of a time-share project is obliged to make periodic reports to the City regarding how many use weeks were sold in the prior period. R1 ,' JI '%12i .X ie a.�PIar IVLJ L— L V'v I • LJr„tit 114670 UL9G^ uiS�YUVrIYY 25. 100. 030 Findings. Prior to the granting of a conditional use permit for "time-share" the planning commission shall determine that the findings delineated in Section 25.72.070 are met. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) . 25.100. 066 Minimum number of units in a time-share ash* RrQJAct, The minimum number of unit�• �n a "time-share" project shall be r 01_++✓ (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) . 25. 100.070 Development standards for time-share ge * onfoThestawt � mbbedesiindto conform to t standards shill the aeae-�nkfk-Mkt 4 t�1 aom in peprrr *-Jeeetedr ent the -time-ehare )fit is located in a planned omme a al Reso or GeneralQmgrcial (Ord. 280 (part) , 1981) . _ Z5r�6Ar9$Q-�Fxvt�efertt-etaxParte7'-��pP�#eabler- bra�ra}��-e��}-ba-eabfeet-le�the�revisierie-ef-bks-ebbr+s -eevapa=eep-tear brdi r�anae r�--($ra r-a99--a(�sarb}r-iya}}T 25.100. 090 Exceptions. This chapter is not applicable to those projects which applications for approval from the State Department of Real Estate have been filed prior to December 4, 1980, or projects which the city as approved prior to December 4, 1980. (Ord. 280 3 (part) , 1981) . 31/ This modification increases the minimum number of units in a time-share project from 20 to 50. It is consistent with the intent of the City Council to permit only well financed and properly managed time-share projects within the City. IV This provision clarifies that time-share projects constructed in a PR zone need not be constructed to hotel standards. IV This provision has been deleted because the City cannot collect transient occupancy taxes in a time-share estate project pursuant to the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code 17200. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTVg OF C414]NITY DEVELOPMWr STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Camissicn DATE: Novammber 1, 1988 CASE NO: ZOA 88-4 REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Commercial (PC-4) zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: Due to a maturing of the timeshare industry the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in the PR zone in conjunction with a hotel and, therefore, has initiated this zoning ordinance amendment. The improvements in the timeshare industry are such that staff is confident these types of developments can be designed to conform to the standards the city upholds. In the Planned Residential and Resort Commercial zones timeshare shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel. In all three zones, C-1, PR, and PC (4) timeshare shall be permitted only as a conditional use. II. RATION• A. Approve the findings. B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 88-4 to city council. III. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. Prepared by C - Reviewed and Approved by CS/tm MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. ROLL CALL Present: Hank Stokes, Chairman Bruce Altman George Berkey Kirby Warner John Ceriale Ray Diaz Frank Goodman Catherine Sass Don Hedlund Dick Folkers Romeo Pulugi Walt Snyder Dave Tschopp Roy Wilson Donna Gomez II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Mr. Hedlund, seconded by Mr. Berkey to approve the minutes of November 17, 1988 as amended. Carried unanimously. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS: TIME SHARE ORDINANCE/PRESENTATION Mr. Diaz explained that Catherine Sass was handling the zoning ordinance amendment regarding time share. He noted that city council, knowing that this item would be before them in January, asked that the EDAC review and make a recommendation on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as it pertains to economics. The current ordinance allows time share within the commercial zone and in the planned commercial zone in conjunction with a hotel. The proposed amendment would allow time—share in conjunction with a hotel in the planned residential (PR) zone. Staff had recommended to planning commission that they recommend to city council approval of the proposed amendment. Staff felt the project before them merited consideration. Planning commission voted against the ordinance amendment with a 3-2 vote. Their reasons for voting against the amendment were the methods of sales and they felt time—shares were not good investments. Mr. Diaz explained that the sales program can be made a part of the CUP approval. He noted that as a part of the ordinance they can define the type of hotel that must be built in conjunction with the time—shares. Mr. Ed McMullen was introduced and proceeded to explain his background and experience with Marriott and time—share projects. He Introduced Mr. Bob Miller and Mr. Bob Eckenroth who are also working on this project. He proceeded to discuss the time—share industry and the success of Marriotts existing time—share projects. He reviewed the amenities, building layout, floor plans, landscaping and types of services they provide at their projects. Marriott manages all of their time—share projects themselves. Mr. McMullen ran a video tape of Mr. Bill Marriott expressing his support for this project. MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 1988 Mr. Eckenroth presented a booklet to each member and proceeded to review the contents. This information included details on site layout, floor plans, socio— economic Impacts on local economy, demographics, newspaper articles and letters. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Diaz if there was a problem between time—share and collection of room tax. Mr. Diaz explained that you can not collect transient occupancy tax on vacation owned units. He indicated that a fee of $7500 per unit has been established to be paid up front. Mr. Goodman asked 1f there was a density problem on this site, if they would be In excess of the units allowed and if this would open up time—share to all hotel sites in the city. Mr, Diaz explained that the density they are asking for is within the allowable for the zone. The ordinance amendment would allow time—share in these zones in conjunction with a hotel. He explained that you can define a "hotel" as a specific size. He indicated that he would want to have a sales program outlined as a condition of the CUP. Mr. Puluqi asked if they could build a 300 unit hotel on the proposed site. Mr. Diaz indicated they could but noted that the traffic and the benefits to the city would be the same. Mr. Puluqi felt that a hotel would be better for the city economically. The city would be collecting the TOT continually rather than just one up—front fee. Mr, Miller explained that they have built the maximum number of hotel rooms they can operate because of the down season. He indicated if the market can support the up—scale hotel rooms they will be built. He noted the time—share will be an added revenue for the city. An additional fee will be paid to the city when the units are rented. Mr. Diaz noted that this particular area is zoned for single family detached homes and not hotel. Mr. Stokes indicated that the choice would then be between single family homes and time—share. Mr. McMullen stated they would like the endorsement of the committee. Mr. Stokes indicated there are two questions; 1) is this particular project one we could endorse and, 2) should the ordinance be amended and state that only projects of this caliber be allowed. Mr. Berkey asked if there would be a considerable difference in the cost of using these units In January or In July. Mr. McMullen Indicated that In Hilton Head their time—share goes for about half the price In the off season. Mr. Puluql asked if they would work with the hotel when necessary. Mr. Miller indicated that they sometimes filter over bookings of the hotel into these units which may be done .here. 2 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 15, 1988 Mr. Puluqi indicated he had no problem with the proposal. He could see the direct benefits to the .city but not necessarily to the core area. Mr. McMullen explained that they did not give a presentation to the planning commission. They did discuss the investment issue. Typically these units are used as vacation homes and are not for investment purposes. Mr. Warner asked how Marriott would handle units that can not be resold or if someone was not paying their fees. Mr. Miller explained that they had conducted a survey which indicated 90% of the owners said they were very satisfied. If owners do not pay their maintenance fees Marriott has the right to foreclose and resale the property, which they would do if necessary. He noted that the better the product and higher the quality the less likely this is to happen. Marriott would never let this project deteriorate because of if being located adjacent to the hotel site. Mr. Sandy Baum explained that there are a lot of people that should be paying TOT to the city and they are not. He felt this project would help control that problem. He thought that time—share was coming back again and recommended that they approve the proposed amendment. Mr. Altman indicated that Marriott is the city's number one sales tax producer and felt that the time share would solidify that. He noted that this was right In line with what the AP Committee has been discussing. Mr. Ceriale indicated the people in these units will be more apt to come into the community than the hotel guests. The hotel guests stay in the hotel more because of meetings and conferences they are attending theM Mr. Chuck Davis felt that from a marketing aspect the project would provide productive exposure. Mr. McMullen indicated they would be putting a lot of money into the marketing of this project. This would include using the Palm Desert name In publications and telling what a great place Palm Desert is to vacation. He noted that they have the funds available to do the marketing. MOTION Mr. Puluqi made a motion to inform city council that the EDAC felt the project would be economically feasible to the city. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. Mr. Stokes Indicated that the committee hoped that the zoning ordinance amendment would be approved in a way that would enhance the high standards that Marriott seems to be setting. Mr. Tschopp felt that Marriott was a top notch organization and thought they would run the time—share in a top notch manner. He felt It was very Important that the high standards be upheld for every time—share project. 3 MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 16. 1988 Mr. Diaz indicated the ordinance could be read to state that It must be a resort hotel which could be described as a minimum of 500 rooms and have an 18 hole golf course. The motion was amended to include the recommendation that city council amend the ordinance In a way that will allow only the highest quality time—share projects. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Mr. Ceriale abstained). IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Donna Gomez Economic Development Secretary 4 4 off gnu m 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 - . � TELEPHONE (619) 3A6-0611 December 16, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 j i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by amending Chapter 25.100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. i i I j I SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 12, 1989, at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Cal lfornla, at which time and place all Interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. 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 to written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary December 23, 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission 01/10/1989 13:56 MARRIOTT• LAKELAND• FI . 813 626 3603 P.02 u n F O t, N h h t�l N 00 fh N � r7 � N rti rl N 1/1I a1 N �G Qi .7 rl u rn cn � N rl N M O d N Q h � � O � W � .-� •--� n N Q � co N hl Q.- -t 1 Q�• u rn N P oCp � •� ro ro C � u U y y U u y ro � o m y 0 O y C u G tl b U co p N 0 O W .+ W W b0 O O of y R a y {y W z C y O $ m u N 0 v ca A L U A z 4 W ZO•d _Iuiol Mellon Financial Services Mellon Financial Hervicen Onrporation One Mid America P1ac6 Oakbro*Urraoe,M 60181 812 672 2000 January 10, 1989 City of Palm Desert city Commission 73-510 Frcd Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Councilmembers : We have been requested to supply you information regarding our experience with financing of Timeshare purchase money receivables. We have had extensive involvement in this area for the past ten years and are plca*cd to provide you this information. As the lcndcr for Marriott Ownership Resorts and other major timeshare developers, we have found that the credits for timeshare paper that they originate are well above the average when compared to other .types of consumer loans . The default ratios are among the lowest in our portfolios of consumer paper . Customer demographic profiles also tend to be above average. Wi—oonsider the-indus try-now .to-be 'mature and-predictable, Further, we have had broad dealings with Marriott and consider them to be well experienced timeshare developers. Our bank has an excellent relationship with them. I f I can provide you any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Eric W. Pratt vice President EWP/kw Z0'd 980Z ZLS Zi£ S30IO113S -ItlICNUNId NO�-13W LS:£L 6865/0140 d�+ 76T �w+dd /aza4 s?z tk g OK lieu � Nov aq , j988 s� � oro co07xNe'� T me mare- f�vi5iorts oRcJinancQc oft Gl¢ cuo /IOf Only /MpiG4 s c'oyu pr - o� lou cn�t/ti Cucp,Q��4rt ul � J0C a2, CC. ;r,Z4 d oi� Cur. U pfl ,o 17 01. t-•�w�uv.1t a.u-oas Y . G fnann�ai'� / Co-Q cs,19�06�- a�inlNv 3c ) 9 u SIC- (-Q P.c _ W c e � R* JYI!(erox Telecopier 7020 ;11-12-88 3;35PM 7144"""256y 51834U H84 2 COX, CASTLE 8 NICHOLSON A PAMVNMEMIP INCLUDING PROF[UIONAL CORAOM.TIONS LAWYERS OCMOt M. CON' JOMN R, CAVIM JR. ORANG9 COUNTY OFFICIC OP COUNSEL PHILLIP A. NICMOLEDN' GA"A, DLICM Ipg00 MACH RTMUR tlOUL6VAR0 RICHARD N. CASTLE LAWRENCE TEPUn LORA"a ADORE LATJIICMCC J. TNAPP ROMLO 1. AILWIIII • . CTANL"M MAN"" SUITL goo AOSC"0. MATMYMt *?EPMe" D. SHAPIRO CYNTHIA A. URMCR W MMUM UNIDO MAR10 CAMAM MNDALL 0. HAINAN IPIVINC, CALTORNIA 92716 JAMS L OMANILTTI OEOR IM 0. CALNIMt, II MNDALL IS ELLCM MOWARO AOLOOTEIN , JOHN M, %UML 0. ECOTT TURNEA TLL[N NON[ (716) ♦701-gIII PERM 0. MOCC,ARO PMILLIP E. M0I91AII' M EAMOM C. STEWART MMt A 1000LAMATMM ARTMUR 0. OPAUURWO. JA, JUNC AILIN FACSIMILC 47141 470-09!30 JOMM A. RINCMNOM JEFPRCT ALI Jess A. GROW DAVO A. LLIPDOtR DTEVCM A.JVNO FACSIMILE (7141 6=,3117 L.0/AMOaL O.F1C[ JOMN S. MILLJ, JR. MICMCLLC M. OOAORME - IOMD Communal TNNM EA" MENMCTM A. BUT - 001AN J, MURPNT TCLLM 016I006000 r _ TWWIYW,IIY BOOR IRA J. WALDMAN STEVEN M. NAAYS LOS ANOELO.04MOJ"A EOOE) JOMM R WCNOLEON RYIRV R. MEE000 RtD"1-MM 'JAMU[L A. GRVEMEAUM eke M, Ltt November 11, 1908 - CMARLES C. MONCMAN- KENNETH WTW"K, WILLIAM "MOI MICHAEL 0. MACMNCN //LL/A� �!)D•� O. MARIiNt O, OGDOFRIED DAVID P. ROSEMSENO veal"0. egg" SUSAN J. JACKSON /I_ T N '�r gY F7ICSIMILE OAR"A JAELON - INAMAJ14 C. M9RMU1" �l (/T ,.� JCPPREI'0, MAETERE MATMLW A I.TMAM /1" mortal 0. Krause MICHAEL J, "MINSKY !L/�(� �/ Q/ EDWARD 0. EMIRLET' CMRISTOPNEN R. GARCIA a, ERADLEY 0. FMAEIER OTATMI 0. MARCOPUL00 TAMAR C. ETEIM AOAM 0. GROSSMAN iYY DAVID M. WEPCR LISA A. ■tCMEE - MMtE"J. nelm PMILIP J. COLLIAE COTTMt L SROMStOM EARNT C. StATOM - CAROL M. LIFLAND DONNA P. OLIVA DOUGW R SNTDER TMOM"S. TENOAN ' •A MMd'MM1 MMPM.MN Mr. David Erwin Best, Best & Krieger 39700 Bob Hope square Suite 310 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Re: Proposed palm Desert Time-Share Ordinance Dear Dave: I am enclosing herein the following described documentation: 1. Clean copy of Proposed Time-Share Ordinance= and 2 . Black-lined copy of Proposed Time-Share Ordinance showing the changes from the existing ordinance. Explanations of the changes are included as footnotes. I am sending these copies to you for your review prior to the rescheduled Planning commission meeting on November 15th in order to enable you to get together with Ray Diaz to approve the form so that it could possibly be heard and recommended for approval at the Planning commission meeting. I understand that you and John Nicholson will be talking on Monday about the ordinance. We really appreciate your help on this matter. R6 JYFI(erox Telecopier 7020 :11-12-88 3:35PM 1144 256-+ 6193406688;# 3 Mr. David Erwin November 110 1988 Page 2 With kindest regards. Sincerely, t I D. Scott Turner DST/jlb Enclosure 11-111O1.det i I Aarriott® 0 RESORTS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORT SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS: Circle only one number for each question unless otherwise indicated. We would first like to know your impressions of Marriott's sales presentation. 1 Prior to receiving any information about Marriott's 3 Circle one number for each item listed below timeshare resort,had you...? (Circle all that indicating how much time the salesperson spent apply) discussing that item (e.g., if the salesperson did not discuss the item, circle"1).Then circle either heard of the timesharing concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 "Yes"or"No"to indicate whether you felt the sales- visited a timesharing resort . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . person spent enough time discussing the item. attended a sales presentation on timesharing 3 oise uswd Was it P g_ . . . . . . . -- Did Not In Grecull degl.atci purchased a week or more of timesharing . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Discuss Dctuil Adequately? Flexibilit%-of trading weeks with other resorts 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 2 How satisfied were you with the following aspects of the Marriott timeshare resort sales presentation? Prices and terms offered 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No (Circle one number for each aspect.) \1arriotPs Honored ),en, Vere Guest Awards(HGA) Dissatisfied Satisfied program 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No Reception staff 1 2 3 4 5 Resort Condominium International(RCI) Friendliness of salesperson 1 2 3 4 5 Program 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No Accuracy of information 4 Do you have questions that were not answered presented by salesperson 1 2 3 4 5 completely in the sales presentation? Completeness of information Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 needed to make a decision 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of sides pressure 1 2 3 4 5 ff"Yes:1%'hat were they' Clarity of the presentation 1 2 3 4 5 Explanation of prices and terms 1 2 3 4 5 Salespersons responses to your 5 Can you offer any suggestions for improving the questions t 2 3 4 5 sales presentation? Salesperson's interest in and understanding of your needs 1 2 3 4 5 Professionalism of sales staff 1 2 3 4 5 16 Which category best describes your age? 19 Would like additional information on other Marriott Ownership Resorts? Under 25 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 25-34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 35.44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 45-54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 55.64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Name 65years+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Address Phone:Daytime O 17 Which of the following best describes the occupa- Night ( ) tion of the heads of your household? (Circle one number in each column.) Male Head Rntale Bead of Household of Household 20 If you know of any other people who would like to such as doctor, learn about and possibly tour a Marriott Ownership Professional, l as,or Resort,please write their names and addresses in consultant, accountant 1 I the space provided. Manager 2 2 Salesperson 3 3 (1) Name Technical Address (.Specify) 4 4 Laborer 5 5 Clerical/Secretarial 6 6 Retired 7 7 Phone:Daytime(_) Homemaker 8 8 Night O Government Worker 9 9 Self-employed or independent (2) Name business owner 10 10 Other(.Speaf)q Address 11 11 Phone:Daytime( ) 18 In what range was your total household income Night O (before taxes) in 1987? Under 530,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S30,000-39,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 $40,000-49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 $50,000-74,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 575,000-599,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 s100,000-s125,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Over 5125,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i Please return your survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP! 1-2-140 COX, CASTLE 8 NICHOLS(-)N ! A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS GEORGE M. COX JOHN R. CAUBLE, JR. ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL PHILLIP R. NICHOLSON' GARY A. GLICK RICHARD N. CASTLE LAWRENCE TEPLIN LORA LEE MOORE 19800 M.ACARTHUR BOULEVARD LAWRENCE J. TRACY' RONALD I. SILVERMAN' STANLEY W. LAMPORT SUITE 600 L ROBERT G. HAYHURST STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R. URMER yy • IT 1 MARIO CAMARA RANDALL D. NAIMAN -�~p y� �'a_J" \ W. MCLIN LINES IRVINE, CALIFORNI/-0_•OC r�./ WU JAMS$ E. OLDSTEIN GEORGE 0. CALKINS. II RANDALL W. BLACK HOWARO GOLD STEIN EIN JOHN H. KUHL O. SCOTT TURNER TELEPHONE 17141 476-2111 PERRY O. MOCCURO PHILLIP C. HIMELSTEIN SANDRA C. STEWAPT - �� I �� MARK P. MCCLANATHAN ARTHUR O. SPAULDING. JR. JUNE AILIN JOHN A. KINCANNON JEFFREY LAPOTA JESS P. BRESSI FACSIMILE 17141 476-0256 DAVID A. LEIP21GER STEVEN A. JUNG FACSIMILE (714) 833-3 7 LOS AHGCLES OFFICE JOHN S. MILLER, JR. MICHELLE M. OSBORNE 14 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2D MUNITY ASI CENTURY PARK EAST KENNETH B: BLEY BRIAN J. MURPHY TELEX $101006096 CITY if PALM DESERT TWENTY EIGHTH FLOOR IRA J. WALDMAN STEVEN M. KRAU$ LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA BOOB) JOHN F. NICHOLSON BARRY R. MCCPOS SAMUEL H. GRUENBAUM CME H. LEE UNIX E))i22E CHARLES E. NONEMAN KENNETH WILLIAMS WILLIAM KAMER MICHAEL D. MACKNESS OUR FILE NO: MARLENE O. GOODFRIEO DAVID S. ROSENBERG BAREVERY G. BEERS EVSANAMA J. JACKSC. HER N November 30, 1988 BARRY P. JABLON MAST MATHE PIE C. XERXVSKY JEFFPET O. MASTERS MICHEL A. WYMAN ROBIC NrEUS EDWARi G I CHRISTL J. RAR. G KY BRADLE G. SHIRLEY'$RAZIERSTATHI G. EP R. GARCIA BRADLEC D. FRA21ER STAM D.GROSSMANLOS TAMAp C. STEIN ADAM D. ROSSMA DAVID M. WEBER LISA A. 5TERES 145 HERBERT J. KLEIN PHIUP J. COLLIAS EDYTHE L. BRONSTON BARRY C. SEATON CAROL M. LIFLANO DONNA R. OLIVA DOUGIAS P. SNYDER THOM'AS S. TENGAN VIA FEDERAL EXP SS �A �Ko•.F.,.RM.. K.T.R. �nw;4 Ms. Catherine Sass, Associate Planner Mr. Phil Drell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Timeshare Ordinance Dear Ms. Sass and Mr. Drell: Enclosed please find a revised Chapter 25. 100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code pertaining to timeshare projects. Pursuant to your discussions with John Nicholson of my office on November 29, 1988, it is our understanding that Section 25100. 035(F) , pertaining to the requirement of a maintenance bond to assure the maintenance of perimeter landscaping, will not be required for the Marriott timeshare project in that there is no such perimeter landscaping within the Marriott timeshare project. It is also my understanding that the City will not require Quimby Act fees for the Marriott timeshare project in view of the public facilities impact fee which the city will collect under S Ms. Catherine Sass and Mr. Phil Drell November 30, 1988 Page 2 Section 25100. 035 (G) . If these understandings are not correct, please contact me at your earliest convenience. With kindest regards. Sincerely, l� D. Scott Turner DST/jc Enclosure cc: David Erwin, Esq. Mr. Raymond Dia 1130LOI.dst 1 . CASTLE & NICHOLSOi , P9RTUEFSXIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS GEORGE M. COX' 'OHM R. CAUDLE. JP.�V ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNSEL PHILLIP R. NICHOLSON' CA A. GLICK RICHARD N. CASTLE LAWRENCE TEPLIN LO RA LEE MDORE 19800 MACARTI4UR BOULEVARD LAWRENCE J. TRACY' RONALD I. BILVERMAN' STANLEY W. LAMPORT SUITE 600 ROBERT G. HAYHURST STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO CYNTHIA R. URMER W. MCLIN LINES MARI0 CAMARA RANDALL O. NAIMAN IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 927IS JAMES E. BARNETTI GEORGE D. CALKINS, II RANDALL W. BLACK HOWARD GOLDSTEIN JOHN M, -UML O. SCOTT TURNER TELEPHONE (714) 476-2I11 PERRY 0 MOCCIARO � PHILLIP C. MIMELSTEIN SANDRA C. STEWART MARK P. MCCLANATMAN ARTHUR O. SPAULDING, JR. JUNE ARIu FACSIMILE (]I4) 4]6-025fi JOHN A. nm CANNON JEFFREY LAPOTA LESS R. DRESS' DAVID A. LEIPZIGER STEVEN A. .LUNG LOS ANGELES OFFlCE JOHN S. MILLER, JR. MICHELLE M. OSBORNE FACSIMILE IJI4 833-311] ZOA9 CENTURY PARK EAST TWENTY nENNETX B. BLEY DRIAN J. MURPHY TELEX 5101006096 TYENTYEIGHTH BOOR � IRA J. WALDMAN STEVEN M. KRAUS LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNw 90067 JOHN K YICHOLSON BARRY R. M_cEPOS SAMUEL H. GRUENBAUM CME H. LEE DIM 211<222 CHARLES E. NONEMAN KENNETH WILLIAMS WILL4M KAMER MICHAEL D. MACKNESS OUR FILE NO: MARLENE D. GOOOFRIED DAVID S. ROSENBERG EVERITT G. BEERS SUSAN J. JACKSON BARRY P. JABLON EVAMARIE C. HERHUSKY December 2 , 1988 JEFFREY 0. MASTERS MATHEW A. MAN ROBERT D. INFEUSE MICHAEL J.YF INSKY EOWARO G. SHIRLEY' CHRISTOPHERAR. GARCIA BRADLEY D. FRAZIER STATHI G. MARCOPULOS TAMAR C. STEIN LOAM D.TEPEGROSSMAN HERIBERT J f KLEIN PHILIP'1. COL AS JV[\vl f1 Q� �,Gam/ 15145 EDYTME L. BRONSTON BARRY C. SEATON CAROL M. UFLAND DONNA R. OLIVA �� DOUGLAS P. SNYDER III S. TENGAN U t COMMONI'TY JLVLL,PMLNT DEPARTMENT rAPM'� 5 TC0III—P.L.R..I�P. Oft iF PALM DESERT Ms. Catherine Sass, Associate Planner Mr. Phil Drell, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Timeshare Ordinance Dear Ms. Sass and Mr. Drell: Pursuant to the requests of Ms. Sass, I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 25. 100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code pertaining to Time-Share Projects. The copy is the same as that which I sent you under my letter of November 30, 1988 except that I have .included footnotes which explain the proposed modifications. With kindest regards. Sincerely, D. Scott Turner DST/sc Enclosure cc: (iid Erwin, Esq. r. Raymond Diaz 1202LOl.dst vvv 2 2nd t6M. Swru— GC� �mvd �ati9z b 1°c�� Cu W� U c Cl�ram" (CL , e. CL cCc (-,�'TQn, w 3(� tiitY � Udf d i ac"� oy 2r,-J v��i ncd V w19 bnc�nn;a�� c G�D C.uP ro� I o is o , k Cs a o sae t EDc. OY,, i M FCICk �l� a —� 192 ao Jos , ssc�eo rods. Aa�a Q )ocw a lzs o��SS Li f 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION DATE: November 22. 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 Re: Case No. ZOA 88-4 - City of Palm Desert The Plannina Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of November 15, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED ZOA 88-4 TO DECEMBER 6, 1988. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4. CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert. within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the declsio . A� e RAMON A. OIAZ, SECRE�rARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI5SION RAD/fr PROOF OF P"BLICATION This space lsfr-!he County Clerk's Filing Stamp BEGET: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, _ J County of Riverside CITY @:F, YFYLY3bRSERT am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or interested in the above-emitted matter. I CASE NO . ZOA 88-4 am the principal clerk o1 the printer of the .......................................................... DESERT POST j .......................................... ........................................ CRY OF ALY DESERTILEGAL NCMC CASEtNO�ZOA'e&a .................................................... r .. p g slotted NOTICE IS HEREBY+GNENUatkptftche n3vn to before a newspaper of general circulation, p PetmDeTeiPm"�rocommpa"or�S^ 'a M. MIC ei-weekly PtgK 10obflheP*WDecartMScINIG .' ero Tsbere and published .................................. �SA�I fiNcrlemrp. alnenapon ufuday, er,11 se• nr. p.mn.Rn,tAeCwndl Chsttber at_*9PPakn DesertGvRT W.510FF Palm Desert wejoypve'�m } plgbB'�° In the City Of .................................. eated pe ems veTJfled ool�thee Y. County of Riverside, and which news• Peed �coUr'V& �1b'e a"e`o-g°y�r '- ar eomewr Nae rekeE attlN plib6e �9 ^ n paper has been adjudged a newspaper - _ --- p n� a«padnwe eel+ed^1o � sue^ N of general circulation by the Superior pry Court of the County of Riverside, State of miss (Ptfb. D.P. Oie. 21, 19e8 California, under the dale of„1 0/.5 , 1964 Case Number 83t558 ; that the notice, of which the annexed Is a printed copy (set In type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not In any supplement thereof on the following dates, to•wlt10/21 .................................................... all In the year 19.B8. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at,,,Palm Desert 88 California,this.�1st dayof.,Oct . 19..... —af ��` V r roa CC plot of this big nt form maybe otourad from CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 12D West second st., Los Angeles,Cellf. 9DO12 Telephone: (M) 625.2541 •Una rleuaf Go His a AL troalof►ubllUfltn w han ore,rint th 1,form. w CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMEdP OF COM)NITY DEVELOPMENP STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 1, 1988 CASE NO: ZOA 88-4 REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to zoning ordinance chapter 25.100 to allow timeshare projects as a conditional use in the General Commercial (C-1), Planned Residential (PR) and Resort Ccmrtnercial (PC-4) zones. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKC OUND. Due to the maturing of the industry the city council is now willing to consider timeshare in conjunction with a hotel and, therefore, has initiated this zoning ordinance amendment. The improvements in the timeshare industry are such that staff is confident these s of developments can be desig ned ed to conform to the opmen gn standards the city upholds. In the Planned Residential and Resort Commercial zones timeshare shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel. In all three zones, C-1, PR, and PC (4) timeshare shall be permitted only as a conditional use. II. RECCt vEMDATION A. Approve the findings. B. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending approval of ZOA 88-4 to city council. III. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. Prepared by L _ Sc i Reviewed and Approved CS/bn 1 PLANNING CX144 SSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PLANNING Ca44ISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOHVOIDING AMMZ ENT OF CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 MMIEAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 25.100.020, Permitted Zones of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100.020. Permitted Zones "A timeshare project shall be permitted only in a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) Zone or Planned Residential (PR) Zone. Said development in the PR or PC-4 Zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel, and then only if and when a Conditional Use Permit has been obtained therefore in any zone from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this Code." SECTION 2. That Section 25.100.060, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100.060. Minimum Number of Units in a Timeshare Development "The minimum number of units in a "timeshare" project shall be fifty (50)." SECTION 3. That Section 25.100.070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100.070. Development Standards for Timeshare Development " 'Timeshare developments' shall be designed to conform to the standards in the zone in which the property is located." SECTION 4. That Sections 25.100.080 and 25.100.090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same here by are, repealed. SECTION 5. The.City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PLANNING CL'MIISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Ctnudssion, held on this 1st day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /tm 2 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-Ofi 11 October 18, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by amending Chapter 25. 100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. , SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November I, 1968, at 7:00 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. 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 planning Comm ssIon (or city councIl) at, or ' prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary October 21 , 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission DJE2/8 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER C P PPT NE RH NIP IMCL11 pNG PRGPE9910N/.l CO RPOR..Tp HS LAWYERS f 39700 506 HOPE DRIVE.SUITE 312 RIVERSIDE ONTARIO (714)666-1450 POST OFFICE BOX 1555 (7w) 969-6564 _ RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 PALM SPRINGS TELEPHONE(619) 566-2611 SAN DIEGO (619) 325-7264 TELEX 752735 (619)457-4915 TELECOPIER (619)340-6696 MEMORANDUM OCT 13 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: RAY DIAZ, PALM DESERT FROM: DAVE ERWIN, CITY ATTORNEY DATED : 10/12/88 RE: TIMESHARE ORDINANCE Ray: I am enclosing a draft of an Ordinance which cleans up some of the potential problems in the Timeshare Ordinance. I did not recall whether I was going to do the draft or whether you were but, in looking at it, I thought I would go ahead and at least do it. Certainly there are some other things in the Timeshare Ordinance that could stand to be cleaned up and, in particular, under Sections 030 and 035, but I am not sure we want to do it at this point in time. I will leave that to your judgment. I have repealed the last two sections of the Timeshare Ordinance since we are limiting timeshare to fee ownership. The Transient Occupancy Tax is not applicable anyway and the exceptions we provided were for those filed prior to 1980, any of those projects that had been approved and certainly have either been built and are already in existence have expired at this point. If there is any question, give me a call. DJE/vcd attachment DJE9/9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25 . 100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1 . That Section 25 . 100 . 020 , Permitted Zones, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25 . 100 . 020 . Permitted Zones "A timeshare project shall be permitted only in a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (P(L-4) Zone or Planned Residential (PR40) Zone. Said development in the PRi( or PC-4 Zone shall be developed in conjunction with a hotel, and then only if and when a Conditional Use Permit has been obtained therefor in any zone from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25 . 72 of this Code. " SECTION 2 . That Section 25 . 100 . )60 , of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows : "Section 25. 100 . 060 . Minimurr Number of Units in a Timeshare Development "The minimum number of units in a "timeshare" project shall be fifty (50) . " SECTION 3 . That Section 25 . 100 . 070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows : "Section 25 . 100 . 070 . Development Standards for Timeshare Development " ' Timeshare developments ' shall be designed to conform to the standards in the zone in which the property is located. " -1- DJE9/9 SECTION 4 . That Sections 25 . 100 . 1080 and 25. 100 . 090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, ar.d the same hereby are, repealed. SECTION 5 . The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption . PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1988 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEAN BENSON, Mayor City of Palm Desert, California ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California -2- 10i19./1988 15:34 MARRIOTT, LAKELAND, FL. 813 686 3603 P.02 low ,Aarnott Corporation.... ....-- — - -- — COUNSEL TO VACATION IM Crystal Lake Dr. Joseph F. Scalo OWNERSHIP RESOtTT DIVISION Post OtRoe Box 880 Staff Attorney Lakeland, Florida 33002 8131688.7700 1H8i(9u � u wl October 19, 1988 QQO 9 1988 COMMONITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARIMENT CITY Of PALM DESERT David Erwin Beat, Beat b Krieger 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312 P.O. Box 5056 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ray Diaz City Planning Director 75-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Proposed Revised Zoning Ordinance Concerning Timesharing Dear Dave and Ray: We understand that the proposed revised zoning ordinance is scheduled to be discussed at the November let Planning Commission m!eting and that it is anticipated to be discussed at the subsequent Decembe.- 8th and December 22nd City Council meetings. If these dates are modified, please advise. It would also be helpful if you can forward me a copy of the notice that was sent advertising the November lst meeting date as well au the language of the proposed revised ordinance. If you feel it would be helpful for us to attend any of the hearing dates and present information, pleaso so advise. We will likely otherwise be in attendance to listen to what is presented and will not prepare any formal information unless requested to do so. Thank you. Jos F. Scalo JFS/jjd cc: Bob Miller Ed McMullen Scott Turner 10i19i1988 15:34 MARRIOTT, LAKELAND, FL. 813 686 3603 P.01 TO: ra'y t it / _.. ._.�..._-..DEPT./co. ; DATE- 4 FROMT �u'�j rl �� nEar./co. : m URGENT rlrri 91988 ROUTINE DE:-,IVERy coMM � of pages in tranamitt� unnrnEvtwP ding tranomitt:al Pageor? (y rAtM ENl OEPARIMENI DESERT Extended Page 2. 3 • ,i. 1 1:i 3531) 4ii0 jH :lq:jj SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;10-18-88 ; 11 :43AM ; 6' 93406698-1 6193400574;# 1 LAW OFFICES OF ARTHVR L.LmLEwoRTH• VIRGINIA A,ETTINOER BEST, BEST & KRIEGER OFFICES IN OLCN [•gT[Pn CMO VICTOR L.WOLF A MRTNtMHIF INCWNMR MOFs[\IOML I=HI A nOM\ WO WILLIAM R.D[ LFC* DARIEL L.OUVICR RIV[RIIOE CMMOLLB C.0.rlKLD• CAM LF.MCRSOLO 38700 60s HOPE DRIVE,SUITS 3@ PAUL T.a CR• STEPHANIE A.MARLAN (71a)6eG-1H0 BR DALAS HOLM C5• MARC E.CNFEY P09T OFFIGE 00X 506E CKAISTOPAER CAPPCNTCRA JOHN A.HOTTSCMAAFCR RANCHO MIRAOE.CALIFORNIA 02270 PALM OPRINGS RICHARD T.ANGLPSON• MARTIN A.MUCLLtR (U0)3RB-7¢Sa JOHN D•WAHUN• J.MICMACL EUMMEROLA TELrA,pINpNE(OI0) 586.2611 11ICMACL O.HARRIS• HOWARD S.GOLDS — W.CURT CALY• CUOCNC TANAKA TELEX 752735 $AN OICOO THOM" a.SLOVAK• MAROARCT C TANAKA JOHN C.BROWN• BA31L T.CNMMAN (OIy),4DT•aDIO RONALD J.KOKVT JEFFERY J.CMNOALL TELECOPIER (61i) 340.6606# MICMACL T.RIDDELL• SCOTT C.SMITH 'OOROON COLOGNE,OF EOUND¢l M CRCOITN A.JURYW LANCE A.AOAIR RAYMOND &CST O\N•ISDQ MICMACL GRANT JACK R.CLARNC JAM[[ N.KRI¢OQR IMI\-IDT\) JAMES D.CORI\OM.of CDUNM¢L FRANCIS J.BAUM• JCANNCTTC A.PATLR50N ( RICHARD A,OGHINAOF UMO[L ANNL T-TMOMAJ• T¢RI L.VOLLNODLC [VO[M[ MR[T(ION-IPDI) wpNmTgD IM MCW MPF,H... O.MARTIN NETH[AYW DARSARA a.KAI07AL WA\KIM010N.D.E.COVAT DA CMM\ O[OROK M.R9YE9 SAMN M.LEWIS W ILUAM W.F10Y0.JR. TIMOTHY N.CONNOR MICMACL A.CRISTE r CCOROE X.CHANT GRROORT L.NAROKC PONALO A.VAN SI.ARCOM RICHARD CROSS RLSCCCA G.HICKOA k CNOALL H.NARVtY BRADLEY E.NEUFCLI) CLARK H.AIEOP CURE k.TRAYNUM DAVID J.CAWIN r DONALD P.SRtWBtCR MICMACL J,ANOELEON A CECILIA S.WU . CHARLES M.CLUB Mnr MICHAEL C,MUUMVID A. 6.¢JA- LAMTCON C.ELORCO GCOFMEY K.WILLIS IRWIN L.GOLDS WILLIAM D.DAHLIN3.JR. ANTONIA 0•WCINER WYNNE&fURTH OPLOORY K.WILKINSON KANDY L[[ALLCM HARLEY LNCLu110 -THOMAS W.WEIDCMBACM DAVID L•BARON TERESA J.M.CWANNON *A FROMOSIONAL CORMRATION PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ' TO- FROM: NUMBER OF PAGES: INCLUDING COVER PAGE PLEASE NOTIFY OPERATOR IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY AT ( 619 ) 568-2611 OR ( 619 )340-2445 Ope for DATE SENT: 40 TIME SENT: i O A PM TELEPHONE NUMBER OF RECEIVING PARTYt 3 BB&K CLIENT NO./MATTER: © �-ea- SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;10-18—BB : 11 :44AM 6193400574;# 2 DJE9/9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 25.100 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TIMESHARE PROJECTS. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1 . That Section 25 .100 .020, Permitted Zones, of the Palm Desert Municipal Code ire, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25. 100 . 020 , Permitted Zones "A timeshare project shall be permitted only in a General Commercial Zone or in a Planned Commercial Resort (PR-4) Zone or Planned ]residential (PR) Zone. Said development in the :>R or PC-4 Zone shall be developed in conjunctio:i with a hotel, and then only if and when a Conditional Use Permit has been obtained therefor in an,y zone from the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 25.72 of this Code. " SECTION 2 . That Section 25 .100 .06C , of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100 .060 . Minimum Number of Units in a Timeshare Development "The minimum number of units in a "timeshare" project shall be fifty (50) . " SECTION 3 . That Section 25.100.070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be, and the same hereby is, amended to read as follows: "Section 25.100 . 070. Development Standards for Timeshare Development " 'Timeshare developments' shall l)e designed to conform to the standards in the zone in which the property is located. " -1. �f VC RG o ZI`� bQG Z Z 7oc Scc l C� F AkarnOtt corporation VACATION OWNERSHIP Post Office Box 890 813/688-7700 RESORT DIVISION Lakeland. Florida 33802 October 6, 1988 Ms. Catherine Sass City of Palm Desert 7S-S10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 MARRIOTT'S DESERT SPRINGS VILLAS TIME-SHARE IROJECT Dear Ms. Sass: We enjoyed speaking with you on Friday, October 7, 1988 regarding the local registration process for the above-referenced project. Your explanations to our questions about the various exhibits to be attached to the applications was very helpful and we appreciate your assistance in this regard. You suggested during our telephone conversation that we might be able to utilize some of the documents already on file with° your office from Marriott's building of the Desert Palms Springs Hotel project, but that you needed to take a look at the specific property oft which our time-share project will be located. Accordingly, enclosed is; a copy of the old tract map that was initially prepared (attached as Item N1). I don't believe this map was ever filed, however. Also attached is a copy of the current tract map which depicts the boundaries of the property in question (attached as Item 02). We would appreciate your checking to ,ee if we will be able to use any of the previously filed documents, i.e. , the :;oil report and grading plan, etc, as exbibits to our registration applicat:i_ons rather than have new reports and/or plans prepared. If we can use some of the already on-file documents, this may help to expedite our registration process somewhat. Please advise. Again, thank you for your anticipated assistance. PL-ase do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions or requir,: further information. Sincerely, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC. ? .1f�ir*�c� O udtith E. Strickland Legal Assistant Q cc: -Joseph F. Scalo, ESq. fY M.r � •� . �YI ��;C:/ E '\� r �, � ��_�.1pRI ,IC I a4 I � —�I1L . p < zt : ei -� c•v..�_ _____ _ ----------------------- Y Q • O W_ i d _ P I 0 H = w a p e bi.eQ asap � a F t g i 1� So J — og R•?ao R d: L.?63.9G SB For a,ivBe P (ti 4bah6 n a 1 " cam "• i B�� dF V N 1 , BLS BIa v ye sea N O M n m n e 0 P Na no c �•9 i c N V P � m N � P " h P ; �y N V N C� N 0 \ SBb N b fl N m \ F � � h tl a rm P V � UV�bryo v r^ V, 14 F ` N pL ry M m� ' If•� Q by Q. 4 6 0. e b o k J � c 0 C qp. 'N 4 r N Q Lu 4 Q Q A O q C • Op o o ,,_,"t I o�n,E: a � - 3 n 0o0 a m h m 7 Erna -� �3 na o > m cn a 0 N dQ 3 N 0* 3 L '"• 3 ��a� � �,y Y. :lil rrt �+Rw RFRRF FJRrF I A 1 G$f�� oif' IF:'�Il=ra 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 18, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 88-4 NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by amending Chapter 25. 100 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code relating to timeshare projects. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 1 , 1988, at 7:00 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. 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 planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary October 21 , 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission