Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC. DA 07-02, PP 07-11 AND CUP 07-14 - LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan of design, Conditional Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the construction of a new three-story 106-room boutique hotel and two- story condominium unit including sixteen 3-bedroom lockout rooms (48 keys maximum) totaling a maximum of 154 units/keys. The project includes 203 underground parking spaces, a restaurant area, gift shop, conference and meeting rooms, spa, and amenities including a roof deck pool and bar, roof deck garden and roof deck patios on 11 of the 16 condominium units. The project is located at 45-400 Larkspur Lane, also known as APNs 627-262-008 and 627- 262-011. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPLICANT: Larkspur Associates, LLC. 73-626 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, and CUP 07-14 DATE: May 20, 2008 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of staff's recommendation will recommend to City Council approval of a new boutique hotel totaling 154 units on Larkspur Lane. The project will total 106 hotel rooms and 16-condominum units that will include 3-bedroom lockout rooms totaling a maximum of 48 keys. The 16 units are proposed as condominium units for financing purposes and are not intended to be permanent residential units. The applicant has not submitted a tentative map at this time. If the project is approved by the City Council, a tentative map will have to be considered at a Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 2 of 14 future Planning Commission meeting. The development agreement will allow the City Council to approve the project as proposed. Notices were mailed out to adjacent property owners before staff scheduled the project for the Planning Commission meeting. In response, two residents stated they were in favor of the project. The legal notice for the Planning Commission meeting was posted in the Desert Sun and mailed to the property owners on April 28, 2008, and staff has not received any additional comments. I. BACKGROUND: A. Property Description: The project site located on the northeast corner of Larkspur Lane and Shadow Mountain Drive consists of two vacant parcels totaling 2.1-acres (91,473 square feet). The smaller triangular shape parcel (APN 627-262- 008) totals 3,484 square feet and is located towards the north of the project area, adjacent to a commercial parking lot. The larger parcel (APN 627-262-011) is a rectangular shaped parcel totaling 87,991 square feet. The property slopes 11 feet down from Shadow Mountain Drive to the north property line. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan Land Use Designation: • APN 627-262-008: Community Commercial (C-C) • APN 627-262-011: High Density Residential 10-22 du/acre (R-H) Zoning Designation: • APN 627-262-008: General Commercial (C-1) • APN 627-262-011: Residential Multiple Family (R-3) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: C-1 / Commercial center and parking lot South: R-3 /Two-story Yum Yum Tree Apartments East: R-3 / 90+ feet of open space and single-story condominiums West: C-1 / The Gardens on El Paseo G.\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 3 of 14 D. Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan: On July 23, 1987, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) adopted the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The overall goal of the specific plan's policies is to promote high quality compatible economic growth. The specific plan also states that the City and the RDA shall take an active role in the promotion of a project when it will result in substantial economic benefits for the RDA, general business community or will otherwise implement community goals. El Paseo is listed as a project area in the specific plan and is identified as "unique throughout the Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty retail/restaurant boulevard designed on a scale appropriate for pedestrians". The plan also states that El Paseo's ability to successfully compete with new planned commercial developments will be dependent on continued uniqueness. Four key points are identified in the specific plan, which are essential to a successful pedestrian environment. Two points are directly related to new construction. One point states that "dead zones" created by vacant lots should be eliminated because they do not attract pedestrian traffic, and the second point states that strategic location of "anchor attractions" to draw and sustain pedestrian interest along the entire length of the street is essential to El Paseo's success. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new three-story 106- room boutique hotel and two-story condominium unit comprising sixteen 3- bedroom lockout rooms (48 keys maximum) totaling a maximum of 154 units/keys. The hotel includes a two level underground parking lot with 203 spaces, a restaurant area, gift shop, conference and meeting rooms, spa, and amenities including a roof deck pool and bar, roof deck garden and roof deck patios on 11 of the 16 condominium units At this time, the applicant has not submitted a tentative map for the condominium portion of the project, which will require consideration by the Planning Commission at a future hearing. A draft development agreement has been prepared that will grant the applicant a vested right to develop as proposed. A. Site Plan: The project site located on the northwest corner of Larkspur Lane and Shadow Mountain Drive fronts onto two streets and is adjacent to a G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 4 of 14 commercial parking lot to the north and a single-story condominium project to the east. Access: The site plan is designed with four driveways, three on Larkspur Lane and one on Shadow Mountain Drive. The north driveway on Larkspur Lane is a parking/loading area for service vehicles as well as access to the enclosed trash area for Burrtec waste trucks. The second driveway, south of the loading area, is a looped driveway providing an entry area to the front lobby of the hotel from the street. There is a designated area for public art in front of the looped driveway. The third driveway, located in the middle of the site, slopes down from Larkspur Lane providing access to the lower level underground parking lot, meeting area and storage area. There are five stairways and three elevators that provide access to the upper levels of the hotel as well as providing emergency access outside the underground parking lot. The one driveway located on Shadow Mountain Drive slopes down from the street providing access to the upper level parking lot and additional storage rooms. Two elevators and one stairway will provide access to the upper hotel levels. The underground parking on Shadow Mountain Drive will be used for the 16 condominium units only. Building Setbacks: Given that majority of the building and main access points are located on Larkspur Lane, staff is using Larkspur Lane as the front property line, the east property line as the rear yard, the north property line as a side yard and the Shadow Mountain Drive as the street side yard. Due to the unique design of the project, setbacks are described in three categories as described below: 1. Main Building setbacks 2. Decks 3. Open Stairways 1. Main Building: Due to the building massing and undulation, the front set back is at least 15 feet with the lobby entrance setback 34 feet from the property line. The property line is setback 10 feet from Larkspur Lane, which makes the building set back 25 feet from the street. On Shadow Mountain Drive, the building is setback at least 10 feet from G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 5 of 14 the property line and is set back an additional 10 feet (20 feet total) from the street. The east side of the building is set back at least 10 feet from the property line. To minimize the visual impact of the three-story hotel, the building steps back 4 feet at each level creating a larger setback at higher elevations (see Sheet 7). The north side of the building setback varies between 10 feet and 28 feet from the property line. 2. Decks: The building design includes covered patios along the east elevation that are set back 6 feet from the east property line. Municipal Code Section 25.56.240 allows decks to encroach up to 6 feet into the rear yard provided that the setback is not less than 5 feet. 3. Open Stairways: There is a fire exit stairway along the east elevation that is set back 6 feet from the rear property line. Municipal Code Section 25.56.250 allows open stairways to encroach up to 4 feet into the rear yard provided that the setback is not less than 3 feet. Parking: The project is designed with a two-level underground parking lot with a total of 203 parking spaces. The lower level parking lot provides for 120 automobile parking spaces and 8 electric/golf cart/bicycle parking spaces, while the upper level provides for 70 automobile and 5 electric/golf cart/bicycle parking spaces. Section 25.58.310 requires 1.1 parking spaces per unit plus additional parking for other uses. The project provides 203 parking spaces, 169 required for the 154 rooms and 34 additional spaces for the additional uses associated with the hotel. Amenities: The project amenities include a total of three pools, two on the lower level of the hotel and one on the roof with a 2,017 square foot bar area, a desert roof garden and pavilion area, conference rooms, spa, workout area, and private patios in some of the hotel rooms and private roof decks with spas on 11 of the 16 condominium units. The units with the private patios are located on the west and south side of the project. They were not included on the east side, which is adjacent to single-story condominium units. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14.DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 6 of 14 B. Building Description: The boutique hotel will house a total of 154 rooms, a restaurant and bar area, lobby and administrative staff offices, a gift shop, conference and meeting rooms, a spa, and workout room. The 154 total rooms are a combination of 103 regular rooms, 16-condominum units that will include 3- bedroom lockout rooms totaling a maximum of 48 keys, and 3 executive suites. The overall square footage of the entire hotel is 114,038 square feet. A breakdown of the hotel space is described below: • Entire Hotel Area: 114,038 square feet • 106-Room Hotel Area: 75,641 square feet • Condominium Hotel Area: 38,397 square feet • Conference Rooms: 4,845 square feet • Spa 4,185 square feet • Restaurant Area: 3,295 square feet • Workout Room: 215 square feet The main building will contain the hotel lobby rooms and amenity areas. The condominium portion of the hotel is separated from the main hotel and each unit has an entry foyer with access to three separate lockout rooms for each unit. As part of the project, the hotel will include an emergency power generator that will allow the hotel to be as a community "cooling station" during any potential power outages within the City. Using the hotel as a "cooling station" will provide a community service for emergency purposes. C. Architecture: The project is designed as a three-story hotel with two-story condominium hotel suites. The main building height elevation for the three-story building varies between 31 feet and 37 feet. The building design includes tower elements that have pitched roofs with the peaks at 35 feet, 37 feet, 39 feet, 40 feet, and 42 feet. The tallest portion of the building is the apex of the gazebo on the roof deck at 42 feet. The two-story condominium portion building height varies between 24 feet and 25 feet 6 inches, with flat roofed tower elements at 28 feet. The project's architectural design can best be described as contemporary with classical trim and details. The design utilizes vertical elements with strong horizontal bases and recessed arched windows, smooth earth-tone G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Assoc ates\Planning Commission StaH Report doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 7 of 14 stucco colors, limestone cladding, metal shutters and rails, solar photovoltaic roof panels and shading devices. The project was presented and discussed at four Architectural Review Commission (ARC) meetings and on February 26, 2008, the ARC unanimously (Commissioner Vuksic absent) granted preliminary approval of the project's architectural design. D. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan including the roof garden totals 52,599 square feet of drought tolerant landscaping. The project site currently houses several healthy Washingtonia Robusta palm trees that will be relocated and reused on the project site. On February 26, 2008, the ARC (Commissioner Vuksic absent) granted preliminary approval of the landscape plan. E. LEED-Certified: The proposed project will meet the specifications a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. LEED certified buildings provide an environmental and financial benefit to the City and property owner. LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets green building and performance measures. All certified projects receive a LEED plaque, which demonstrates that a building is environmentally friendly. Under the LEED program, a building will earn points in a ranking system that consists of LEED Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum ratings. A Certified classification is the minimum green rating while Platinum is the highest. LEED-Certified buildings: • Lower operation costs and increase asset value. • Reduce waste sent to landfills. • Conserve energy and water. • Are healthier and safer for occupants. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Qualify for tax rebates, zoning allowances and other incentives in hundreds of cities. The proposed project has been registered for LEED Certification and might meet LEED Silver criteria before the project begins construction. To accomplish LEED-Certification, the project is providing solar power energy, low-emitting adhesives, paints, carpet and sealants. The project will also provide a roof garden, low water efficient landscaping and will reduce G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 8 of 14 overall water usage by 20%. The project will include other design features that will earn points in the LEED program. IV. ANALYSIS: The project is located on two parcels with two different zoning designations. The following table compares the proposed project to both the C-1, General Commercial zone (Section 25.28) and R-3, Residential Multiple Family zone (Section 25.20). Both zones allow hotel development with a Conditional Use Permit. STANDARD C-1 ZONE I R-3 ZONE PROJECT I Hotel Density N/A 38 keys (18 units 154 keys (77 units per acre) per acre) Height 30 feet 31 to 37 feet 24 to 25 feet 6 inches Front Setback 5 feet 15 feet 15 feet Rear Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Side Setback Zero/ 5 feet 8 feet 10 feet Coverage N/A 50% 50 Parking 190 (based on 190 (based on use) 203 Landscaping 15% N/A 58% Discussion: Every hotel that has been approved in the City has required a height exception as well as exceptions from other development standards on a case by case basis. These hotels have been built in either Planned Commercial Resort or Planned Residential zones. Both of these zones have an exception process to the development standards within the ordinance. The development standards that currently affect hotel development in the C-1 zone are the 30-foot maximum height limit, setbacks and parking. The C-1 zone does not have a maximum density allowance. In the R-3 zone, the development standards that affect hotel are the 18 units per acre density, 22-foot height limit, 50% lot coverage, setbacks, and parking. The project currently exceeds several development standards within the C-1 and R-3 zone and neither of these zones have an exception process in the ordinance. However, with a development agreement the project can be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as proposed. The development G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 9 of 14 agreement does not change the allowed land use of either zone, since both currently permit hotels with a Conditional Use Permit. The development agreement allows the City to waive development standards when the project is consistent with the City's General Plan or a specific plan. In this case, the proposed project is consistent with both the City's General Plan and the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan described above. Although the development agreement allows the City to waive certain development standards, staff analyzed the project with the surrounding land uses in regards to any potential height and view impacts, traffic impacts, noise impacts, and land use compatibility. A. Height and Views: The hotel technically exceeds the height limit of the zones, but it has been designed in context to the grade change and adjacent uses. The applicant has prepared site sections on Sheet 7 of the architectural plans illustrating the project in context to the surrounding area. In addition, staff has done a field study and visual analysis to determine any potential view impacts. The property slopes down 11 feet from Shadow Mountain Drive to the north property line that is adjacent to a commercial parking lot. To take advantage of 11-foot slope, the project has been designed with the two- story condominiums on Shadow Mountain Drive. At Shadow Mountain Drive, the two-story condominium building height is 25 feet 6 inches and as the property slopes down, the three-story hotel height ranges between 31 feet and 37 feet with the tallest element (apex of the gazebo) at 42 feet. However, the overall building height of the three-story portion ranges between 25 feet and 37 feet measured from Shadow Mountain Drive because of the large slope. The slope provides opportunities for taller buildings closer to El Paseo without negatively impacting the residential properties to the south. This approach has been used in the approval of the adjacent project, The Gardens on El Paseo, which measures between 31 feet and 38 feet from Shadow Mountain Drive with the overall building height between 38 feet and 44 feet. The hotel's proposed building height will be less than The Gardens on El Paseo's overall building height and will not adversely impact the surrounding properties. To the east of the project is a single-story condominium project with 90+ feet of open space between the properties. The east side of the building has been designed with a 10-foot set back from the property line with the second and third levels stepping back to minimize the view impacts from the hotel. At the third floor of the hotel, the project is set back approximately 140 feet from the closest condominium unit. In between the G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reporis\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 10 of 14 two properties there are tall trees and shrubs screening a majority of the project site from the single-story condominium units to the east. Due to the large setbacks and existing vegetation on the property to the east, the hotel will not negatively impact the adjacent property to the east. To study this even further, staff visited the site several times, took photos, and spent time walking around El Paseo, Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane to analyze the view impacts of the proposed project. There is an exhibit with five photos taken from areas around the project. The five photos are: 1. Photo "A", taken from the northwest street corner of El Paseo and Larkspur Lane looking south. 2. Photo "B", taken from El Paseo looking south to illustrate the visual experience from El Paseo. 3. Photo "C", taken from the adjacent property to the east looking west towards the future hotel. 4. Photo "D", taken from Shadow Mountain Drive looking north at the project site. 5. Photo "E", taken from The Gardens shopping center looking west. Photo "A" illustrates that when a person is walking on El Paseo and approaches the intersection at Larkspur Lane, the hotel will be behind the existing retail development and may block views to the south. However, as the photo illustrates, there are tall palm trees and other trees blocking the views to the south from this location. To the west of this intersection, the hotel will not be visible because it will be blocked by The Gardens on El Paseo. Photo "A" indicates that there will not be a negative view impact from the intersection of El Paseo and Larkspur Lane. Photo "B" was taken from the north side of El Paseo in front of existing retail space looking south. The proposed hotel will be located behind the retail building being remodeled in the photo. The photo illustrates that any potential views to the south are currently blocked from the existing building on El Paseo. In addition, behind the retail building are some palm trees approximately 46 feet tall. The proposed hotel will be 37 feet with the tallest portion at 42 feet. Based on photo "B" the hotel will not be visible from El Paseo and will not impact any views to the south. Photo "C" was taken from outside the pool area of the adjacent property to the east. The photo illustrates large trees and shrubs between the two properties screening a majority of any potential views to the west. Based on the height of the palm trees, the third floor of the hotel will be visible and will block the views of the mountains. Given that the majority of the G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report doc , Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 11 of 14 views to the west are blocked from existing landscaping, the hotel will not significantly impact the views to the west. Photo "D" was taken in front of the two-story apartments on Shadow Mountain Drive looking north. The photo illustrates that the proposed project will block views to the north. The project is designed at 25 feet 6 inches with a 20-foot setback from the street curb on Shadow Mountain Drive. The majority of the three-story portion will not be visible behind the two-story condominium units because of the 11-foot grade change. The development standards allow for a two-story building at 22 feet for a flat roof and 24 feet for a pitched roof. The proposed hotel is a flat roof structure and exceeds the height limit by 3 feet 6 inches as described above. However, staff believes that a two-story project at 22 feet would block the view to the north and that the 3-foot 6-inch height difference between the ordinance and proposed project would not significantly increase the view impacts. Photo "E" was taken from The Gardens shopping center looking west towards the future hotel. The photo illustrates that there are no mountain views to the east, and that the project will not negatively impact any views. B. Traffic: As part of the project, the applicant provided a traffic analysis report to determine and evaluate any potential negative traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and local intersections. The first report was submitted on April 7, 2008 and a revised report was submitted on May 5, 2008. The revised report is included as an attachment to the staff report. The City's General Plan established a Level of Services (LOS) "C" as the minimum acceptable condition for traffic flow during peak hours. Currently, the surrounding intersections and roadways operate at LOS C during peak hours. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,258 trips per weekday with 94 trips during the midday peak hour and 91 during the PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the anticipated trip generation is 1,261 trips with 111 trips during the midday peak hour. Based on this report, the anticipated trips per day from the project will result in an increase of no more than 1.5 additional vehicles per 60 seconds during midday and PM peak hours and no more than 2 vehicles per 60 seconds during the Saturday peak hour. The report indicates that the LOS for the roadways and intersections will continue to operate at a LOS C, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. There are no negative traffic impacts from the proposed hotel. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11.CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 12 of 14 C. Noise: A hotel project adjacent to residential development may have negative noise impacts. The developer is concerned about noise just as much as staff is because noise from hotel guests will negatively impact the operations of the hotel as much as it will impact the surrounding neighborhood. Noise complaints from hotel guests will result in complaints, early checkouts and a negative image. It is in the hotel's best interest to regulate and control any potential noise problems. However, the applicant and staff have taken several additional steps to address any potential noise impacts. Eleven of the 16 condominium suites are designed with roof decks that include a spa. The suites along the east property line were specifically designed without the roof decks because they are adjacent to residential condominium owners. For the 11 suites with a roof deck, a condition of approval has been added to the project prohibiting hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. This condition will implement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the adjacent property owners. In addition, there will be no outdoor music, dinning patios, or bars facing the residential areas adjacent to the project. D. Land Use Compatibility: The project is located on two parcels with different zoning standards and is adjacent to commercial complexes on two-sides and residential buildings on the other two-sides. The proposed project is designed to balance the needs of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan while remaining compatible with adjacent R-3 zoning. Historically the R-3 properties south of El Paseo, between Highway 74 and Deep Canyon Drive, has been a transitional land use area between the City's commercial core (Highway 111 and El Paseo) and south Palm Desert's single-family neighborhood. These properties consist of hotels, apartments, condominiums, medical and general office uses. Many of the existing hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of 18 units per acre. The Mojave and Casa Larrea Inn are 26 units per acre and the Inn at Deep Canyon is 41 units per acre. These hotels were built before the City incorporated. Since the City incorporated, no new hotels have been developed adjacent to El Paseo. The Commercial Core Area Specific Plan states that the City and the RDA shall take an active role in the promotion of a project when it will result in substantial economic benefits for the RDA, general business community or will otherwise implement community goals. City and RDA staff have G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Assooates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 13 of 14 worked very closely with the applicant to create a hotel project that will generate economic benefits while limiting any potential negative impacts to the adjacent properties. The proposed boutique hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village atmosphere within walking distance to El Paseo, meeting the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. VI. CONCLUSION: The proposed boutique hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village atmosphere within walking distance to El Paseo, meeting the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The draft development agreement will allow the City Council to approve the project as proposed while providing the City with an economic, environmental and community benefit. All the findings of approval for the Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit can be met and are described on pages 1 and 2 of the draft resolution. On April 7, 2008, notices were sent out to property owners within 300 feet of the project to inform them that the project was available for public review and comments before staff scheduled the project for the Planning Commission meeting. Staff presented the plans and discussed the project with two neighbors who responded and stated they were in favor of the project. On April 28, 2008, the legal notice for the Planning Commission was published in The Desert Sun newspaper and mailed to the surrounding property owners within 300 feet. At the time of writing this report, staff has not had received any comments or inquiries from the general public in response to this noticing. If approved, the applicant will return to Planning Commission at a later date with a tentative map to create the condominium rights for financing purposes. VII. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to City Council approval of DA 07-02, PP 07-11, and CUP 07-14, subject to attached conditions. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14.DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. GPA, C/Z, PP/CUP 08-10 May 20, 2008 Page 14 of 14 VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Exhibit A, Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact C. Exhibit B, Development Agreement D. Legal Notice E. Draft Initial Study F. Comments from other departments G. Traffic Impact Report, dated May 5, 2008 H. Architectural Review Commission Notices and Minutes I. Plans and Photo Exhibits Submitted by: Department Head: Tony B gato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development Approval: • Homer Croy ACM for Devel ment Services G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14.DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY 106-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL AND A TWO-STORY CONDOMINUM UNIT INCLUDING SIXTEEN 3-BEDROOM LOCKOUT ROOMS (48 KEYS MAXIMUM) TOTALING A MAXIMUM OF 154 UNITS/KEYS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES 203 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPACES, A RESTAURANT AREA, GIFT SHOP, CONFERENCE AND MEETING ROOMS, SPA, AND AMENITIES INCLUDING A ROOF DECK POOL AND BAR, ROOF DECK GARDEN AND ROOF DECK PATIOS ON 11 OF THE 16 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 45-400 LARKSPUR LANE, ALSO KNOWN AS APNS 627-262-008 AND 627-262- 011. CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of May 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC. for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act', Resolution No. 06-78, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council of said request: Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed location of the project is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The project is located in a C-1 General Commercial zone and R-3 Multiple Family zone. Both zoning districts allow hotel development with a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the C-1 zone is to provide the City with a core area of specialty and general commercial shopping facilities which are inherent within a resort community. Hotel developments are PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. allowed with a Conditional Use Permit to support the commercial uses within a resort community, therefore the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the C-1 zone. The purpose of the R-3 zone is to provide suitable area for residents to live in a variety of housing types at high population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety. Historically the R-3 properties south of El Paseo, between Highway 74 and Deep Canyon Drive, have been a transitional land use area between the City's commercial core (Highway 111 and El Paseo) and south Palm Desert's single-family neighborhood. These properties consist of hotels, apartments, condominiums, medical and general office uses. The zone allows hotel development with a Conditional Use Permit as a transitional land use between the City's commercial core and single-family neighborhoods; therefore the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the R-3 zone. 2. The proposed location of the project and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed hotel use is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project has been conditioned to address public health and safety and will require permits from the City's Building and Safety Department, Finance Department, Riverside County Fire Marshal, as well as other local agencies. The project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. An environmental assessment leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared that concludes that there will be no adverse environmental effects. 3. The proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title 25 (Zoning). The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will comply with the General Commercial (C-1) and Residential Multiple Family (R-3) zones. Additionally, conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met. 4. The proposed project complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. The proposed project is consistent with City's General Plan Commercial Core Area goal, objectives and policies by promoting sustainable economic benefits to the City and Redevelopment Agency on El Paseo, as well as keeping El Paseo a unique, pedestrian-oriented high-end retail shopping district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of DA 07-02, PP 07-11, and CUP 07-14 subject to conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of May 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VAN TANNER, Chairperson ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. 4. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 5. The project shall comply with the Energy Efficiency Standards, Ordinance No. 1124. 6. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 7. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. 8. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return, or artifacts to tribe, etc.). 9. The applicant shall salvage the existing Washingtonia sp. Palm trees to be reused as part of the landscaping for the proposed hotel. The applicant shall provide a relocation plan to the City's Landscape Specialist. Said plan shall illustrate how the palm trees will be salvaged, stored and maintained during the construction, and where they will be incorporated into the hotel landscaping plan. 10. Use of the roof decks on the front buildings shall be prohibited after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. 11. The applicant shall provide an emergency backup generator onsite. The hotel will be used as a "cooling station" in the event of a power outage in the City of Palm Desert. 12. The applicant shall provide designated hybrid parking spaces that can be used for electric vehicles, golf carts and bicycles. 13. The proposed project shall meet the specifications of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Green Building. 14. No outdoor entertainment on the roof deck patios, roof deck pool and bar, roof deck garden, and outdoor restaurant dining patio. 15. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement that allows a new boutique hotel totaling 154 units/keys as proposed and described in the site plan. As part of the project, the hotel will include condominium units totaling 16 suites with 3-bedroom lockout rooms for a total of 48 keys. The condominium approval is to allow financial flexibility for the financing purposes of the hotel and the Development Agreement shall provide a mechanism by which the condominium approval shall be revenue neutral to the City with respect to payment of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), i.e. the Development Agreement will enable the city to collect TOT from the units in amounts commensurate with the amounts that would be collected if the hotel were not subdivided into condominiums. The Agreement will shall stipulate that one hundred (100) percent of the condominium units must be made available as rental units for hotel guests when not being used by the unit owner for the unit owner's personal use. A condominium unit owner shall be allowed to use the unit for no more than two (2) weeks between November 1st and May 1st and for no more than two (2) weeks between May 2nd and October 31st without paying the TOT. Every condominium unit shall be subject to TOT, except for personal use described above, and each condominium unit shall be made available to hotel guest for transient use. No G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. condominium unit shall be rented for more than twenty nine (29) consecutive days. No condominium unit shall be used or converted into any form of permanent residence. No condominium unit shall be used as a timeshare, factional or other vacation ownership. 16. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner who shall maintain the landscaping per the City approved landscape document package for the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord. 801) and the approved landscaped plan. 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid to issuance of grading permit. 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07.11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04). 12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards including: • Installation of a 6-foot sidewalk along Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and no Certification of Completion shall be granted until the improvements have been completed. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. 17. Entrance aisles to the underground parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width with 2 feet clear on each side for a total of 28 feet, widening to 34 feet and/or a combination that achieves an acceptable turning radius on the ramp landings. 18. Parking stalls depths and aisles widths shall be adjusted to meet the minimum City development standards. Riverside County Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC and UBC, or any recognized fire protection standards. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Wad Files\Formats\Stall Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07.14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution doc 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm fire flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2- 1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than 150' feet from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 12. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from the main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining property. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 14. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 16. Standpipes required in courtyard, roof and all stairways per CBC. 17. Sprinkler required in underground parking per CBC CFC. 18. Full fire alarm system required per CBC. 19. Fire Department Emergency Access shall remain per plan. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Fiies\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Larkspur Associates, LLC. City of Palm Desert 73-626 Highway 111 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan of design, Conditional Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the construction of a new three-story 106-room boutique hotel and two-story condominium unit including sixteen 3- bedroom lockout rooms (48 keys maximum) totaling a maximum of 154 units/keys. The project includes 203 underground parking spaces, a restaurant area, gift shop, conference and meeting rooms, spa, and amenities including a roof deck pool and bar, roof deck garden and roof deck patios on 11 of the 16 condominium units. The project is located at 45-400 Larkspur Lane, also known as APNs 627-262-008 and 627-262-011. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11.CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "B" DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Palm Desert, California, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the "City), and LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC ("Developer"), with reference to the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: RECITALS: A. These Recitals refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. Government Code Sections 65684 through 65869.5 inclusive (the "Development Agreement Legislation") authorize the City to enter into development agreements in connection with the development of real property within its jurisdiction. On August 11, 1983, the City enacted by Ordinance No. 341, as amended on December 7, 1989 by Ordinance No. 589 (collectively, the "Development Agreement Ordinance"), procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements thereunder pursuant to the Development Agreement Legislation. C. Developer is the owner of a legal or equitable interest in the Property and is entitled to have filed the application for and to enter into this Agreement. The Project consists of the future development of the Property. The Property is located at an G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Stall Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. important location in the City and the coordinated development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement represents an important and mutually beneficial economic development and land usage planning opportunity for the City and Developer. D. The City has determined that the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement is consistent with and in furtherance of the development goals, policies, general land uses and development programs of the City as set forth in the City's General Plan and is consistent with the existing zoning affecting the Property. E. City has further determined that entry into this Agreement will further the goals and objectives of the City's land use planning policies by, among other things, encouraging investment, providing precise and supplemental criteria for the uses, design, circulation and development of the Property, including flexibility in land use options which may be altered in order to respond to future changes in the surrounding areas, eliminating uncertainty in planning for, and securing orderly processing and development of the Project. The benefits conferred on the City by Developer herein will (i) insure consistent, comprehensive planning which will result in aesthetically pleasing, environmentally harmonious, and economically viable development within the City; (ii) provide for the creation of a high quality, aesthetically pleasing entry statement for the City; (iii) provide for the construction of storm water system improvements vital to the City; and (iv) further the development objectives of the City in an orderly manner, all of which will significantly promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. In exchange for these benefits to the City, Developer desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the Development G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Plan attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A", and at a rate of development of its choosing, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. F. By adopting this Agreement, the City Council has elected to exercise certain governmental powers at the present time rather than deferring such actions until an undetermined future date and has done so intending to bind the City and the City Council and intending to limit the City's future exercise of certain governmental powers, to the extent permitted by law. G. This Agreement has undergone extensive review by the City's staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. H. In order to effectuate the foregoing, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. 1.1 Defined Terms. Each reference in this Agreement to any of the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below for each such term. 1.2 Agreement. This Development Agreement. 1.3 Building Ordinances. Those building standards, of general and uniform application throughout the City and not imposed solely with respect to the G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Property, in effect from time to time that govern building and construction standards within the City, including, without limitation, the City's building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading, sign, and fire codes. 1.4 City Council. The legislative body of the City of Palm Desert. 1.5 Effective Date. The date on which the Enacting Ordinance becomes effective. 1.6 Enacting Ordinance. Ordinance , enacted by the City Council on , 2008, approving this Agreement. 1.7 Existing Land Use Ordinances. The Land Use Ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. 1.8 Land Use Ordinances. The ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of the City, governing the development of the Property, including but not limited to, the permitted uses of land, the density and intensity of use of land, and the timing of development, all as applicable to the development of the Property. Specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Land Use Ordinances shall include the City's General Plan, the City's zoning ordinance and the City's subdivision code, but shall exclude the Building ordinances. 1.9 Mortgage. A mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement in which all or a part of the Property, or an interest in it, is sold and leased back concurrently, or other transactions in which all or a part of the Property, or an interest in it, is pledged as security, contracted in good faith and for fair value. 1.10 Project. The development and associated amenities, and on-site and off-site improvements, as permitted under and described in the Development Plan G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11.CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Assoaates\Resolution.doc 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (Exhibit "A"), to be constructed on the Property, as the same may hereafter be further refined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 1.11 Property. The real property and any improvements thereon which is described in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. 2. Term; Amendment. 2.1 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the ( ) year anniversary date of the Effective Date, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 2.2 Amendment. The parties to this Agreement at their sole discretion and by their mutual written consent may from time to time amend the provisions and terms of this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto. Any amendment to this Agreement or the Exhibits hereto as provided herein shall be effected only upon compliance with the procedures for amendment, if any, required by the Development Agreement Legislation and the Development Agreement Ordinance. The City shall, after any such amendment takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such amendment to be recorded in the official records of the County of Riverside. 3. General Development of the Project 3.1 Project. (a) The Project is defined and described in the Development Plan attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A", which specifies for the purpose of this Agreement all of the aspects of the Project contained in the application and conditions of PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 and this Development Agreement DA 07-02 including all conditions contained in said approval and this Agreement. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (b) Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in accordance with, and development of the Project during the Term shall be governed by, the Development Plan and, to the extent not inconsistent with or modified by the Development Plan, the Existing Land Use Ordinances. Developer's right to develop the Property in accordance with this Section 3.1 shall be without regard to future ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies of the City or referenda of the voters of the City, including, without limitation, those with respect to moratoriums for utility service, other than ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies of the City which limit or condition the rate, timing or sequencing of development of the Property and which are required solely as a result of then existing shortages of utility service capacity or facilities. 3.2 Building Permits and Other Approvals and Permits. Subject to (a) Developer's compliance with this Agreement, the Development Plan, the Existing Land Use Ordinances and the Building Ordinances, and (b) payment of the usual and customary fees and charges of general application charged for the processing of such applications, permits and certificates and for any utility connection, or similar fees and charges of general application, the City shall process and issue to Developer promptly upon application therefore all necessary use permits, building permits, occupancy certificates, and other required permits for the construction, use and occupancy of the Project, or any portion thereof, as applied for, including connection to all utility systems under the City's jurisdiction and control (to the extent that such connections are physically feasible and that such utility systems are capable of adequately servicing the Project). G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3.3 Procedures and Standards. The standards for granting or withholding permits or approvals required hereunder in connection with the development of the Project shall be governed as provided herein by the standards, terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Development Plan, and to the extent not inconsistent therewith, the Existing Land Use Ordinances, but the procedures for processing applications for such permits pre-approvals .(including the usual and customary fees of general application charged for such processing) shall be governed by such ordinances and regulations as may then be applicable and which are consistent with the Development Plan. 3.4 Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute a part of the Enacting Ordinance, as if incorporated by reference therein in full. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is intended to grant Developer the right to develop the Project pursuant to specified and known criteria and rules as set forth in the Development Plan and the Existing Land Use Ordinances, and to grant the City and the residents of the City certain benefits which they otherwise would not receive. This Agreement shall be binding upon the City and its successors in accordance with and subject to its terms and conditions notwithstanding any subsequent action of the city, whether taken by ordinance or resolution of the City Council, by referenda, initiative, or otherwise. The parties acknowledge and agree that by entering into this Agreement and relying thereupon, the Developer has obtained, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, a vested right to proceed with its development of the Project in accordance with the proposed uses of the Property, the density and intensity of development of the Property and the requirements and guidelines for the G\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. construction or provision of on-site and off-site improvements as set forth in the Development Plan and the Existing Land Use Ordinances, and the City has entered into this Agreement in order to secure the public benefits conferred upon it hereunder which are essential to alleviate current and potential problems in the City and to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents, and this Agreement is an essential element in the achievement of those goals. 3.5 Operating Memoranda. Developer and City acknowledge that the provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Developer and City, and that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes or additional provisions are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of the parties under this Agreement in order to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement and the intent of the parties with respect thereto. If and when, from time to time, the parties find that such changes or additional provisions are necessary or appropriate, and subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sentence, they shall effectuate such changes or provide for such additional provisions through operating memoranda to be approved in good faith by the parties, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further changed or supplemented from time to time as necessary, with further good faith approval of Developer and City. Upon receipt by the City of an opinion of the City Attorney to the effect that the subject matter of such operating memoranda does not require the amendment of this Agreement in the manner provided in Section 65868 of the California Government Code, then no such Operating memoranda shall require prior notice or hearing, or constitute an amendment to this Agreement; and in the case of the City, such G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07.11,CUP 07-14.DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution doc 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. operating memoranda may be approved and executed by its Community Development Director or City Manager without further action of the City Council. Failure of the parties to enter into any such operating memoranda shall not affect or abrogate any of the rights, duties or obligations of the parties hereunder or the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Specific Criteria Applicable to Development of the Project. 4.1 Applicable Ordinances. Except as set forth in the Development Plan and subject to the provisions of Section 4.2 below, the Existing Land Use ordinances shall govern the development of the Property hereunder and the granting or withholding of all permits or approvals required to develop the Property; provided, however, that (a) Developer shall be subject to all changes in processing, inspection and plan-check fees and charges imposed by City in connection with the processing of applications for development and construction upon the Property so long as such fees and charges are of general application and are not imposed solely with respect to the Property, (b) Developer shall abide by the Building ordinances in effect at the time of such applications, and (c) Developer and/or Operator of the project shall comply with all ordinances relating to operation including but not limited to Transient Occupancy Tax. 4.2 Amendment to Applicable Ordinances. In the event that the Palm Desert zoning ordinance is amended by the City in a manner which provides more favorable site development standards for the Property or any part thereof than those in effect as of the Effective Date, Developer shall have the right to notify the City in writing of its desire to be subject to all or any such new standards for the remaining term of this Agreement. If City agrees, by resolution of the City Council or by action of a City official whom the City Council may designate, such new standards shall become applicable to G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. the Property or portions thereof. Should City thereafter amend such new standards, upon the effective date of such amendment, the original new standards shall continue to apply to the Property as provided above, but Developer may notify City in writing of its desire to be subject to all or any such amended new standards and City may agree in the manner above provided to apply such amended new standards to the Property.: 4.3 Easements; Abandonments. City shall cooperate with Developer in connection with any arrangements for abandoning existing utility or other easements and the relocation thereof or creation of any new easements within the Property necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project; and if any such easement is owned by City, City shall, at the request of Developer and in the manner and to the extent permitted by law, take such action and execute such documents as may be necessary to abandon existing easements and relocate them, as necessary or appropriate in connection with the development of the Project, all at the cost and expense of the Developer. In addition, to the extent that temporary or permanent easements on property adjacent or in close proximity to the Property will be required in order for Developer to develop all or portions of the Project, the City shall cooperate with Developer in efforts to obtain or secure any such required easements.. 5. Art In Public Places. The City and Developer desire to cooperate with each other to secure the introduction and integration of public art into the Project for the purpose of enhancing the image of the City and the Project. Developer shall, at the request of the City, provide such easements upon the Property as may be reasonably required for the installation and maintenance of such public art. The location of such easements shall be mutually approved by the City and Developer. In addition to providing G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. such easements as may be reasonably required for the installation and maintenance of such public art, Developer shall pay to the City in lieu art fees at the time of and in connection with the development of the Property, or portions thereof, in accordance with the fee levels and other payment and procedural requirements of Chapter 4.10 of the Municipal Code of the City lawfully imposed at the time of development of the Property, or portions thereof. 6. Periodic Review of Compliance. In accordance with Govt. Code Section 65865.1, the Department of Community Development/Planning Staff shall review this Agreement at least each calendar year during the term of this Agreement. At such periodic reviews, Developer must demonstrate its good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as the City, and after reasonable exercise of its discretion and after reasonable notice to Developer, may require. 7. Permitted Delays; Supersedure by Subsequent Laws. 7.1 Permitted Delays. In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement with respect to delay, Developer and City shall be excused from performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of mother nature, civil commotion, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other party, any referendum elections held on the Enacting Ordinance, or the Land Use Ordinances, or any other ordinance effecting the Project or the approvals, permits or other entitlements related thereto, or restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or quasi- G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resdution.doc 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. governmental entities, enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America or the State of California or any codes, statutes, regulations or executive mandates promulgated thereunder (collectively, "Laws") , orders of courts of competent jurisdiction, or any other cause similar or dissimilar to the foregoing beyond the reasonable control of City or Developer, as applicable. Each party shall promptly notify the other party of any delay hereunder as soon as possible after the same has been ascertained. The time of performance of such obligations shall be extended by the period of any delay hereunder. 7.2 Supersedure of Subsequent Laws or Judicial Action. The provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with any new Law or decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction (a "Decision"), enacted or made after the Effective Date which prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement. Promptly after enactment of any such new Law, or issuance of such Decision, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. In addition, Developer and City shall have the right to challenge the new Law or the Decision preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement. In the event that such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, except that the Term shall be extended, in accordance with Section 7.1 above, for a period of time equal to the length of time the challenge was pursued. 8. Events of Default; Remedies; Termination. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8.1 Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 7.1 above regarding permitted delays, the failure of either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute an event of default hereunder ("Event of Default") if such defaulting party does not cure such failure within ninety (90) days following receipt of written notice of default from the other party; provided, however, that if the nature of the default is such that it cannot be cured within such ninety (90) day period, the commencement of the cure within such ninety (90) day period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed to be a cure within such period. Any notice of, default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the alleged Event of Default and the manner, if any, in which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or issuance of any permit, map, certificate of occupancy, approval or entitlement with respect to the Project. 8.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the nondefaulting party shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to damages and the right to terminate this Agreement or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise provided in Section 8.4 hereof, if either Developer or City elects to terminate this Agreement as a result of the occurrence of an Event of Default, such proceeding of termination shall G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Res\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates 1 Resolution.doc 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. constitute such party's exclusive and sole remedy, and with respect to such election City and Developer hereby waive, release and relinquish any other right or remedy otherwise available under this Agreement or at law or equity. 8.3 Waiver; Remedies Cumulative. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party shall not constitute waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to such Event of Default. No express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cover any other period of time specified in such express waiver. 8.4 Effect of Termination.. Termination of this Agreement by one party due to the other party' s default, or as a result of the exercise of the right of termination provided to the Developer under Section 8.2 hereof, shall not affect any right or duty emanating, from any approvals, permits, certificates or other entitlements with respect to the Property or the Project which were issued, approved or provided by the City prior to the date of termination of this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement because of Developer's default, then City shall retain any and all benefits, including money, land or improvements conveyed to or received by the City prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, subject to any reimbursement obligations of the City. If Developer terminates this Agreement because of City's default, or as a result of the exercise of the right of termination provided to the Developer under Section 8.2 hereof, then Developer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising out of, or approvals, permits, certificates or other G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. entitlements, on account of, any Exactions paid, given or dedicated to, or received by, City prior to the date of termination of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 8.4, all of the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereunder shall otherwise cease as of the date of the termination of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to any provision hereof, then the City shall., after such action takes effect, cause an appropriate notice of such action to be recorded in the official records of the County of Riverside. The cost of such recordation shall be borne by the party causing such action. 8.5 Third Party Actions. Any court action or proceeding brought by any third party to challenge this Agreement or any permit or approval required from City or any other governmental entity for development or construction of all or any portion of the Project, whether or not Developer is a party defendant to or real party defendant in interest in such action or proceeding, shall constitute a permitted delay under Section 7.1. 9. Encumbrances on Property. 9.1 Discretion to Encumber. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device ("Mortgage") securing financing with respect to the Property. The City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain modifications to this Agreement, and the City agrees upon request, from time-to-time, to meet with Developer and/or representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested modification. 9.2 Mortgage Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Site or any portion thereof by a Mortgagee (whether pursuant to a Mortgage, foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 9.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.2, no Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, except that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance hereunder. 9.4 Estoppel Certificates. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party, (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified, or if so amended or modified, identifying such amendments or modifications, and (iii) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof city acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees, assignees and lessees of the Developer and the holders of any Mortgage. 10. Transfers and Assignments: Effect of Agreement on Title. 10.1 Rights and Interests Appurtenant. The rights and interests conveyed as provided herein to Developer benefit and are appurtenant to the Property. Developer has the right to sell, assign and transfer any and all of its rights and interests hereunder and to delegate and assign any and all of its duties and obligations hereunder. Such rights and interests hereunder may not be sold, transferred or assigned and such duties and obligations may not be delegated or assigned except in compliance with the following conditions: (i) Said rights and interests may be sold, transferred or assigned only together with and as an incident of the sale, lease, transfer or assignment of the portions of the Property to which they relate, including any transfer or assignment pursuant to any foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of such foreclosure. Following any such sale, transfer or assignment of any of the rights and interests of Developer under this Agreement, the exercise, use and enjoyment thereof shall continue to be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as if the purchaser, transferee or assignee, were Developer hereunder. 10.2 Covenants Run with Land. (i) All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. assigns, devisees, lessees, and all other persons acquiring any rights or interests in the Property, or any portion thereof, whether by operation of laws or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns; (ii) All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law; (iii) Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder (A) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property, (B) runs with such lands, and (C) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of the Property or any portions thereof, and shall benefit each party and its lands hereunder, and each such other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such lands 11. Notices. Any notice to either party shall be in writing and given by delivering the same to such party in person or by sending the same by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to the following addresses: If to City: City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 If to Developer: Larkspur Associates LLC 73626 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.clop 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Either party may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided herein. All notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given, received, made or communicated on the date personal delivery is effected or, if mailed, on the delivery date or attempted delivery date shown on the return receipt. 12. Indemnification. 12.1 Developer's Obligation. Developer will defend, indemnify and hold the City and its elected officials, officers and employee free and harmless from any loss, cost or liability (including, without limitation, liability arising from injury or damage to persons or property, including wrongful death and worker's compensation claims) which results from (i) any obligation which arises from the development of the Property including, without limitation, obligations for the payment of money for material and labor; (ii) any failure on the part of Developer to take any action which he is required to take as provided in this Agreement; (iii) any action taken by Developer which he prohibited from taking as provided in this Agreement and (iv) any claim which results from any willful or negligent act or omission of Developer.. 12.2 City's Obligation. The City will defend, indemnify and hold Developer and its, trustees„ beneficiaries, shareholders, directors, officers and employees free and harmless from any and all loss, cost or liability (including, without limitation, liability arising from injury or damage to persons or property, including wrongful death and worker's compensation claims) which results from (i) any failure on the part of the City to take any action which it is required to take as provided in this Agreement, (ii) any action taken by G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports'PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. the City which it is prohibited from taking as provided in this Agreement and (iii) any claim which results from any willful or negligent act or omission of the City. 12.3 Environmental Assurances. Developer shall indemnify and hold the city, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless from any liability deriving from the City's execution or performance of this Agreement, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of Developer, its officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to hazardous or toxic materials, industrial hygiene, or environmental conditions created by Developer or its officers, agents or employees, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors after the Effective Date on, under which the Property, including, but not limited to soil and groundwater conditions, and Developer shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys fees, the City its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. The City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action. The provisions of this Section 13.3 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 13.0 Miscellaneous 13.1 Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contractor. It is further understood that none of the terms or provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint venture or joint enterprise between the parties hereto. 13.2 Consents. Unless otherwise herein provided, whenever approval, consent, acceptance or satisfaction (collectively, a "consent") is required of a party G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 30 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. pursuant to this Agreement, it shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Unless provision is otherwise specified in this Agreement or otherwise required by law for a specific time period, consent shall be deemed given within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written request for consent, and if a party shall neither approve nor disapprove within such thirty (30) day period, or other time period as may be specified in this Agreement or otherwise required by law for consent, that party shall then be deemed to have given its consent. If a party shall disapprove, the reasons therefor shall be stated in reasonable detail in writing. This Section does not apply to development approvals by the City. 13.3 Not a Public Dedication. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the Project or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any public use or purpose whatsoever, it being the intention and understanding of the parties that this Agreement be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed for the development of the Project as private property. 13.4 Severability. If any term, provision covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable by judgment or court order, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the relevant circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement. 13.5 Exhibits. The Exhibits listed in the Table of Contents, to which reference is made herein, are deemed incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety by reference thereto. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13.6 Entire Agreement. This written Agreement and the Exhibits hereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements, warranties or representations are superseded in total by this Agreement and Exhibits hereto. 13.7 Governing Law; Construction of Agreement. This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of California. The provisions of this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any party and consistent with the provisions hereof, in order to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereunder. The captions preceding the text of each Section, subsection and the Table of Contents hereof are included only for convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Wherever required by the context, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neuter genders, or vice versa. 13.8 Signature Pages. For convenience, the signatures of the parties of this Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on separate pages which, when attached to this Agreement, shall constitute this as one complete Agreement. 13.9 Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. 13.10 Prevailing Party's Attorney's Fees and Costs. If any party to this Agreement shall fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, or if a dispute arises with G.\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 32 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. respect to the meaning or interpretation of any provision hereof or the performance of the obligations of any party hereto, the defaulting party or the party not prevailing in such dispute, as the case may be, shall promptly pay any and all costs and expenses (including without limitation, all court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) incurred by the other party with respect to such to such dispute or in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall not be required to pay any costs or expenses (including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) which Developer may incur in respect of any hearing held pursuant to Section 7 hereof. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14.DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Aes01ution.doc 33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. DEVELOPER: By: LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California By: . Mayor Attest: Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Statf Repons\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2008 before me, (here insert name and title of notary), personally appeared , personally known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2008 before me, (here insert name and title of notary), personally appeared , personally known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP 07-11,CUP 07-14,DA 07-02 Larkspur Associates\Resolution.doc 35 CITY Of Pill DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT',CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 / TELL 760 346-0611 '•.,--�_;;v:•'• FAX:760 341-7098 ::••.`-;:•• info@palm-dcsert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW FOR THE LARKSPUR 154-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by Larkspur Associates, LLC. for approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan of design, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new three-story 106-room boutique hotel and two-story 16-condominum units including 3- bedroom lockout rooms (48 keys maximum)totaling a maximum of 154 units/keys. The project includes 204 underground parking spaces, a restaurant and bar area,gift shop, conference and meeting rooms, spa, and amenities including a roof deck pool and bar, roof deck garden and roof deck patios on 11 of the 16 condominium units. The project is located at 45-400 Larkspur Lane. - _ ' •• • — • ,`•jj jar.. IR lieteirlfr,r4=5 5 ., .r- ..r1 g I" r s ,.:. .„,,,,,,r ,,., „ • ., . .. ... _,,., ... , l.c;l .k 7 : :• . ., .. C`7' 1 :Yi YT, ., ` Li 9 7:,}�n t a c , he,.. . F, ._ an s t ai,. • r\ � 4 + � 111 s',f r , r ' �t s..,t ) v � ' 4�t>"'I A i � n' ; t 4� a . Ikk F. RevAi 1!..):1111N..YII:N.PA? .. 1:✓L.IVp.z :a.p0)LIJJ .l.Yo Ii3in2 ... Ifa 1 1, .:. [({u��� �yy/Cyi. III ' 1`- .. fry} .'^` ' f 1 W _ E 1. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian,Secretary April 28,2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 4, jeesiv2 ,&X/7791E L 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: C/7)/ Of--f y/9,#1 Z5eArr— 73 /O FREO ty 9,Q/ 2J'/L/f_ focZn, zsceT, CA 9zzlao 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: "TONY 1�i9G�9',V (7�0) G •OG// X � 4. Project Location: • 1/50 ZfIei PW i4111/' 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: ee5°[,12 oci/5, Z�C. 73•4ZG 1 4'/4 'Y /// Mem 56€7. 01- 9ZZ6,o 6. General Plan Designation: C-G 4e- A2-h' 7. Zoning: C-/ ' 3 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary,support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) 74tW•s%/21 / G ,To2 tzY6 /O(o dN/73 At/ 7?/ 77.49-,50010 , ' CorI/cv in/Gy12 t4WT5 .t//T//loC,L'D r-Av//l,S Td? G//Y� ,LirYs'. N7; SI9�, emiceeFi et /v°u,� g-Al/7ms, envParC' Wo i A/,Jb 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) /I.�i • Cornnr� r�cl6- Gal . sovTtf- SST- T4 j 61/ -S7IIe &VI/PO/OM/WS hf 7= I Ca/r/rt/g,QC,1L sM 'A/6- CoN1e-2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval,or participation agreement): /7g( inn, 6169-L el//✓2J, BwG,CYit/t Ake2 Y//d /e /2/e5 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics El Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality • Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources ® Geology/Soils • Hazards&Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources ® Noise 0 Population/Housing El Public Services Recreation 0 Transportation/'Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance CITY(STANDARD)\.SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 1 of 15 FORM"J" DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: (l I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. AWL /7, ZooB Signature Date O�Yf- O/7Y Oi V,Z;/g Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 2 of 15 FORM "J" Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ® 0 a scenic vista'? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 3 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for El agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use'? AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan'? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)'? CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.I Page 4 of 15 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 0 2C1- either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the 0 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'? CITY(S"TANI)ARD)\SACUT0\2006\22628.I Page 5 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, 0 0 ❑ in including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to El0 0 X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: • i) Rupture of a known earthquake0 0 {�( fault,as delineated on the most �` recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 00 0 21. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or 0 ❑ ❑ g the loss of topsoil? CITY(S•I'ANDARD)\SACUTB\2000\22628.1 Page 6 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle Cgr hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 7 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an 0 airport land use plan or, where such ►��1 a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards 0 or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 8 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map'? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established � 1. community? CITY(STANDARD)\SAC\JTB\2006\22628.I Page 9 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land0 O }�{ use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan'? NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation � ❑ of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies'? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels'? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? d) A substantial temporary or periodic � ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY(STANDARD)\SAC VT[3\2006\22628.1 Page 10 of 15 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse cgt physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? El CITY(STANDARD)\SAC.'\JTB\2006\22628.I Page 11 of 15 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks'? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities'? ❑ ❑ ❑ RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ {q� neighborhood and regional parks or +` other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment'? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)'? b) Exceed,either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways'? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ ;"- patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks'? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2000\22628.1 Page 12 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatmentEl requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the constructionEl of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water suppliesEl available to serve the project from l� existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination,the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610),and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). G"lY(STANDARD)\SAC'UTB\2006\22628.1 Page 13 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the � ry wastewater treatment provider ►`�' which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) CITY(STANDARD)\SACUTB\2006\22628.1 Page 14 of 15 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CITY(STANDARD)\SAC\JTB\2006\22628.1 Page 15 of 15 FORM "7" INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. CASE NOS. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) AESTHETICS a. The site is currently vacant; therefore any new construction will alter the views to the surrounding property owners. d. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a, b, c. The site is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert vegetation. The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on maps as agricultural. III. AIR QUALITY a & b. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be watered during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance requires this. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. d. The proposed development does not call for uses that would create substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The project is located within the City's commercial core and will not impact any habitat or biological resources. b. No riparian habitat present on site. c. No wetlands habitat present on site. d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site. e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that delineated in item (a) above. f. N/A V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. A field study found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a (I-iv). The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have concluded that with proper building design, which is required by the Uniform Building Code, people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion, which is common in this area. There is no topsoil present. c. See mitigation measure above. d. See mitigation measure above. 2 INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be used, as sewers are available. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. c. There is no school within 1/4 mile of the site. d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport. f. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is a sufficient water supply to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard. 3 INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 h. See (g). I. Area is not subject to flooding. j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The site is zoned for the proposed use. b. Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (al). X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. Xl. NOISE a, b, c, d. • Construction of the project will increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise ordinance. • A hotel project adjacent to residential development may have negative noise impacts. The developer is concerned about noise just as much as staff is because noise from hotel guests will negatively impact the operations of the hotel as much as it will impact the surrounding neighborhood. Noise complaints from hotel guests will result in complaints, refunds and a negative image. It is in the hotel's best interest to regulate and control any potential noise problems. MITIGATION MEASURES 4 INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 o Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise levels will be mitigated so that the General Plan Noise Element limits are not exceeded. o Eleven of the 16 condominium suites are designed with roof decks that include a spa. The suites along the east property line were specifically designed without the roof decks because they are adjacent to residential condominium owners. For the 11 suites with a roof deck, a condition of approval has been added to the project prohibiting hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm Sundays through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. This condition will implement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the adjacent property owners. e & f. Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c. The proposed project is for a new boutique hotel with 16 condominium units. The condominium map will be processed as part of a separate approval and is for financing purposes only. The project is not intended to house permanent residences. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated for a planned community development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) will be installed by the developer. The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. Fire and Police Protection Police and Fire service has indicated that they can service the proposed project. Schools The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of building permit issuance. Parks 5 INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 The project will not impact parks. Other Public Facilities Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. XIV. RECREATION The hotel project will bring new tourism and visitors to the valley. They project is providing on-site amenities and will not increase the use of current parks or recreational facilities within the area. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a-b. As part of the project, the applicant provided a traffic analysis report to determine and evaluate any potential negative traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and local intersections. The first report was submitted on April 7, 2008 and a revised report was submitted on May 5, 2008. The revised report is included as an attachment to the staff report. The City's General Plan established a Level of Services (LOS) "C" as the minimum acceptable condition for traffic flow during peak hours. Currently, the surrounding intersections and roadways operate at LOS C during peak hours. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,258 trips per weekday with 94 trips during the midday peak hour and 91 during the PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the anticipated trip generation is 1,261 trips with 111 trips during the midday peak hour. Based on this report, the anticipated trips per day from the project will result in an increase of no more than 1.5 additional vehicles per 60 seconds during midday and PM peak hours and no more than 2 vehicles per 60 seconds during the Saturday peak hour. The report indicates that the LOS for the roadways and intersections will continue to operate at a LOS C, which is consistent with the City's General Plan. There are no negative traffic impacts from the proposed hotel. c. Project will not change air traffic patterns. d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. e. Emergency access will be acceptable. 6 INITIAL STUDY DA 07-02, PP 07-11, AND CUP 07-14 f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities,which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. g. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists and the project is within walking distance to the City's commercial core. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. c. Construction of said facilities is currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through Environmental Conservation Department. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. See IV (a). b. None. c. None. 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Tony Bagato FROM: Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner SUBJECT: PP 7-11 Larkspur Associates-Hotel-Conditions of Approval DATE: Ap;ril 18, 2008 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the city for the life of the project, consistent with the Municipal Code provisions and the approved landscaped plan. 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. BONDS AND FEES 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees ( TUMF) Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking/approval prior to permit issuance. 9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the City_s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ( 24.04) . 12. Landscape plans shall be checked prior to for consistency, and submitted for review concurrently, with grading plans. 13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with City standards including: • Installation of 6' sidewalk along Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane. • Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and no occupancy permit shall be granted until the improvements have been completed. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 17. Entrance aisles to underground parking shall be a minimum 24' in width with 2' clear on each side for a total width of 28', widening to 34' and/or a combination that achieves an acceptable turning radius on the ramp landings. 18. Parking space depths and aisle widths shall be adjusted to meet minimum city code requirements. Phil Joy 11 41 AT Eli ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY 4 AVA, ' � STRI COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 •COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 •FAX(760)398-3711 DIRECTORS: OFFICERS: PETER NELSON,PRESIDENT STEVEN B.ROBBINS, PATRICIA A.LARSON,VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER, JOHN W.McFADDEN ASST.GENERAL MANAGER RUSSELL KITAHARA December 7, 2007 JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY DAN PARKS,ASST TO GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS RECEIVED File: 011631.1 0 Tony Bagato DEC, ` 0721.1 Department of Community Development ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Palm Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Bagato: Subject: DA 07-01, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need to review drainage design further. This project lies within the Study Area Boundary of the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (September 2002). The District will provide domestic water and sanitation service to this area and such service will be subject to the satisfaction of terms and conditions established by the District and exercised from time to time, including but not limited to fees and charges,water conservation measures, etc. This notice of domestic water and sanitation service availability can only be used and relied upon for the specific property for which it was issued and shall expire three (3) years from date of issuance. Domestic water and sanitation service remains at all times subject to changes in regulations adopted by the District's Board of Directors including reductions in or suspensions of service. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the interceptor will be inspected by the District. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Tony Bagato City of Palm Desert 2 December 7, 2007 The District requires detail, repair and lube auto shops and car washes to install an oil and sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be inspected by the District. The District requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the District. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. The project lies within the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. Groundwater production within the area of benefit is subject to a replenishment assessment in accordance with the State Water Code. All water wells owned or operated by an entity producing more than 25 acre-feet of water during any year must be equipped with a water-measuring device. A District Water Production Metering Agreement is required to ensure District staff regularly read and maintain this water- measuring device. If you have any questions please call Scott Schedell, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2266. Y ur ly, Mark L. Johnson Director of Engineering cc: Jeff Johnson Riverside County Department of Public Health 38-686 El Cerrito Road Palm Desert, CA 92211 Larkspur Associates 73-626 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 SS:ch\eng\sw\07\dec\DA 07-02 050620-4 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT I I VV.L.1 GI III. V I-LU-GVVI.1 Z 14 Lit L.,./1,1\11.-S-• VW/NVIL,11•t-/ ......... .._..—--.... -..---. -.... #, 1 Ot V#0 ‘ \ '..o, '.# #0 # # ,c-cr I . ••• 1• I"11 , ; _ 11 ••- -••• • • - • • ''•'' ./ '•/ X ‘..\ ' - . • ' . , /". ,./ ‘•,..' UP 1 2 3 41'5..'‘: ..-. >':. '''/ ..\/‘z..;//\ 1‘;>(\ ./. '>...\';'C'''''''\'‘ ''':.(>(‘‘'.''',\:‘:\:\:•:\'';'‘..1:',7.:\-..-..' Y •,' ' '' `v . • -/ \../ ...,' •./ ',/ \-• 'N(' -. ... 77777r7777A777797nirrii. 6 6 '‘' 2/ / `,./ \., '' -• ‘/\ \ 0. . />c\/\ ( \)•,, \\' \//,.,,, ‘, ,v, / „;› \ • ‘.\\ : ': / >\ .-.• ,\-\. \ '' 4 )'• ..7 < \ ,, ,/ ‘.. .. z,•. /. .,‘ ;\ /)K \ ;,,, /,,, /•,. > /. K., --,, ,,‘, \ is,. //, 2\ ,X. /-, .. \' \'' \"' , • \ \< X \ \. A X \. / \ // .)// \ '/ >/' \ \ / , /.. , , , ../ / ,„ \, / \ ,• , \./ ,,,y/.-' ri, cs / ‘,. s, ...- ,,/. .< ,,., ,.. •'.. \ .\\.<\ -:\ '.• /\ /\ L\. ‘,/ •.,, - .../ .. r ,., /- .•, ./ ; . < >. .> K. ..... / ,.. 7 .\/ • ./. -' \>< \. \/ ./ ,/ ..../ x • /\ ., .. /• ,-,.\,/.- ‘ ./ .., /\ ., .,/.•. /• ,/\ /, „ .\,/ .,, Irmo . /,>\ / . • X\ /\/2\2\ •. X, . \. ,'\K `,k .././‘.' ‘.),.' \./\./2><\:. CONFERENCE $ K x, ,., y x x x. 4? :\y"\ - \/ , \--- -.'\ /"/'\- ROOM /‘2, ''' /. CN1 e, i,„„.,;• , . / , ./.\ ,,, , ›.,‘ /.\ , \ , \ ., \ ,/,‘ ,, . -,• • •'‘ , •, \. ‘..; , . „,<' .,,, „„ , ;„ , . /. „ , 2: ' .- x. %113 . • •,- . - / •..-'. .s, , • - ,, --,-' ,./ '‘,/ '.:\ .• '7 '‘ '‘.*/ ' ' / - r - ' x • -. , , / ,,-- X , . ,.• . ', /- •.• / .'.. /. ,. /.. //\ / '.., •-• . >••,,, ., • \ • •`< '' / //- /•, ,XX /v-, ,--- • -, \ / X'‘,.„7-•„K• ''-•r /' iv-cr .. i ,/'' • x.'X '\< /• \''' '--X- ./ •••/' --' :- ,./ >, • . . >. . . 7 .1,!: r r .• .. .. < /; • . LI , .:-i,-,.-/..,:.-:-:- SERVICE AREA):',.:>;':,.,,„'.\.:‘,.•-•:<.',-,:,..< ,\,< .,'>)".:,'?; -'.N.., .'_,.• ./..%--:-:-.\''.e::`,Z ‘..,,,. . ,.. ;‘,-<:•. ..//-4.-::, -‘;; ,. ,,,--;.: :-..,///,.,.- ,': ppopERN LINE •(;>:‘,.‘‘...,•:,•, -.., ,..• . _,, ..,., .,,,•, -.• ;• .. ., ,:.. , .....,, -, x‘ ,,...• • .,-. • -, •., • /,_ ,-.,..-...-.,-. ./, .-,- , „ •-,•••/.., .• ,•, ,,,,././-,-,-,.. -....,/.,./„.....,,.. . . . . • . 1 . . . r • •- • ..• .,. tin P *4C hoe . e/th otiefrete 4 .-- . 617/,. LARKSPUR LANE Ocho• Deccin Associ•t•• , CA Notk__ 5-c • . 4,01,18•11,•“1.•i.orplenn.ne -.(i604i-478.4„ -.(c, El Paseo Hotel 17,3-5.• /.,., r. L• ,,,...i... 1 -29-08 rev. -.v. -- �.. ..�... +. / I v. I I....V 14.1 I •1 1 �- Palm Desert Fire Department � �'�� Fire Prevention Bureau 1‘). In cooperation with Riveralde County Fire Department 73710 Fred Waring Dr.Suite 102 Palm Desert Ca 92260 760-346-1870 Fax 760-779-1959 Palm Desert Fire Marshal's Office 73710 Fred Waring Drive 4102 Palm Desert CA 92260 (760)346-1870 TO: -- 23 - ,moo DATE: tCk . 51 REF: epsrep kltk., 0.491.1t CD-07, C17-4 I Ah..ct Cot' e 7-f y jr circled,conditions apply to nrojcct 'FM °Arai 4 con-GA-We QWith respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code,NFPA,CFC,and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel of construction of all buildings Der UFC article 87. V' A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the lob site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings (i 3000 apm for commercial buildings 1 I The required firs flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s)4"x 2 W'x 2 s",located not less than 25' nor more than: 6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway ® 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelwav Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the reauired fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet theseqgired fire flow. 11 Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area.The Fire Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections.MI valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved /�AS hydrant Exempted are one and tip family dwellings.(32 All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chanter 9. (3) Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chanter 3. 4101 Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance.A"K"type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usaee. 16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6"of vertical clearance.Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36'wide and 32' wide with parking on one side.Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial deyelppmeats. OP Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box"key override system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16"with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6", 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accented. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency,to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occunancv tvne. gYp All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. AU fire sprinkler systems,fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval near to construction. CPConditions subject to change with adoption of new codes,ordinances, laws,or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at(760)346-1870 in Palm Desert. Location:73-710 Fred Warina Drive#102.Palm Desert CA 92260 Other: ZZ 'Q —1Zt - Opsc_ii,r.A v\"2,04�r ` �L�' —)147 C` C'�C Ce. L`- I. Sincerely, Jorge Rodriguez Fire Marshal • (- ( :.-'���••. CITY OF PALM DESERT Awa 124N �` �,, I COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT b�,�)ti !1 '& i . ,� . �• INTEROFFICE MEMORA f_ =9 3 . `E EJVED k;I.;i 1 6 2007 'F TO: /TONY BAGATO, PLANNING MANAGER '0MMO.I r ':UPMENTr1E;Atli MEYT CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBJECT: PARCEL NUMBER (S): 627-262-008 and 627-262-011 DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 The above parcel has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. • Bus Shelter: After reviewing the plans it has been determined that this project will not be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. Trash Enclosures: The plan does not appear to reflect a trash/recycling enclosure(s). Since the project is mixed use, the planned trash/recycling enclosure(s) must be consistent with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and may require an approved trash enclosure plan for the residential component of the project such as: separate smaller enclosures attached to each building to hold (3), 96 gallon bins. The enclosures must be built to the following specifications: 10' 6" in width, 4' in depth, and 6' in height. Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services must review and sign-off on the plans in relations to the placement and number of trash/recycling enclosures. Review of the plans by Burrtec will ensure that vehicle circulation for its trucks is adequate to service the complex and to ensure that a sufficient number of enclosures are provided to meet the needs of the complex. The Applicant may contact Jennifer with Burrtec at (760) 340- 6445 regarding this issue. r.,, , . , ____).4:r FRAN RIDDLE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Dan Kaiser, Acting Director of Building and Safety CITY OF PALM DESERT ART IN PUBLIC PLACES .'t ' - ;//ti4 • INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM cCR ,ra 3r To: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator Date: 10/10/07 Subject: Case No. PP 07-11 The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for case number PP 07-11, the El Paseo Hotel totaling 70,000 square feet be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate that the total fee is at minimum $21,000 and feel that this amount will allow for an appropriate public art project. RECEIVED OC I 1 2 2007 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .1:4416 ,....�, INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner FROM: Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Report— El Paseo Hotel DATE: April 23, 2008 My review of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the El Paseo Hotel, (prepared by Linscott, Law& Greenspan Engineers, dated April 7, 2008), results in the following comments. I find the report technically correct and can agree with the findings and conclusions. The conservative analysis indicates that vehicle delay will have a minimal increase at the six studied intersections due to the project. Level of Service (LOS) at the six locations should not be affected by the project. The vehicle trips generated by the project are not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the six study intersections. The report, however, did not present the traffic impacts of the proposed hotel in a manner that is easily understandable to the layperson, as was requested. A primary reason to prepare this report is to address the area residents' perceived traffic impacts caused by the project. Area residents may perceive the 1,100 plus added trips per day as significant. We would like the report to discuss the issue of perceived impacts by area residents in layman's terms. Under Section 6.1, Significant Traffic !mpact Criteria, the report indicates that LOS E and F are the significant impact threshold. The City of Palm Desert has established LOS "C" as our goal. The report should be revised to reflect our standard. The Traffic Impact Report should be revised to address the issues presented above prior to its acceptance. ark S. Diercks, P.E. Transportation Engineer cc: Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works Bo Chen, P.E., City Engineer Lauri Aylaian, Director of Planning Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner G:\PubWorks\Mark Diercks\word data\Memos\Memo to TBagato El Paseo Hotel Traffic Impact.doc LiNtiIUTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT EL PASEO HOTEL Palm Desert,California May 5,2008 Prepared for: Larkspur Associates 75656 Via Serena Indian Wells, California 92037 LLG Ref. 2-08-2975 Prepared By: Under the Supervision of: Shane Green Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Linnet Law Transportation Engineer I Principal 1580 Corporate Drive Suite 122 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 714.641.15/7 r 714.641.0139 F wwwJlgengineers.com LINSI.OI L A W & GREENSPAN enyinCer % May 5, 2008 Engineers a Plums Traffic Transportation Mr. William De Leeuw Parking Larkspur Associates 75656 Via Serena uneco%Law& Indian Wells, California 92037 Greenspan,Engineers1580CorporateDrive Costa LLG Reference: 2.08.2975.1 Costa Mesa, ena.CA 92626 714.641.1587 T Subject: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for El Paseo Hotel 714.641.013s F Palm Desert,CA www.11gengineers.com Dear Mr. De Leeuw: Pasadena Costa Mesa As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this San Die Las Vegas Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for El Paseo Hotel, a proposed 154-unit boutique hotel to be developed by Larkspur Associates. The project site is a rectangular-shaped vacant parcel of land located north of Shadow Mountain Drive and east of Larkspur Lane in the City of Palm Desert, California. The proposed project includes the construction of a 106-room boutique hotel and 48-room condominium with a 205- space parking structure. This traffic analysis summarizes the trip generation potential for the proposed Project, develops an estimated project traffic distribution pattern, and assigns the project-related trips to the roadway system within the project vicinity. The traffic analysis evaluates the relative traffic impacts of the proposed Project at six (6) study intersections within a near-term cumulative traffic setting(2010). We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this analysis. A summary of findings :aid conclusions can be found on pages 21 and 22 of this report. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please contact our office at(714)641-1587. Sincerely, Philip M.Linscott,PE ne2620801 Linscott,Law& Greenspan,Engineers Jack M.Greenspan,PE IReU William A.Law,PE INetl Paul W.Wilkinson,PE John P.Keating,PE Richard E. Barretto,P.E. Shane Green Oavid S.Spender,PE Principal Transportation Engineer I John A Boorman,PE Clare M.Look-Jaeger,PE cc: File Richard E Barretto,PE Keil D.Maberry,PE An LG2We company Founded 1816 N\2900\2O82975\Repott\2975 El Paseo Hotel Cover Letter 5-05.08 dot TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Project Description and Setting 2 3.0 Study Scope 3 3.1 traffic Analysis lime Period and Study Intersections 3 4.0 Existing Conditions 4 4.1 Existing Street Network 4 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 4 4.3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service 4 4.4 Existing Traffic Conditions 6 5.0 Traffic Forecasts 9 5.1 Project Traffic Volumes 9 5.1.1 Project Trip Generation 9 5.1.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment 12 5.2 Cumulative Base Projects 13 5.2.1 Year 2010: Background Traffic Growth 13 5.2.2 Year 2010: Cumulative Project Forecasts 13 5.3 Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes 13 5.4 Year 2010 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Forecasts 13 6.0 Traffic Impact Analysis 16 6.1 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria 16 6.2 Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions 17 6.3 Year 2010 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions • 17 7.0 Site Access Evaluation I9 8.0 Summary of Findings 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Intersection Peak Period Traffic Counts B. Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Worksheets UNSCOtt,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 2900 20.4207S Repcm'297,Re.'e,I FI Paw('Hold TI 1 5-5-03 dot LIST OF FIGURES SECTION-FIGURE# FOLLOWING PAGE Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2-2: Proposed Site Plan 2 Figure 3-1: Study Area 3 Figure 4-1: Existing Roadway and Intersection Physical Characteristics 4 Figure 4-2: Existing Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 Figure 4-3: Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 Figure 4-4: Existing Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 Figure 5-1: Project Distribution Pattern 12 Figure 5-2: Project-Generated Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 5-3: Project-Generated Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 5-4: Project-Generated Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Figure 5-5: Related Projects Location Map 13 Figure 5-6: Year 2010 Cumulative Base Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 5-7: Year 2010 Cumulative Base Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 5-8: Year 2010 Cumulative Base Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 5-9: Year 2010 Cumulative+Project Weekday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 5-10: Year 2010 Cumulative+Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 Figure 5-11: Year 2010 Cumulative+Project Saturday Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15 • LINSOOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 II El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert ).3O2 ?<Rvi lt, 7iRoue Elr,.„IfoidII ; d,, LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE# PAGE Table 4-1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 5 Table 4-2: Level of Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections 7 Table 4-3: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels Of Service 8 Table 5-1: Project Trip Generation Forecast—Option 1 10 Table 5-2: Project Trip Generation Forecast—Option 2 11 Table 5-3: Location and Description of Related Projects 14 Table 5-4: Related Projects Traffic Generation Forecasts 15 Table 6-1: Year 2010 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service 18 Table 7-1: Year 2010 Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service For Project Driveway Intersections 20 LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 III El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 2oOo 2083u75-Repo,t'207i Rea.<d II I'.,.e Holel TI,\S-i-08 tow: REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT EL PASEO HOTEL Palm Desert,California May 5,2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of the traffic impact analysis report conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to determine and evaluate the traffic impacts needs associated with El Paseo Hotel project (hereinafter referred to as Project). The report presents an inventory of existing characteristics and traffic volumes on roadways adjoining the Project site, forecasts vehicular traffic anticipated to be generated by the Project, evaluates potential impacts of these Project-generated trips on the surrounding street system, and determines whether mitigation measures are necessary to alleviate Project-specific impacts. The project site is a rectangular-shaped vacant parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane in the City of Palm Desert, California. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers 1 LLG Ref.2-08-2975 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert ;.2,o(K)',2os297:kRrpmi 297,Re,,sect FI Pa>e,,HWd Tl l S c OS,k,c 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The Project is located in the City of Palm Desert's El Paseo Shopping District, also known as the "Rodeo Drive of the Desert". This mile-long stretch of El Paseo serves a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses, and runs parallel to SR-111, one block to the south of the Highway. El Paseo has a landscaped median, and provides on-street parking on both sides of the street. The proposed Project consists of 106-room boutique hotel and 48-room condominium with a 205- space parking garage in the City of Palm Desert, California. The project site is a rectangular shaped vacant parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the project site in relation to the surrounding street system. Figure 2-2 presents the proposed site plan for the Project prepared by Ochoa Design Associates. The Project is expected to be completed by Year 2010. UNSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 2 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N,?otH)•2OS_19),\Rcpnri'2n7,Re.ual I I Pax,Had TI 5•..5 0S,b. 3.0 STUDY SCOPE The work scope for this study, including the base assumptions, technical methodologies, and geographic coverage, satisfies standard City and Congestion Management Program (CMP) impact study guidelines/requirements, and was developed in conjunction with City of Palm Desert Traffic Engineering and Planning staff. The following traffic scenarios are addressed in the study: • Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing traffic conditions is intended to provide a base analysis for the remainder of the study. The existing conditions analysis includes an assessment of the key roadways in the area, current traffic volumes, and circulation. • Year 2010 Cumulative Base Conditions —This phase of analysis projects future traffic growth and operating conditions in the Year 2010 (anticipated completion year for the project) which could be expected to result from regional growth and related/cumulative projects without the addition of project traffic. • Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project Conditions - This is an analysis of future traffic conditions in the Year 2010 with the addition of project-generated traffic. Any potential traffic impacts will be determined, and mitigation measures developed. 3.1 Traffic Analysis Time Period and Study Intersections Traffic studies typically locus on the time period during the day when the transportation system is most heavily loaded and constrained. 'File purpose of the traffic study is to eietermitie the adequacy of the transportation system to accommodate the peak demand of a project. If the transportation system can accommodate the peak period of a project. the system can also accommodate other time periods. provided the regional demands on the transportation system are loser. Within the City of Palm t)esctt, the City requires that a project's potential traffic impacts he evaluated during the weekday Midday Peak I-four and PM Peak }lour and Saturday Midday. Peak I Tour. It is during these three peak hours that traffic vohtrues in the desert arc typically at its peak. Three signalized intersections and three stop-controlled intersections were selected for detailed peak hour level of service analysis under each of the scenarios identified above. The analysis is focused on assessing potential impacts during the weekday midday peak hour (between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM), weekday afternoon commute peak hour (between 4:00 and 6:00 PM), and Saturday midday peak hour(between 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM) at the 6 study intersections and two project driveways. Figure 3-1 illustrates the study area and the 6 key intersections analyzed, which include the following(signalized intersection,except where noted): 1. San Pablo Avenue at El Paseo 2. Larkspur Lane at El Paseo 3. San Luis Rey Avenue at El Paseo 4. San Pablo Avenue at Shadow Mountain Drive(unsignalized) 5. Larkspur Lane at Shadow Mountain Drive(unsignalized) 6. San Luis Rey Avenue at Shadow Mountain Drive (unsignalized) LWSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers 3 LLG Ref.2-08-2975 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N'2`40 2uS2 75'Rrix,ri?47 Rr.nrd H I'.r'IInL TIA c.5.0x rkn 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The assessment of existing conditions includes an inventory of the street system, traffic volumes using these facilities, and traffic operating conditions at analyzed locations. 4.1 Existing Street Network A comprehensive inventory of the street system within the study area was undertaken to develop a detailed description of existing traffic conditions. Figure 4-1 illustrates the existing physical characteristics of the streets, including lane configurations and traffic control at intersections, number of travel lanes, posted speed limits, and median types along roadways. 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday midday and PM peak period, and Saturday midday peak period traffic counts were collected at the five of the 6 key intersections during in March 2007, with supplemental traffic counts collected at the sixth location in March 2008. Appendix A contains the intersection peak period traffic counts. Figures 4-2 through 4-4 illustrate the existing weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. 4.3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system and how drivers and passengers perceive these conditions. Level of service ranges from LOS A (free- flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions). Per the City's General Plan, LOS C is the goal in Palm Desert. Exceeding that goal would only be acceptable where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented. Based upon City guidelines, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) signalized methodology was used to determine the level of service for the three signalized key intersections. Based on the HCM method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average control delay per vehicle,which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption,and lost travel time. The levels of service criteria for signalized intersections are shown in Table 4-1. The following default values and assumptions were applied in the level of service analyses, based on the County of Riverside input parameters (Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, August 2005) and other traffic studies completed in the area. • Base Saturation Flow Rate: 1900 pc/hr/ln(per RCTD) • Heavy Vehicle Factor: 0%(per LLG) • Cycle Length: 100 seconds(per LLG) • Lost Time: 16 seconds for four-phase signals; 12 seconds for three-phase signals; 8 seconds for two-phase signals(per RCTD and HCM) • Amber Time: 4 seconds/phase(per LLG) LWSCOru,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers 4 El LLG Ref.2-08-2975 Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert V 2900 20S29/i RV).i 797,Rr'wrd El P.nro Fiterl I I•\>S.OS do,. TABLE 4-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS1 Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during A < 10.0 the green phase.Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. This level generally occurs with good progression, B > 10.0 and<20.0 short cycle lengths,or both.More vehicles stop than with LOS A,causing higher levels of average delay. Average traffic delays.These higher delays may result from fair progression,longer cycle lengths,or C >20.0 and<35,0 both• Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level.The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level,though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Long traffic delays At level D,the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable D >35.0 and<55.0 progression, long cycle lengths,or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies(i.e. SANBAG)to be the limit of E >55.0 and<80.0 acceptable delay.These high delay values generally indicate poor progression,long cycle lengths,and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Severe congestion This level,considered to be unacceptable to most drivers,often occurs with over saturation,that is,when arrival flow rates exceed F >_80.0 the capacity of the intersection.It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures.Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels. Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2000,Chapter 16(Signalized Intersections). LINScOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers 5 El LLG Ref.2-08-2975 Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert �i ?)O_2OS2'EI Relay xi,<RCN n,d F.I P-,.cu Hotel TI 1 t,N-08 IsL • Minimum Green: through movements are given the minimum pedestrian crossing time and turning movements are given 7 seconds(per RCTD) • Minimum Pedestrian Crossing Time: based on the signal timing plans if available, or calculated by using the minimum pedestrian crossing time equation(per HCM) • Analysis Time Period: 0.25 hour(per HCM) • Peak Hour Factor: 0.95 (per LLG) The 2000 HCM unsignalized methodology for stop-controlled intersections was utilized for the analysis of the three unsignalized key intersections. This methodology estimates the control delay (expressed in seconds per vehicle) for each of the traffic movements on each approach of the intersection, and determines the level of service for each movement based on the control delay for the subject movement. The control delay and level of service reported for the intersection corresponds to the most constrained movement. The levels of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are shown in Table 4-2. Based upon the level of service methodologies described, the existing peak hour traffic volumes presented in Figures 4-2 through 4-4 were used in conjunction with existing lane configurations illustrated in Figure 4-1 to determine the current traffic operating conditions at the 6 key intersections. Appendix B contains the detailed level of service worksheets. 4.4 Existing Traffic Conditions Table 4-3 summarizes the existing peak hour levels of service at the 6 study intersections. As shown, all of the key intersections currently meet the City's LOS goal during the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours, with each of the study intersections currently operating at LOS C or better. Lwscon,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref 2.08-2975 6 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 7900 2082)7 R, ,i 2`0,Rt.,.ed Ei P:,xo H,aal TI\c.:-0s h, TABLE 42 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS2 Level of Service Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Description (LOS) Delay Value(sec/veh) A 5 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and 5 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and 5 25.0 Average traffic delays D >25.0 and<_35.0 Long traffic delays E >35.0 and 5 50.0 Very long traffic delays F >50.0 Severe congestion • 2 Source:Highway Capacity Manual2000,Chapter 17(Unsignalized Intersections). LiNscorr,Law&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 7 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 2,00 2092,0'Rgyvni,97,Re,ued Fi Pe.,„Hotel-ri\,.y_n3,M, TABLE 4-3 EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICES Time Control Delay Key Intersections Period Type (sec/veh) LOS 1. San Pablo Ave at Midday 50 Traffic 19.2 B El Paseo PM Signal 19.0 B Sat.Midday 18.5 B 2. Larkspur Lane at Midday 50 Traffic 23.4 C El Paseo PM Signal 22.2 C Sat. Midday 24.2 C 3. San Luis Rey Ave at Midday 50 Traffic 22.7 C El Paseo PM Signal 23.0 C Sat.Midday 22.5 C 4. San Pablo Ave at Midday One-Way 10.4 B Shadow Mountain Dr PM Stop Control 10.3 B Sat. Midday 9.6 A 5. Larkspur Lane at Midday One-Way 10.3 B Shadow Mountain Dr PM Stop Control 10.2 B Sat.Midday 10.1 B 6. San Luis Rey Ave at Midday All-Way 8.5 A Shadow Mountain Dr PM Stop Control 8.4 A Sat.Midday 8.1 A Notes. ■ LOS=Level of Service,please refer to Tables 4-1 and 4-2 for the LOS definitions. • Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Palm Desert LOS standards: s Appendix B contains HCM LOS sheets for key study intersections. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 8 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N. ,.)Op],,j?n7<Rcr,,,i 24.,:Rr.,•cd Ft Pair,'II,,,.i ri\•.:.nS.l,,, 5.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS To evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development, the amount of traffic that could be generated by the Project (i.e., project traffic generation), and future traffic volumes on the surrounding street system (i.e., Cumulative Base forecasts), was forecast. The Cumulative Base scenario (representing future conditions without the proposed Project) could then be compared with the Cumulative Plus Project scenario(representing future conditions with the project). 5.1 Project Traffic Volumes A multi-step process was utilized to develop Project traffic forecasts. The first step is project traffic generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic at the project site on a peak hour and daily basis. The second step of the forecasting process is Project traffic distribution, which involves the development of a geographic trip distribution pattern that identifies the origins/destinations of project traffic. The third step is project traffic assignment, by which Project- generated trips are allocated on the street system. 5.1.1 Project Trip Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Seventh Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) [Washington, D.C.,2003]. Table 5-1 summarizes the trip generation forecast for the Project as a mixture of 48-condominium units and 106 hotel rooms. As shown, under this assumption (Option 1), it is estimated that on a typical weekday, the Project is expected to generate a total of 1,147 daily trips on a "typical" weekday, with 90 trips (53 inbound and 47 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour and 88 trips (50 inbound and 38 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour; on Saturday, the Project is expected to generate 1,140 daily trips with 99 trips(54 inbound and 45 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour. Table 5-2 summarizes the trip generation forecast for the Project using Hotel trip generation rates for the entire project. As indicated in Table 5-2, under this assumption(Option 2), it is estimated that a 154-room hotel is expected to generate a total of 1,258 daily trips on a "typical" weekday, with 94 trips (54 inbound and 40 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour and 91 trips (48 inbound and 43 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the proposed Project is expected to generate 1,261 daily trips with 111 trips (62 inbound and 49 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour. To provide a conservative analysis, these trips were used to evaluate the Project's potential traffic impacts at the six study intersections. LINSCorT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers 9 LW Ref.2-08-2975 El Pasco Hotel,Palm Desert 2900.'.01,97s Rrpon 2`0s Rr'nnl f'I I sm Hnlrl TIA c.S-o3 Mx k k % i /2 \ & 00 .41 2 \ § q M — # � 44 0.. ; 0 0, o - n t 2 } 0,.. : -0 2 q $ - g 2 \ 2 2 7 — p $ ...I7. 03 or; k ® oo - 7 c / \ N G # § @ ... _ & _ 0 d (.1 oo $ A § QM t • o cl.. 0 ri 2 2 r o d ) CO > k k \ \ N � . C 0 2 = . 9. § f 0 % q m \ o 2 2 o a o ~ a « w .0 R 2 - Q 3 % 2 d acn k / b • $ - — $ - 2 2 n 00 (NJ00 _ . se 0 a § 0 a a - & a \ 2 § co R \ss az @ _ Q E y e k CC E 2 ' o 8 • 8 0 1j7 k i / m « �- ( '§ A ] `§ ± § % / L. 2 § c 2 4 2 § u 0 § \ \ t § - \ N en / t4 2 $ ( cD . . / Q Q E ... 2 a � R �� o d — - )/ \ 22 j ■ a r-iq � al o « v413 os ]_ § 2 a § / k \ g S a.2 w ) [ 0 00 - - © $ ■ ¥ d & § I 0 0 & . t * _ . en 7 I d CO & w = O G 2 / 0 .0 2E. § z ■ § w 2 A 2 & ? $ \ k g w o e 3 0 2 _ / 2 § tos . _ § gV I k o \ § - � 13. . w Aoei Q. ) 0 d a .2 a £ 0 il ■ - . } @ 7 E ; ( : L E 8 J ) E r . 6 ' @ « i \ t \ 2 Q % \ C / $ O I \ § ct _ 7 .0 . 6 ' o o j t n k § o \ § S 0 E R 41 c . 0 20 © adO It should be noted that the implementation of the proposed Project, at worse, will result in no more one and half(I 1/2) additional vehicles per 60 seconds during the weekday Midday Peak I lour and PM Peak Hour and no more than two (2) additional vehicles per 60 seconds during the Saturday Peak hour. Further, although the proposed Project is forecast to generate over 1.200 daily trips, it is during the peak hours that the project's potential impacts are evaluated since transportation system is most heavily loaded and constrained at these times (i.e. weekday Midday Peak Flour and PM Peak 1-lour and Saturday Midday Peak Hour). 5.1.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the project is dependent upon the following factors: • The project's market/service area • Location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system • Location of parking areas, and ingress/egress availability at the parking areas • The site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes • Physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns • Presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity Based upon these considerations and previous traffic studies completed in the study area, a traffic distribution pattern was developed for El Paseo Hotel components of the project, as presented on Figures 5-1. The traffic expected to be generated by the project was assigned to the local street network using the project trip generation estimates presented in Table 5-2, and the distribution patterns illustrated on Figures 5-1. Figures 5-2 through 5-4 illustrate the resulting project-generated traffic volumes during the weekday midday,weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively. • LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 12 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert I. 2900•2(d29 .Repori 297,Re.i.Yl El t':,.ao Hold nl G_+_us do, 5.2 Cumulative Base Projections The Cumulative Base or "background" traffic projections account for existing traffic volumes, and include two growth elements over existing traffic volumes: (1) increase in the existing traffic volumes due to overall regional growth; and, (2) traffic generated by specific developments expected to be constructed by Year 2010 in the vicinity of the project study area. The following sections describe these two growth elements in existing traffic volumes. 5.2.1 Year 2010:Background Traffic Growth The application of a 2% growth rate to existing traffic volumes at the six key intersections was applied to horizon year 2010. The 2% annual growth rate was determined based on prior discussions with City staff. 5.2.2 Year 2010:Cumulative Project Forecasts Based on our research at the City of Palm Desert, there are two related projects within the project study area, which will be completed prior to or concurrent with the proposed Project, as presented in Figure 5-5. Table 5-3 presents the development locations and descriptions, while Table 5-4 presents the development totals and resultant trip generation for the related projects. As shown in Table 5-4, the related projects are expected to generate a combined total of 3,268 daily trips on a "typical" weekday, with 255 trips (136 inbound and 119 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour and 197 trips (101 inbound and 96 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the two related projects are expected to generate 3,333 daily trips with 305 trips (164 inbound and 141 outbound)forecast during the midday peak hour, 5.3 Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes Figures 5-6 through 5-8 illustrate the Year 2010 Cumulative Base weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. 5.4 Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project Traffic Forecasts The estimates of project-generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2010 Cumulative Base forecasts to develop traffic projections for the Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project scenario. The resulting Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes at each of the analyzed locations are shown in Figures 5-9 through 5-11 during the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours,respectively. UNSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 13 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 7,/0O fig.t 2'17,Res nai I I Pn,m Hotel TI'\ -?-OS do TABLE 5-3 • LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF RELATED PROJECTS No. Cumulative Project/City Location/Address Description Case Number I. The Garden on El Paseo San Pablo Avenue and El Paseo 27,000 SF Saks Fifth Avenue addition, 36,893 SF Retail,20,207 SF Restaurant and 15,734 SF General Office 2. San Pablo Village San Pablo Avenue and El Paseo 13,180 SF Retail,4,600 SF Office, 5,885 SF Restaurant LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 14 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert \ 2000'03?47T Repoli 0,,Re,iud FI P.i,eo HINCI TI\5-5AS ckn. I.,• p ch O O 8 O F ,. M N y 4 i a, 2 ut 0 0 d Ti gg a .0 Is B c, as w 0 ., e en c eri Ca N to 7 L 0 El x a O N 0 a a C.) re °" - N o 8 z OP. — Li W 0 F N O W t C 1 C7 J u 3 a,, 0 $ - w m c7 Q az .a - ,: W g v a W O 0, ‘.O 00 M b O • O I— N A N M W 0 ce I. O C Oa- C O tsC �QQQQ L 6j a as o q Ia 0 F 4 a 4 0 y , C. z -+ W .O 0 s. Ebo .g• . a ,2 8 • c7 a a [_ z n00d , z cv F a 6.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS This section presents a comparison of conditions with and without the Project at each analyzed intersection to determine the incremental effect of the proposed Project on Year 2010 traffic conditions. As indicated. earlier, since (rat'tic studies typically focus on the time period during the day when the transportation system is most heavily loaded and constrained, the potential traffic impacts of the project were evaluated during weekday Midday Peak Hour and PM Peak Flour and Saturday Midday Peak Hour, which represent the three peak hours that traffic volumes in the desert are typically at its peak. Detailed calculations of the levels of service are included in Appendix B. 6.1 Significant Traffic Impact Criteria In order to provide a quantitative basis for determining the significant traffic impact at a specific location, it was necessary to establish the criteria to be used in the analysis of intersections for this study. As noted previously, per the City's (ieneral Plan, MS C is the goal in Palm Desert. Based upon the City's traffic study guidelines, a project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the following criteria are met: For Signalized Intersections: • the Delay value under"with project" conditions is greater than 35 seconds per vehicle (LOSS I), F. or 1 ),and • there is an Average Delay increase attributable to the Project For Unsignalized Intersections: • the Average Delay under "with project" conditions is greater than seconds per vehicle (1,,OS D. h or E), and • there is an Average Delay increase attributable to the Project The potential significant impact at the key intersection should be mitigated to offset the Average Delay increment attributable to the Project, and to bring back the level of service to pre-Project or Cumulative Base conditions. LJNscoTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 16 El Pasco hotel,Palm Desert Y'-29OO-•.!oO."KcRepcoi.)7t Reci.ed El l'.c Hotel Ti 1;-t.OS d<n 6.2 Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions The projected Year 2010 Cumulative Base peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. As presented in Table 6-1, all of the key intersections meet the City's minimum LOS criteria during the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hours. The 6 study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better in the Year 2010. 6.3 Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project Traffic Conditions The Year 2010 Cumulative plus Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the level of service for each of the analyzed intersections. Based upon the application of the significance criteria described previously, Table 6-1 indicates that the proposed Project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the 6 key study intersections. The 6 study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better in the Year 2010 with the addition of Project traffic, as the impact of project-related traffic at each of the study intersections will result in an increase of intersection delay of not more than 1 second per vehicle (See column 3 and 4 of' :ridge fi-1), which will not likely- he noticeable. Therefore,project-related mitigation measures are not necessary. • LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 17 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert ?'OO.'oS297Y l po i,297S I .,.e,I FI Pa...n�Hutd T'.\s.t.08 dot TABLE 6.1 YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE$ 1 (2) Year 2010 Year 2010 Project Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus impact Project (::hang,e in (4) s Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Significant Key Intersections Time Period ( ) (sec/veh) (secrvch) Impact I. San Pablo Ave at Midday 19.9 B 20.0 B 0.1 No El Paseo PM 19.8 B 19.8 B 0.0 No Sat.Midday 19.4 B 19.4 B 0.0 No 2. Larkspur Lane at Midday 23.5 C 24.0 C 0.5 No El Paseo PM 22.4 C 23.1 C 0.7 No Sat.Midday 25.0 C 25.9 C 0.0 No 3. San Luis Rey Ave at Midday 23.0 C 23.1 C 0.I No El Paseo PM 23.1 C 23.3 C 0.2 No Sat.Midday 22.6 C 22.8 C 0.2 No 4. San Pablo Ave at Midday 10.9 B 11.1 B 0.2 No Shadow Mountain Dr PM 10.7 B 10.9 B 0.2 No Sat.Midday 10.0 B 10.2 B 0.2 No 5. Larkspur Lane at Midday 10.8 B 10.9 B 0.1 No Shadow Mountain Dr PM 10.5 B 10.7 B 0.2 No Sat.Midday 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.1 No 6. San Luis Rey Ave at Midday 8.9 A 9.1 A 0 2 No Shadow Mountain Dr PM 8.7 A 8.8 A r).I No Sat. Midday 8.5 A 8.6 A 0.1. No Notes: • LOS=Level of Service,please refer to Tables 4-I and 4-2 for the LOS definitions. • Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Palm Desert LOS standards. 8 Appendix B contains HCM LOS sheets for key study intersections. UNSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 18 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert v 2000 20R297,Repots 297,Ret nrJ CI Pain Hold TI,\c-c 0R Joc 7.0 SITE ACCESS EVALUATION Access to the Project will be provided via two entrances one located along Larkspur Lane and one located on Shadow Mountain Drive. Evaluation of the project site access includes review of the stacking/storage requirements at the two project driveways. The queuing evaluation was conducted based on projected peak hour project driveway traffic volumes using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized methodology. Based on the HCM service level calculation, which calculates a critical (95th percentile) queue value in number of vehicles, the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour queue length is not more than one(1)vehicle at either driveway for the outbound movements from the Project site. Table 7-1 summarizes the intersection operations at the two project driveway intersections under near-term (Year 2010) traffic conditions at completion and full occupancy of the proposed Project. The operations analysis for the project driveways is based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) methodology. Review of Table 7-1, shows that the two Project driveways are forecast to operate at LOS A or LOS B. As such, Project access will be adequate. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 19 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N 2g00`20S207a Repoli 2)I Re.n.:J El Pq.rc Hued TI\a-<.OS MM TABLE 7-1 YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR PROJECT DRIVEWAY INTERSECTIONS9 (1) (2) (3) Year 2010 Year 2010 Significant Cumulative Base Cumulative Plus Impact Project I Delay Delay Key Intersections Time Period (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Yes/No 7. Larkspur Lane at Midday - - 8.8 A No Driveway 1 PM - - 8.7 A No Sat.Midday - - 9.0 A No 8. Shadow Mountain Dr at Midday - - 10.5 B No Driveway 2 PM - - 10.4 B No Sat. Midday - 10.1 B No Notes: • LOS=Level of Service,please refer to Tables 4-1 and 4-2 for the LOS definitions. • Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Palm Desert LOS standards. v Appendix B contains HCM LOS sheets for key study intersections. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLO Ref.2-08-2975 20 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N‘?'00,2Os2)7S,Rcpou 2'7S Re,Is d El I's.ao U,id II.\,-S-OS,kx. 8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS • Project Description The proposed Project is located in the City of Palm Desert's El Paseo Shopping District, also known as the "Rodeo Drive of the Desert". The Project consists of I 06-room boutique hotel and 48-room condominium with a 205-space parking garage in the City of Palm Desert, ('alifurnia. 'lihe project site is a rectangular shaped vacant parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Shadow Mountain Drive and larkspur lane. Study Scope -- The lollo ing six (6) intersections were selected for analysis based on City of Palm Desert requirements. I. San Pablo Ave ure/LI Paseo 2. Larkspur Lane/Fl Paseo 3. San Luis Rey Avenue/El Pasco 4. San Pablo Avenue/Shadow Mountain Drive 5. Larkspur Lane/Shadow Mountain Drive 6. San Luis Rey Avenue/Shadow Mountain Drive Detailed peak hour level of service calculations were prepared at the above locations for Existing Traffic Conditions, Year 2010 Future Traffic Conditions, and Year 2010 Future Traffic Conditions plus Project. The Level of Service calculations were also prepared for the two proposed project driveway intersections one located along Larkspur Lane and the other located along Showduw Mountain Drive. Since traffic studies typically focus on the time period during the day when the transportation system is most heavily loaded and constrained. the potential traffic impacts of the project were evaluated during weekday Midday Peak I lour and PM Peak Hour and Saturday Midday Peak hour, which represent the three peak hours that traffic volumes in the desert are typically at its peak. • Level of Service (LOS) Standards and Significant Impact Criteria -- The City of r aInt Desert considers I:OS -C.' to be the minimum acceptable condition that should.he maintained during the peak hours. • Ivistin,q Traffic Conditions All six key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level of "("' or taettcr during the weekday midday. weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour. • Project Trip Generation - On a typical weekday, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 1,258 daily trips, with 94 trips (54 inbound and 40 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour and 91 trips (48 inbound and 43 outbound) forecast during the PM peak hour. On a Saturday, the proposed Project is expected togenerate 1,261 daily trip, with 1 1 1 trips (62 inbound and 49 outbound) lorecast during the midday peak hour. ft should be noted that the implementation of the proposed Project, at worse, will result in no more than one and halt(1!') additional vehicles per tat) seconds during the weekday midday peal: hour and pm peak hour and no more than two (2) additional vehicles per 60 seconds during the Saturday peak hour. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LW Ref.2-08-2975 21 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert N;2000208297c Rcj, t2"! Rr.-i.ed El P.,.ao Haoi TI 1 i.S-08 dm • Related Projects Traffic Characteristics -- Two (2) related projects were considered as part of the cumulative background setting. The two related projects included in the Year 2010 traffic conditions would generate 3,268 daily trips on a "typical" weekday, with 255 trips (136 inbound and 119 outbound) lorecast during the midday peak hour and 197 trips (101 inbound and 96 outbound) forecast during the PIA peak hour. On a Saturday, the two related projects are expected to generate 3,333 daily trips with 305 trips ( 164 inbound and 141 outbound) forecast during the midday peak hour. • Year 2010 Future 'Traffic Conditions An analysis of future (Year 2010) background traffic conditions indicates that all six key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level of "C" or better during the weekday midday, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour. • Year 21110 Future Traffic Conditions Plus Project An analysis of future (Year 2010) background plus project traffic conditions indicates that all six key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level of"C" or better during the weekday midday, weekday PM. and Saturday midday peak hour. The impact of project-related traffic at each of the study intersections will result in an increase of intersection delay of not more than 1 second per vehicle, which will not likely be noticeable. • Site Access Access to the Project will be provided via two entrances one located along Larkspur lane and one located on Shadow Mountain Drive, while 65°-i7 of the overall project traffic is associated with the Larkspur 1_ane driveway. Site access (or the proposed Project appears adequate to sufficiently accommodate the projected queues during the weekday and weekend peak hours. Motorists entering and exiting the Project site will he able to do so comfortably- safely, and without undue congestion. LINSCOTT,LAW&GREENSPAN,engineers LLG Ref.2-08-2975 22 El Paseo Hotel,Palm Desert 2000.203207aRepo L'2'75 Res'ed El P,,e,Hotel Tl,\ ................. .••• -..•... • .. CITY Of PHLffl DESERT : • . . . . • • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE W PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 ". �� TEL: 76o 346-0611 FAX: 760 340-0574 ••.•' , info@palm-desert.org March 6, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154- room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval by minute motion. Date of Action: February 26, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. 0"'°a,ncmio. ARCHITECTURAL REvIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 on the fascia, move the "A" sign that was located more on the Cabrillo/Alessandro side to the east exterior above the windows to the left of the garage bays on the low parapet. She stated that the other directional signs are for safety and had no issue, but she would prefer that if it is required to have "Fast Oil Change" be individual letters attached and non-illuminated and no monument sign. Commissioner Gregory asked that the applicant submit a revised drawing with all changes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to grant approval subject to: 1) move the "A" sign located on Cabrillo/Alessandro to the east exterior above the window to the left of the garage bays on lower parapet; 2) make "Fast Oil" individual letters, attached and non-illuminated; 3) no monument signage; and, 4) submit revised drawings. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic. ( P6uu:n J.mu;c IuJV'.WorJ I,:cs:ARC MInutts:]tTIS ARto80221;Jot 5 , , .............. ,... ...... ..•.. ..• •. CITY OF him DESERT • •• . . • • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE } j;; PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 • ��` TEL: 760 346-0611 • �',.%� �_ FAX: 760 341-7098 �ii j • info@palm-desert.org January 24, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154- room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case No. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 subject to: 1) getting more relief on the west front elevation; 2) using solar panels in an architectural way to serve as shade, but used as energy reflectors; 3) provide plans for solar panels; 4) tying in the roof access to be a part of the structure as opposed to a stair access; 5) providing an additional study on the alternate elevation of the residential portion; 6) work on the lower level massing of the condo portion; and, 7) landscape to be reviewed by Landscape Specialist. Date of Action: January 22, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 6-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. op..OP IOO4(0 IYII ARCHITECTURAL REvIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NOS: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato presented several site plan changes for El Paseo Hotel. He informed the Commission that the applicant relocated the trash enclosure and moved the loading zone; some of the architectural design was changed to allow more solar panels in the roof area; changed the roof garden to be more desert landscape; a roof plan was provided that calls out the parapet heights; replaced the pools with Jacuzzis to accommodate less water; stepped back the building to the east to soften the building and provided a landscape plan for a section of the garden detail. Mr. Juan Ochoa, Architect, felt that they have addressed all the site concerns mentioned at the previous meeting, especially on the condominium side of the project. He stated that the Jacuzzis will stay on the deck allowing them a little more freedom to modify the parapets and pitches on the condo units. There are three elements that are vertical and the rest of the rooms are stepped back. He presented some photos of the east elevation and stated that there was some concern because the three story building faces this side. This space is very lush and there is about 100 feet of buffer or more from the building and the homes. Commissioner Gregory asked why there was an alternate plan for the west elevation. Mr. Ochoa stated that they were trying to achieve a vaulted ceiling, but it was fighting with the rest of the composition. They feel that they could create the same ceiling but change the parapet of that element to tie in the architecture a little better. GAPlann ngUarnne JudylWord FilesWRC Minu es120O81AR080122.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REviEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner Gregory asked about the shadowing especially on the condominium portion on the non alternate drawing and stated that there seemed to be more shadow detail indicated. Mr. Ochoa stated that the alternate did not have shadow, but it was the same. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they had a preliminary look at these plans and stated that he liked that piece and what they did with it compared to what they had before. It looked like there were too many styles going on between that and where the condominium portion was. He felt that this was a little more in keeping with it, but felt that it needed more study. He was concerned when looking at the plans how flat some of that stuff was. Commissioner Vuksic and Mr. Ochoa reviewed and discussed the plans. Mr. Ochoa stated that they could deepen the cavity to create more relief. Commissioner Vuksic stated that looking at the residential component there were a couple of things that need more work as far as making the plans and elevations match. He was also concerned with the basic look of it and understands that the Commission had suggested that they have some variations in the architecture from the hotel portion to the condominium portion; however he had concerns with the architecture of the condominium portion. He saw some kind of heavy eyebrows and the windows that are set down below those eyebrows are in walls that don't have any relief and glass that is set into these flat walls. He was concerned with the pitch of the roof elements because they are quite steep and in some cases was steeper than 45 degrees, and they have the photovoltaic panels on them as well. He was concerned with what that would look like. Mr. Ochoa stated that they did some research on a membrane that has photovoltaics embedded in them so the panels don't have to be sitting on top of the deck; becoming an integral part of that. Now that they no longer have the pools they don't have to worry about where to place the panels and they can also lower the ceilings on the second floor. They can also play with the parapets because the Jacuzzis could be placed anywhere on the roof deck. Commissioner Vuksic indicated that the panels have some pretty interesting applications and felt that they could be used in an architectural way to add more to the design of the panels. He said that they could have panels that jut out and serve as shade devices for some of the glass, but at the same time be energy reflectors. That would be a more appropriate use of those panels than having them basically clad with what looks like a mansard roof. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080122.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REviEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Mr. Ochoa stated that they can certainly play with the condominium side taking into account the Commission's comments and integrate the comments made regarding the solar panels and tie it into the architecture. He thought the directive before was that each part of the project needed to have separate identities. He now feels that they may have taken that a little too literally and thinks that they could work to identify those additional elements. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could give each one their own identity, but look unified at the same time. Commissioner Hanson stated that it was more of a separation of residential scale versus hotel scale, but the flavor is the same. Commissioner Hanson was concerned with the doghouse looking access stairs on the roof and stated that they needed to be a part of the structure as opposed to a stair access. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the residential component on the alternate west elevation needed a lot more study. He stated that it is a massive form and it looks spindly. He thought that they would benefit from letting the bottom floor read like a complete base not letting the arched element come down through it, but let that arched element sit on top of the first floor. Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Ochoa if the message was clear regarding the condominium area as far as suggestions for changes so that this doesn't turn into a grind for the applicant. Mr. Ochoa stated that it was clear and with a couple of directives from the Commission's comments they can unify the architecture and come back with an elevation that will tie everything in together. Commissioner Vuksic said to be careful not to get too many specific comments on it because then they would run the risk of coming back with a punch list of items. Commissioner Gregory mentioned his concerns with the applicant coming back over and over again. Mr. Bill DeLeeuw, owner, stated that the Commission had approved the minutes of the December 17, 2007 meeting and since that time they have had three meetings with the staff to try and go through all of the comments from those minutes. They tried to address each issue and felt that they had pretty well addressed them and came out with a better project than what they started with. He expressed his concern that the Commission was going back closer to the first submittal and he felt that he did it wrong by going through the punch list from the last meeting and said that he wasn't clear on what the Commission was asking for. G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files ARC Minules\2008V+R080122.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that were a complete departure was all the solar panels on the roof. The applicant had mentioned the panels today, but didn't submit anything to the Commission for review. So they were taking it from what it was to something completely different visually. She felt that this raises a lot of questions. She thinks that the massing is much better and everything doesn't read vertical, which is definitely a plus. She then mentioned how heavy the parapets were in comparison to the door. She stated that what the Commission was talking about is making some adjustments based on where the pools might be and where you might want to enclose that roof area. She expressed that they were refinements and not completely changing. Mr. DeLeeuw stated that they took out the pools as a result of one of the comments and everything worked better to make the small spas that gave them more height and no water issue. Mr. Ochoa stated that he failed to bring literature to the Commission for the photovoltaic membranes and how they integrate to the elevation. He indicated that they would work on the elevations and bring some photographs of the actual projects to see how they look in real life. Commissioner DeLuna in reference to the pools stated that she appreciated the sensitivity towards water conservation and that it was very well addressed. Commissioner Vuksic said that he wanted to be clear on the condominium portion that there is still a fair amount of study that needs to happen there. He was concerned with what looked like back doors on the lowest level facing Larkspur Street. Mr. Ochoa stated that there were decks located there and they would have doors. Commissioner Vuksic pointed out what he was referring to and Mr. Ochoa indicated that those were windows. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they looked awfully utilitarian and expressed that a lot more effort needed to be made in letting those demonstrations work with the masses. Mr. Ochoa verified that those are completely recessed openings in the windows and stated that they are about 30 inches deep. Commissioner Vuksic stated that on the plans he sees a column next to the window deeply recessed but the entire wall is on one plane and is basically flush with the windows. Mr. Ochoa stated that they will create an exhibit that will clarify how that condition works. G.'PlannmgUan.ne Judy\Word Flles\ARC MiruIes'2008\AR080122.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2008 The Commission discussed the access for the two-level parking structure. Ms. Sheila Weldon, owner of Mojave Resort, was concerned that the project would be three stories on her side and felt that it would be pretty high when she looked out in that direction. Commissioner Hanson stated that on the Shadow Mountain side the project would only be two stories. Mr. Bagato stated that the three story side is shorter than The Gardens. Mr. DeLeeuw asked for specific directions from the Commission and wanted to be clear in his mind with what needed to be done prior to meeting with his architect and with staff. Commissioner Gregory stated that that is the difficult part that the Commission has to be careful with. What we end up doing is giving the applicant a defacto punch list and then they take care of each of those things, but it's more subjective than that. A part of it is a general reaction to the design and Mr. Ochoa understands what needs to be done. Mr. DeLeeuw stated that he didn't mean to express his frustrated in trying to get the project moving to the next level of approval but feels like he has hit a dead-end. Commissioner Gregory stated that one of the Commission's charges is to be very careful with what is built because once it is built it's done and you can't change it afterwards. We have to be very careful, especially on something as important as this particular building, that when it leaves here we feel very good about it. This is a subjective review group not objective. Commissioner Hanson stated that she and Commissioner Vuksic do not want to tell Mr. Ochoa how to design this building because they would approach it quite differently and stated that he knows what he needs to do. Mr. Ochoa agreed. Commissioner Gregory stated that the project is getting a lot better and will be a lot more sustainable. Commissioner Vuksic stated that Mr. Ochoa produced a lot of work very quickly and it is appreciated. The Commission also appreciate how cooperative and respective to the comments. Mr. Ochoa appreciated those comments and wanted to convey to the Commission that he definitely wants to address all the concerns and feels that they are pretty close and feels that the directions are clearer and thinks that it will come together at the next meeting G:1PIannmg\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes120081AR080122.doc Page 8 of 15 ............ ...... . .... •.... .• • •. CITY OF P11L DESERT . •. . . . . • . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE ?'"'1"r,i 1 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 I. .` ; I k` ` • >< ; TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 • info@palm-desert.org December 13, 2007 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154- room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued case no. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 subject to: 1) create more depth in elements; 2) push out 2nd story to create a plinth at the bottom; 3) create pedestrian elements between buildings on first level; 4) redesign service area to create additional space; 5) submit elevation to show the integration of proposed trees, landscape and electrical; 6) submit readable roof plan and mechanical plan; and, 7) submit roof landscape plans separate from on grade landscaping. Date of Action: December 11, 2007 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. 0 wmoaeanmPI/II ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2007 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Mr. Juan Carlos Ochoa, Architect, discussed the changes made since the last meeting. They moved the lobby entry back, giving more depth and eliminated the domes in the condominium section. The building previously was reading as a continuous building so they separated the buildings achieving more of a residential scale. They moved the entry back and changed the setback on the hotel units to ten feet. The trash area is now a part of the building with doors simulating the doors on the buildings. Commissioner Gregory asked if they had worked out an arrangement with the residents to the east with respect to obtaining some of their property for additional tree planting to separate the hotel visually from the residential area. Mr. Bill De Leeuw, owner, stated that they were still trying to work out an agreement with the homeowners. The homeowners have been very cooperative and would be agreeable to some kind of landscaping in that area as long as it looked nice. Mr. Bagato stated that they wanted to move forward with the design as if the agreement didn't happen so that we will know what to expect with what is being proposed now. If things come in down the road that can improve the project, then we'll reevaluate it at that time. Commissioner Gregory was concerned that it is such a tall building and the area for landscaping on the east side was pretty tight. He asked how much land would be available to plant trees. Mr. De Leeuw stated that there was about ten or fifteen feet in the area from the building to the fence. Page 8 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REviEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2007 Mr. Bagato detailed his concerns with the plans. He was concerned with the landscaping on the site and said that he talked to the applicant about having vines on the building, but they needed to see a cross section through the building and patio cover to show how the vines would work. He felt that there might be some area for taller trees. He was concerned with the trees in pots since they don't do well in pots and suggested a canopy. He also recommended a separate roof plan showing the roof landscaping not combined with the perimeter landscaping. He stated that usually he likes the elevations without landscaping to see more of the architecture, but in this case because it is such a tall building he asked for elevations with landscaping to see how it would soften the building. He felt that the water feature on the front of the building was not necessary. He stated that the applicant addressed the Commission's concern and simplified the building, but now they have created large spacings that break up the connections between the buildings. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the massing is generally okay but the details were pretty weak. He was aware that the Commission asked that they simplify it but it needs to be done in a way to create more depth. Commissioner Hanson stated that one of the things that makes it very tall and linear is the fact that all of these things are two-story; like the column elements. She suggested having more of a plinth at the bottom so there is a base that the building is sitting on which will make your eye not look up all the time. That will allow you to play with some of the window openings a bit. She also suggested creating pedestrian elements like a trellis between the buildings on the first level. Commissioner Hanson discussed the area where the service area and the outdoor seating for the restaurant are located and suggested that they take another look at that area and redesign it since it was so tight. Mr. De Leeuw stated that originally they didn't want the service area there because they felt that they could service everything from the street since it was not a busy street, however Public Works didn't agree. Mr. Ochoa stated that The Gardens is serviced from the street with no service bay of any kind. Commissioner Hanson suggested having a Loading and Unloading Zone on Larkspur. Mr. Bagato stated that they could re-approach Public Works about this issue. Page 9 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2007 Commissioner Gregory stated that they have a tight, tall building and was wondering if a little more explanation type landscape would make it easier for the Commission to see the integration of how the proposed trees would work, and suggested providing an elevation to show how it would work with the architecture. The problem with a highly dense development like this is there is very little room for mistakes so the roof garden has to be carefully worked out now. Commissioner Gregory was concerned with the perimeter of the building and recommended tall trees or palms. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, stated that in some cases the canopy of trees would end up getting one-sided because they would be going into the buildings. She also mentioned her concern regarding the utility vaults and how they take up a lot of real estate, mostly in the landscape area. The applicant has to look at the landscaping now rather than later because those trees or features they are counting on now have an Edison vault in its place. Commissioner DeLuna stated that at the last meeting she addressed her concerns regarding the use of water. They currently have twenty water features; three large pools, eleven small pools, and six individual water features. She felt that those water features would mess with their water counts. Mr. De Leeuw stated that they are trying to get Green Certification on the building and that is one of the issues that they will look at and if something has to go in order to meet those requirements then they may have to make those areas smaller. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the City of Palm Desert is liable to be in a situation where we may have to cut back the use of water, and to see a new hotel with a garish display of twenty water features, pools, and cascading water tiers is a negative perception. She suggested Jacuzzis instead of pools. Mr. De Leeuw stated that those could easily become spas with covers because that is virtually zero evaporation. Commissioner Van Vliet thought that the balcony overhang was encroaching into the setback about four or five feet and asked if they can encroach like that. Mr. Bagato stated that some of the building had to be pushed back, but the code does allow balconies on a second and third level to encroach five feet into a side yard setback. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it adds some architecture, but it reduces your ability to plant. Mr. Ochoa stated that they would revisit that area and mentioned that they may stair step the floors. Page 10 of 12 ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet asked Mr. Ochoa if they have developed their mechanical plans in terms of the HVAC since that is critical to their whole roof structure. Mr. Ochoa stated that they have not but they have devoted space for mechanicals in the underground parking. Commissioner Van Vliet said that they probably would not put the mechanicals for the upper units in the garage area. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that the Commission has not seen a real readable roof plan and suggested that they provide one for the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to continue Case No. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 subject to: 1) create more depth in elements; 2) push out 2nd story to create a plinth at the bottom; 3) create pedestrian elements between buildings on first level; 4) redesign service area to create additional space; 5) submit elevation to show the integration of proposed trees, landscape and electrical; 6) submit readable roof plan and mechanical plan; and, 7) submit roof landscape plans separate from on grade landscaping. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: MISC 07-43 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHURCHILL PACIFIC, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Conceptual approval of façade enhancement changes to existing retail building; El Paseo Premier Centre. LOCATION: 73-061 El Paseo #200 ZONE: C1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to approve by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Lopez absent. Page 11 of 12 r , ..................... ... •... ... . •. CITY DE IWLO DESERT : . i. . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 �+ ' `iI I TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 : :- info@palm-deserr.org November 14, 2007 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154- room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1: Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued case DA 07-02, PP 07- 11, CUP 07-14 subject to: 1) introducing horizontal elements into the project and simplifying the elements; 2) increase thickness on columns and create more of a base; 3) keep same kind of massing and scale on hotel and condos; 4) avoid substituting thickness with surrounds on windows; 5) main level needs additional landscaping against the buildings; 6) submit roof plan with parapet heights; 8) relocate trash enclosure away from the main entry; and, 9) pull main circular drive back to get more landscaping. Date of Action: November 14, 2007 Vote: Motion carried 7-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. r t,m em Oh nnuio wit ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 interest in the building and it was possible that it didn't translate. Commissioner Hanson was concerned with the shadow lines. Mr. Finkle indicated that he would revise the plans to show them. Commissioner Hanson asked if they were incorporating a roof ladder within the building and Mr. Finkle indicated they were. Commissioner Hanson asked about the two middle service bays with the metal awnings and suggested that they pull those out a little further to make it more of an architectural feature which would create a little more shadowing effect on the building as well as the front elevation. Mr. Finkle stated that they were trying to tie the two buildings together as much as they could by pulling in some of the similar elements of the other building. He indicated that they would take a look at that. Commissioner Vuksic recommended that the parapet heights be equal to or higher than the roof mounted equipment Action: It was moved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to approve subject to: 1) revising plans to indicate significant pilasters on the east elevation; 2) incorporating a roof ladder into the building; 3) pull metal service bays out further to make an architecture feature; 4) parapet heights equal to or higher than roof mounted equipment; and, 5) subject to review of landscape plans by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO: DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS: LARKSPUR ASSOCIATES, LLC, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 154-room boutique hotel; El Paseo Hotel. LOCATION: 45-400 Larkspur ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato summarized the project and presented an aerial of the proposed hotel and stated that they are processing a development agreement because it is over the number of units that would be allowed. Parking will be provided underground and is consistent G.\Plano ngVarbne JudylWord FJes\ARC Mu,ules\20071AR071113.min.DOC Page 12 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 with what the code requires. This project is a three to two story project with the three-story project located closer to the El Paseo side and has been approved over the 30-foot height limit in this area. Then it steps down to two-story ranging from 24 feet and a little taller with some of the roof elements. He had some concerns with the proposed architecture and thought it was a little busy with a blending of too many styles. They are proposing solar panel equipment in the roof area and trying to meet LEAD certification from a silver standpoint. There will also be a five star restaurant open 24 hours along with a bar area. Mr. Juan Ochoa, Architect, stated that it was their intent to mix contemporary and traditional architecture. Since a lot of the project faces west they added shading elements. The domes are skeletons not solid and are similar to the Starbucks on Cook Street. The height of the hotel is 31 feet with the tallest single element reaching 44 to 45 feet height. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there were 181 parking spaces. Mr. Bagato stated that the parking would be a deck and a half below with two cars in each stall; used like a lift. Mr. Ochoa described how the underground parking would be designed. Commissioner DeLuna asked about the number of rooms the hotel and the larger condominium type units would have and Mr. Ochoa answered that the hotel would have 154 rooms, and the condominium type units would have a total of 48 rooms. Mr. Bill De Leeuw, owner, stated that the southern half of the project is 16 condominiums that encompass 48 rooms. The lower density is towards Shadow Mountain and the higher density is down the other way. Mr. Ochoa presented a power point presentation of the project and described the different elements. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was architecturally different and appeared as though it was two different projects. Commissioner Hanson stated that the service area in the front was in an awkward location and urged the applicant to relocate that to another location. Mr. De Leeuw stated that they have been working on finding another location for the service area. Commissioner Hanson asked how this project would be serviced for deliveries. Mr. Ochoa stated the trucks would park in the turnout area on the street. G`,Plann,ngUanne Judy\Word Poes1ARC Minutes\2007WR071113.nun DOC Page 13 of 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Commissioner Hanson asked about the main circular drive. Mr. Ochoa outlined the steps leading up to the common level, the ramp for parking and the common landing areas. Commissioner Hanson stated that everything that was surrounding the units on San Luis Rey were very low and horizontal in scale, as well as Shadow Mountain and stated that this project was vertical and even though they are only 24 feet tall it would feel much taller because of the verticality of every element. She suggested that something be introduced that would bring more horizontality back into the project and simplify the elements. Mr. Ochoa indicated that he would submit an alternate horizontal element to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Hanson stated that there was a lot of mixing of elements that seems interesting, but it appears that they haven't decided what they want. She expressed that the product seemed really interesting and the location is great, but she stated that the applicant should respond to the environment that is low slung horizontal. Mr. Ochoa stated that they would create alternate elevations modifying some of the elements and expressed that they needed to respond to The Gardens because they have much more of those vertical elements. Commissioner Vuksic expressed that they never intend to dictate style and stated that this style was interesting and called it Moorish. He felt that any style that is done just needs to be done well. He stated that Moorish architecture tends to be very thick; however he sees a lack of thickness. He suggested increasing the thickness on the columns to create more of a base, keeping the same kind of massing and scale on the hotel and condos, and avoid substituting thickness with surrounds on windows. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed his concern regarding screening in the back near the residential area. Mr. De Leeuw stated that they have met with eight of the ten homeowners and they have asked for a wall to be placed there to separate the two properties and a landscaping plan will be developed. Mr. Ochoa stated that they have played with the concept of offsetting the upper units and create planters, and stair stepping four to five feet from the second to the third floor to provide extra screening. G:\Planr rigUanure Judy\Word F;les\ARC Minutes12OO7\AR071113.min.DOC Page 14 of 17 I I ARCHITECTURAL REvIEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 Commissioner Van Vliet felt that there wasn't enough planting opportunity with the main level, as it appears to be mainly hardscape. Mr. Tom Dorsey, TKD Landscaping, stated that they would be incorporating a containerized system of planting and irrigation. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the air conditioning equipment would be going on the roof. Mr. Ochoa indicated that the equipment area would be in the basement and stated that the details had not been worked out at this time. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would probably have to go on the roof. He asked if the roof access was flat roofed with a parapet around them and wanted to know how tall they were. Mr. Ochoa stated that they were around eight feet. Commissioner Van Vliet questioned the height of the building on the north end stating it was almost 40 feet tall from the lower grade and the 33 feet shown in the plans was somewhat misleading. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the pools on the upper deck were flush with the deck level or were they raised. Mr. Ochoa answered that they were raised about eighteen inches. Commissioner DeLuna was troubled about the amount of water consumed with the pools on the upper decks. She stated there were thirteen bodies of water and given the prediction of the water shortage, she was wondering if there was some way to address the use of water. Mr. De Leeuw stated that they would address that and said that the pools were not large and none were excessively deep. He stated there were three main pools and that it may be possible to eliminate one, but felt that it would detract from the project. He didn't know how much water a pool uses, but expressed that landscaping uses more water than a pool does. Commissioner DeLuna stated that she understood from a marketing standpoint what they need to provide to a client, and stated that she was just trying to be conscious of what may be coming in terms of water cutbacks and usages and asked them to be very effective in the use of water. Mr. De Leeuw expressed their willingness to take a look at that issue. Mr. Knight asked the applicants to have their non-traditional landscaping plans reviewed by the landscaping staff. They seemed to be a significant part of the architecture design and if they prove not to pass inspection than they would have an issue in terms of the design. Mr. Ochoa asked what the issues were. Mr. Knight G:\Planning Janine JuaykWord FIes\ARC Minulesl20071AR071113.min.DOC Page 15 of 17 ( (. ARCHITECTURAL ReviEW COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 2007 stated that they were not strong proponents of planters in the desert because they are hard to maintain and then end up with fake plants or nothing planted in them. The City is looking for sustainability. Mr. Ochoa indicated that he would submit some information regarding the containerized planting system that has been proven to work. Mr. Knight stated that it has not been proven here in the desert. Mr. Dorsey described the system and the proposed landscape plans. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they have an alternate plan just in case it doesn't work. Mr. Bagato asked the Commission for comments regarding the current location of the proposed trash enclosure in the front entry and wanted to know if they felt that it should be relocated away from the main entry. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed other options with the applicant. Commissioner Lopez stated that the planters appeared really small. He also asked if there would be pedestrian circulation to the east or north end or would it be a green area inside the property line. Mr. Ochoa stated that it would be a green area. Commissioner Hanson suggested pulling the main circular drive back to get more landscaping. Mr. Ochoa indicated that they would work with that idea. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, to continue Case No. DA 07-02, PP 07-11, CUP 07-14 subject to: 1) introducing horizontal elements into the project and simplifying the elements; 2) increase thickness on columns and create more of a base; 3) keep same kind of massing and scale on hotel and condos; 4) avoid substituting thickness with surrounds on windows; 5) main level needs additional landscaping against the buildings; 6) submit roof plan with parapet heights; 7) relocate trash enclosure away from the main entry; 8) pull main circular drive back to get more landscaping; and, 9) review of landscape plans by the Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 7-0. G\PlarnrgVanine Judy'.Word F Ies\ARC Minutes 12007WR071113.mr,.DOC Page 16 of 17