HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1128 and Res 06-142 DA 06-01, PP/CUP 05-20 Villa Property Dvlpr~- CITY OF PALM DESERT -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approval of a development agreement along with a precise
plan/conditional use permit to allow a new 12-unit, 36 keys,
boutique hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea
Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Associate Planner) MEETING DATE /a -/`/ - &I&
APPLICANT: Villa Property Developer, LLC
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
CASE NOS: DA 06-01 and PP/CUP 05-20
DATE: October 26, 2006
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executive Summary
Recommendation:
CONTINUED TO 0. a�a� Zl/)If�0// '.
❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
Discussion
Draft Ordinance No 1128 for DA 06-01
Development Agreement
Draft Resolution N006-142for PP/CUP 05-20
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 3, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 3, 2006
City Council Staff Report, dated May 11, 2006
Minutes from City Council, dated May 11, and June 8 2006
Plans and project Exhibits
That the City Council pass Ordinance No.1128 approving Development Agreement
06-01 to second reading, and adopt Resolution No.06-142 approving Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached.
Executive Summary:
On June 8, 2006, the City Council denied the propose EPORZ and stated that the hotel
could be approved with a development agreement and referred the project back to staff and
the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to initiate a development agreement. The
hotel has been redesigned by lowering the rear buildings to 26'6" to mitigate potential view
impacts to the surrounding neighbors. On October 3, 2006, the hotel and development
agreement was endorsed by the Planning Commission with a 3-1 vote (Commissioner
Finerty opposed, Commissioner Tschopp absent).
Staff Report
DA 06-01 AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 2 of 4
October 26, 2006
I. BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-0
Commissioner Finerty absent) of a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment and change of zone for a proposed El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ) and a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 12-unit, 36 keys,
boutique hotel on Larrea Street.
On May 11, 2006, the EPROZ and hotel were presented to the City Council. After
the discussion, the City Council continued the public hearing to allow the
applicant to meet with the neighbors and directed staff to separate the two (2)
items.
On June 8, 2006, the two (2) items were presented separately to the City
Council. The EPROZ was discussed first and denied by the City Council. Mayor
Ferguson stated that the proposed hotel could be approved through a
development agreement without the overlay zone. The development agreement
will give the Council the ability to review the each project on a case -by -case
basis.
The hotel was then presented with two (2) options that lowered the rear building
heights reducing the view impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The first option had
a private spa on the roof removing the private pool, BBQ and seating area. The
overall building height of the rear buildings would be 25'6" with a 31'6" tower. The
second option completely eliminated the roof decks lowering the parapet to 26'6".
The City Council voted to refer the project back to staff and Planning
Commission to allow the applicant to initiate a development agreement for the
hotel based on the second design option.
Planning Commission Meeting, October 3, 2006:
On October 3, 2006, the Planning Commission on a 3-1 (Commissioner Finety
opposed, Commission Tschopp absent) recommended approval of the
development agreement and hotel. Commissioners Campbell, Tanner, and
Lopez all stated that the supported the application in its previous design and
believed that the changes improved the project and would improve any potential
view impacts on the adjacent properties. Commissioner Finerty was not at the
previous Planning Commission meeting when it was approved 4-0 by the
Commission and she believed that the hotel was not compatible with the
surrounding area.
Staff Report
DA 06-01 AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 3 of 4
October 26, 2006
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The majority of the project remains the same as proposed at the previous
Planning Commission meetings (see attached staff report). The applicant has
redesigned the rear three (3) buildings eliminating the roof decks lowering the
overall roof height to 26'6". Roof decks are proposed on the three (3) front
buildings (fronting Larrea Street), leaving the overall height at 28'6" with tower
elements at 31'6". The term of the development agreement is 15 years and will
give the applicant a vested right to develop the project as proposed.
111. ANALYSIS:
Every hotel that has been approved by the City has been approved required an
exception. These hotels have been approved in Planned Residential or Planned
Commercial zones, which has an exception process in the development
standards. The R-3 zone does not have an exception process, however, modified
development standards may be approved by the City Council through a
development agreement. The applicant has initiated a development agreement
and is requesting modified standards for density and height in the R-3 zone.
Density:
Historically, the R-3 properties south of El Paseo has provided for hotels along
with a mix of apartments, condominiums, medical and general office. Many of the
existing hotels exceed the current 18 units per acre density standard. The Mojave
and Casa Larrea Inn are 26 units per acre and the Inn at Deep Canyon is 41 units
per acre. The hotel is designed for 12-units with three (3) lockout bedrooms, which
can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3), totaling 36 keys. The
proposed hotel is consistent with the density of the surrounding hotels.
Height:
All of the properties surrounding the project are zoned for two-story development.
The apartment building north of the site is approximately 30 feet tall, which was
the maximum height limit in the R-3 zone until 1985 when it was changed to 24
feet. The existing single -story properties on Shadow Mountain Drive will be
impacted by two-story development. To mitigate the view impacts to those
properties, the applicant has lowered the rear roof parapets from 28'6" to 26'6"
with no roof decks.
Staff Report
DA 06-01 AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 4 of 4
October 26, 2006
Conclusion:
The proposed hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning with
underground parking to create a village style resort within walking distance to El
Paseo. The proposed changes will reduce the view impacts to the adjacent
neighbors on Shadow Mountain Drive. The development agreement allows the
City to approve the project with the exceptions sought without amending the
zoning ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has
determined that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class
32, Categorical Exemption, and no further review is necessary.
Submitted By:
n
Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
Approval:
Citk k a ia ri�/
A o. E teloi
nt Services
U u
w
No
o
� �
o
N
W
u ed
W
Z
U rb
a
���-��K-,,
0 O�
1'. � N
d d
O
l
0 -W
W yU
H
d a+ O
ate+ q
-`
Z Gsr d
w �
U <�
00 N
'tea A
o
�--�••o
U•c2< Z w b �O b-H
w .�
U
Z E-4 H H R d o a
++
E-4aWU
Nw
Nw�
i
WWWclJW�-.+z
0*
Department Head:
Ph I Drell
Director of Community Development
-1TY COUNCIL ACTION,.
APPROVED.-____ DENIED,_
OTHER .-.�,.
;F;rF 7 ti,r�C ........ ........ .. .. � _._..._.
P3cTAIN: �...._...
VERIF EL F)
CITY COUNCIL ACTION.
APPROVED DENIED i
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING DAT2, 7Q ' =3/
AYES:
NOES: A ------- --- - -�
ADSENT:A)
ABSTAIN: ,^
VERIFIED 8Y:_tax /In
�
Original on File wi Ci y Clerk's Office
ORDINANCE NO. 1128
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AS IT RELATES TO A 12-UNIT, 36 KEYS, CONDOMINIUM HOTEL
LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET.
CASE NO. DA 06-01 AS IT RELATES TO CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2420 has recommended
approval of Case No. DA 06-01; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, said City Council heard and considered all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the Development Agreement 06-01 by Ordinance No. is
hereby approved.
SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, shall certify to
the passage adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in
the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, circulated within the City of Palm
Desert, and the same be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 26'h day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this
day of , 2006,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 Villa
Property Developer, 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 deftnitions in conjunction with the use
thereof-in these Recitals.
B. Govemment 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 important location in the
City and the coordinated development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement represents an
RMPUB�DERW1N�272164.1 1
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 sunounding 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 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.
RMPUB�DERW 1N�272164.1 2
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 foliows:
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 A�reement. This Development Agreement.
1.3 Buildin�Ordinances. Those building standards, of general and uniform
application throughout the City and not imposed solely with respect to the 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 Citv Council. The legislative body of the City of Palm Desert.
RMPUE3�DERWIN\272164.1 3
1.5 Effective Date. The date on which the Enacting Ordinance becomes
effective.
1.6 Enacting Ordinance. Ordinance , enacted by the City Council on
, 2006, approving this Agreement.
1.7 Existin� 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 MortgaQe. 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 (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 Propertv. The real property and any improvements thereon which is
described in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement.
RMPUI3�DERWIN�2721G4.1 4
2. Term; Amendment.
2.1 Term. The term of this Agreement(the "Term"} shal] commence on the
Effective Date and shall terminate on the fifteen (15) yeaz 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
rAgreement 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 Proiect.
(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/CUP OS-20 and
this Development Agreement DA 06-01 including all conditions contained in said approval and
this Agreement.
(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
RMPUB\DERWIN�272164.1 S
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 ta(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 ceriificates, 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).
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 thisAgreement and the
Development Plan, and to the extent not inconsistent therewith, the Existing Land Use
Ordinanccs, but the procedures for processing applications for such permits pre-approvals
.(including the usual and customary fees of general application charged for such processing)
RMPUB�UERWlM272164.1 6
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 AQreement. 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 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 Operatin�Memoranda. Developer and City acknowledge that ihe
provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between Developer and City,
RMPIJB\DERWIN�272164.1 7
and that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes or
additional provisions aze 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 Califomia 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, osuch 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
RMPUB�DERWIN�272164.1 S
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, and (b) Developer shall abide by the Building ordinances in
effect at the time of such applications.
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 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 Basements; 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
RMPUB�DERWIN�272164.1 9
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 pucpose 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 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 City Council 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.
RMPUB�DERWIN�272164.I 1 O
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.-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"),
er►acted 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
RMPUB�UERWIN�272164.1 1 1
have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. In addition, Developer and City shall have
the rigl�t 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.
S.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
RMPUB�DERWIN�272164.1 �2
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 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
RMPUR�DERWIN�2721G4.1 13
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 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 Partv 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 ihis 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
RMPIJR\I�FRWIN�272164.1 14
request for modification. City further agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent to
any such requested modification .
9.2 Mort�a�e 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 Mortttagee Not Obli ag ted. 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 thirty(30) days following the receipt thereof city
RMPUB�DERWIN�272164.1 I S
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 AssiQnments; Effect of A�reement on Title.
10.1 Ri�hts and Interests Appurtenant. The rights and interests conveyed as
provided herein to Developer benefit and aze 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 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
RMPUF3�I�FRWIN�272164.1 i b
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:
Villa Property Developer, LLC
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
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.
RMPU13\DERWIN�2721G4 1 17
12. Indemnification.
12.1 Developer's ObliQation. 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 willfiil or negligent act or omission of Developer..
12.2 Citv' 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 an 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 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
RMPUB\DERWIN�272164.1 1 g
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 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
RMPUE3�DERWIN�2721G4.1 19
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 Severabilitv. 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.
13.6 Entire Ar:reement. 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, wananties or representations are superseded
in total by this Agreement and Exhibits hereto.
13.7 GoverninQ Law; Construction of A�reement. This Agreement, and the
rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the
RMPUD�DERW IN�2721 G4 1 ZO
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 PaQes. For convenience, the signatures of the parties of this
Agreement may be executed and acknowledged on sepazate 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 Partv's Attornev'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
respect to the meaning or interpretation of any provision hereof or the performance of the
obligations of any paRy 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.
RMPUf3�DERW(N�2721 G4.1 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date and year first above-written.
DEVELOPER:
By:
VILLA PROPERTY DEVELOPER, 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 Klausen, City Clerk
RMPUD�I�ERWlN�272164.1 22
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RNERSIDE
On , 2006 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 RNERSIDE
On , 2006 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
RMPIJ[3�DERWIN�2721(vl.l 23
RESOLUTION NO. 06-142
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, HOTEL CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET.
CASE NO: PP/CUP 05-20
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 261'
day of October 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the
VILLA PROPERTY DEVELOPER, LLC. for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2420 has
recommended approval of Case Nos. DA 06-01 and PP/CUP 05-20; 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, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review
is necessary.
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 recommending to
City Council approval of said request:
The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and
objectives of the general plan and zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord
with the objectives and policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance
and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
3. The proposed location of the condominium hotel 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20,
subject to conditions attached.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-,,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 26" day of October 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-L.-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of
final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. 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.
4. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 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.
5. 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.
6. The project shall comply with the Energy Efficiency Standards, Ordinance No.
1124.
7. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
KI
RESOLUTION NO.06-14-=
8. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall
to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
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.
Department of Public Works:
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 Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord.
801) and the approved landscape 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. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
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 the issuance of grading permits.
6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
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 on electric files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to the 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.
.19
RESOLUTION NO. 06-12VZ
11. Landscape install 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 Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards and the City's Circulation Network including the following:
• 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street.
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 the project.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of
grading permits.
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. The applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominium purposes.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, .CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed
on the job site.
2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial structure.
5
RESOLUTION NO.06-14=
3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within
a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves
and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an
approved hydrant.
6. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
8. 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 be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 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). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards maybe more restrictive.
9. 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".
10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
11. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking lots.
14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be
required.
9
Ochoa Design Associates
•rchitectu�eJd �ef ��)plannln�
FAXMITTAL
DATE: November 13, Z006
T4: Plannin� Departimment FAX#: t760)776�417
ATTN: Tony
PROJECT/SUBJECT: PASEO HOTEL d�VILLAS
We undsratand that the Pubfic Hearing for DA 06-01 and PP/CUP 05•ZO has been closed and
we aro waiving the 21-day action by the City Council, as descrtbed in Section 28.84.080.
Thank you for your attention to thts matter.
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED ({NCLUDING THIS COVER): �_
o �
ACTION REQUESTED: � �'°�'
D�
O r n 7�
� =r rn
vmn
t� rn��
v'7c—
REMARKS: _ �Nm
�
00
°° c��
� a�
�
THANK YOU
Arlene Hinsley, Secretary
73-626 Hfghwey 111 Palm Desert. CA 92260 (760) 773-8805 �ax (7B0) 773-8802
E-Mail: ochoadesign�msn.com Website: www.ochoadesifln.com
�AIA Member oi the Ame�ican Instituie ot A�chliects
Petition to the Palm Desert City Councif
We the undersigned residents of Palm Desert, ask the C'�ty Council to enforce the existing
height limitations with regard to the proposed "boutique hotel" for Larrea Street. The 24'
height code was put in to place to insure neighborhood compatibility. The proposed hotel
is simply not compatible with the neighborhood when considering both the propased
height and density. As a neighborhood and as a town, we rely on you, our elected
representatives, to uphold the current height limitations.
Number Print Name Si nature Street Address
� 1�I� � �;�- �� ^��Z �� �z� n�
2 �
�2�!/� �2 - 7 S"L �_-�c1�2 �D
3 ,t,1Ga � ��� � ...�� �-� � �.� � �
4 - •
��A�y s�����N � � ����, �����
5 - �
�. �1�(f.L�YL "ll -1 Z0 � �c��2�-
6
1�.� � - s� '1 z Sar
�
�
s�':� 7.�a3 7 .� �,��,� ��l
s
- � -� � ����� G��'�i� �/�
9
r �
SC� I � Sc.a �Lf��t< < .�z /� �- .�
10 , �
�lG'�/lc' _ S ��.i�4 � 73�1 U c�b GYl�4.�
11 ll.��(2., S . '7�3��0� lYied"l�
�
'Z �/�� ��4,� `7 3 Co a c� S t Es t'G3- �'L.
i� ' r� � �3��r e S►'e t'� T" .
��' ���� U � ��- leZ � i 3�-�� �v�(�uA-T �
� � � ( �' � �� � r��
CC '�.`� .
� �
Number Print Name Signature Street Address
(� I �7 v� W�J/ �� , 7� '"��( rJ�{ ��G�Ir V�
��o ��� � '.�,' �`l��k-� ' � � d�, ^
11 h��C1-'t v��,�.� � ; � _ �
�
��'�C �'Z �I,� w► �4�
�8 �a-r ���cx�s � 7� S �t -f' l�
,
�� �C, � ' < � ���Y>� �,-c`y��� �5'(v�// l�,�' f��'�- /
i
�
Z c� L: '� ,�. /�c_, � � f ! ` ,j � i r�C A�� ��-
� ' �
2� �.� 6'� y�n , �� . ��6�� ��� �,�,
Z Z / '• � ' ,�L✓so,� ��w���'`,.� �5�-r� �,����.:�w !�
� �r� � �
� � ;. �y l
L � '�)���j,� �, �>� ��,�� )i;�Yi �s� ti ��(�� d� � �1 i � a � i�
�.
�
��, � ,
�o - � - �
�
� c� �' � N t W N N O
� � �\_ � � � � � � �
, � � � �
r. • � � � � �. � �
�
�� � A� � �i �
�1 � P �' ° � �
�
—1 ~
� � � o a ��.
� .o � � °'
� � � � � o � � �
z. � �_ c
� �
s � � � �
� � N
., 'v
� � � �
1 v? � � � �
� � � ^ �
N� "" � p' v�i
� � � � �
� . � • �'
� � � n
'» � � �
y '� � � 3.o � n
. o
~ .� � �
� � o
o� � o �
� a� -�
J�' y� � � �
n . � �
ao
� o 0
� � y �
tT w Q�jJ � v,l V a-. � � �
, � � � � �
� Q � G � � � � �
� � � � � U � � ao �
�� � � � �� � � �
� � � o .
� o v�
� � �
�' � _.
� � � �.
�. � � t �� ?:
I � , G � o � o.
� �
a � �
'j '4 � � � �
� � � � � � � � �
� � � � �
� � � � � � o � �
� �, � �.
� oo
� � � � � � � o � p- °�
. � �
5 �,, � p � � $ � ; �b
� ~ o
- � � o `� --~o
,...f'" � Z� � � m � �• o
�Il ,J � o �'• °'
' � �. � -
� `� � _' � �"- o
`�� � V� ° `� c
�� � � � � ► � o .�•
� �j �. �J � (� � � � �
� � � � P � � � o
� � � � � � � � �=
� � � o
� � �
� � � ~
�
�' \
� � �,. ` ��� �
, r • " ' �. � ►' : I, � '' \ i ,•
� '� ,. �1 � -
� . ► � � : � ► � ' .
. �
-� . � ��. � � • � 11�1
` � � • ` ,, �r - , -
1 • � •
I� ` I� • ` / ` • 1� �� ^ �� � � •
r � � • � r• • . � - : .
. R , � � .
� � � �\� ��' _ �`. . Y. � . �� .:
• "—'� �. ��i��,'�'�_ � ` ���!n '` � ,:
� ,. ,, ,_ . -- � � .
. �� t �•�� .�� ! . ; �.. �1� . .
.
� � �, � � ` �; ; � ���` �1, .
� ,� � , i . � � ►.� �, � • � .
� � ► � ( 1 � �, r�.
• � � -����►�� � ' \�� ► �' �
.
� �, - � „ ��I, ��,� ;�►\� •� ��! _ .
�► � � � ��. \\�, � �,,,�� • =
�• -� . � � � 1�� ��� ,� ��. • � •
C � ' � � ��► � � - .
:'i � '
i �,:! � �- �
� � � ' -
� , ^ ' ` : � .
• •' • ' � ► � • � � �
� , � • ►• � � � � .
�� ;` . � � ,` �, ' ,.
,� � � � �
.� �. I� , :
� ` � ; : •� � �' � - .
� ,� • � i. — ,. � : �.
� • \ � / .�
� ,• � �! � � ` � � w_ � �` � � .
� ! �• � � .. � ,,,� `ti �
� . ' � � � � t� � -
.
,` , ,
► � � � t' . �' . .
. -
`�,� � � �r ri ,
�. � � ' � � ` ` \ 1
v ' • � � � .
` �� ` � • , � . � ,
.
� � � �f � ' -
. . � . �' . = .
• , � , = ,
.
� � ` . • � .
` ► � ' '
►• 1 rI 'r � 1 ►_ � •
. .
4t , � � � :
� � .
� � •� � - ► ' :
�e ' � • � �
}� � . .
1
, , � : , E, , . ; _ :
, :
� . .
. ,
.
..
_ .
,-.- h ,
� �� /<� �'.,.�i -j � , t-
_ �• �. _ �: .. I c. � c
� -y C
, ccr.�'"I'y � (,�C..,�.V•L.L (.ti
, ..
`/ (J �-, .� i I
---�- G��
�`^� '' /•:�� -.����� ,C
L (� t"�c ,�
!�) / . � _
�C ys� ���.�.1.�- L�-�,; �"�ti� yZL��-
�.Lc, ��..d, f}.D � f�� �' '{ -� I �C 7�zv-�m�-rL�'� /
, � .�--
./� � k-c-�2.. x�� �t�c�: �,�-�:.�c. .� �� � � � E:
.�CC�� �.-��-'
��,� 1��2�( �-� ' ���u�.t �r�-ue- .�.
� .� '�-�GL�1Z C�-- �,YjZ �l'C-�C�
���/�- 'c�`�L2�„� � �'Z�-" � � �
�� ,
`'�va-����1 ,<-� ,�
-�� ��,��'� . GG �-���� �`-�..
y?� I �� �
,�����ti � �� � _
� ` `�
��� . ` ��� ����` , ;�:
..�� �,�,�. ���- �� -��z� �
r'.� . ,
. � � . . ''�; � �
�1�, , � ` �����,�" D
��. � �i1-�i'�'.,�irzti2'��`v � ���`.�
�. �
C �G~�v� . , � � .
, �L,�e , �....._. ~
� 2��;� .
,� �Y�cr' �iv�� �Gt , � Lce 2
���C�,�' �'2�
� � �r. �'�'1 � �z
���
� �
CIIY � ; PflL �I DESERI
7j-510 FRFU WAHING llRIVF
PALM DESF.RI',C�uFottNu qzz6o-z578
� TELt 760 ;46—o6tt
tnx:76o }�i-7oq8
Iinfo@palm�duen.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS.DA 06-01 AND PP/CUP 05-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Ciry Council to consider a request by Villa Property Developer, LLC. for approval of a
precise plan, conditional use permit and a Development Agreement to allow a new 12-
unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
.,u.a.a.�», .�.a,.,�,�..
: t
. •
� F
: .
r �
. �.
EL PASEO a PA� n PA�
��t �
i '� �
� 4M��A uMY���
•
�a /
• i�/ � .
3�
7
MADOM�IOYM/AIM OR �IADOI�/OYM f�IM 011
yN00M�Nff p� DV M fMN V'M'�Yf
!T � N
� � W�E
e
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, Califomia, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments conceming 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 (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN,City Clerk
October 16, 2006 City of Palm Desert, Califomia
Klassen, Rachelle
From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [russell@rwwra.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon
Subject: Contact Us Form
First name: Katharine
Last name: Russell
E-mail address: russell�rwwra.com
ZIP code: 92260
Phone: 7603409994
Comments : We don' t need more hotel rooms, more density, more traffic and more crime in the
E1 Paseo area. Let the hotels be built near Route 10. Please do not vote in favor of the
Hotel Larrea expansion.
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [welsh@rwwra.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:41 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon
Subject: Contact Us Form
First name: Jane
Last name: Russell
E-mail address: welsh�rwwra.com
ZIP code: 92260
Phone: 7607734470
Comments: You should not approve expansions or variances for the hotel properties near El
Paseo. There are too many transients in this area as it is.
1
Page 1 of I
Klassen, Rachelle
From: noeshaire@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:02 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: susan@silvergate.us
Subject: Larrea Street hotel
Dear Rachelle Klassen,
I agree with your letter that we do not need to have a hotel in our neighborhood that is higher than
our zoning allows for buildings...Tell this developer that he needs to meet our current zoning for Palm Dcsert,
or he can forget it.
We have beautiful mountains and quiet streets, low crime and we need to keep it that way. Plus Palm Desert
doesn't need his money he needs us!
Thank You for all you do for Palm Desert, Sorry I can not make the meeting but I will bc there in spirit.
Good Luck,
Lee Lewis
73-166 Joshua Tree
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Lived here for 35 years and still going strong.
Check out the ne�v AOI.. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of
high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
10/18/200G
RE: Larrea Street hotel Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; noeshaire@aol.com
Cc: susan@silvergate.us
Subject: RE: Larrea Street hotel
Dear Ms. Klasscn,
Lee is referring to a lettcr that 1 sent to my neighbors. I've attached a copy for your records. My apologies for
the confusion.
Thank you for distributing our comments to the City Councilmembers.
Best,
Susan Myrland
73860 Sl�adow Mountain Drive #G
Palm Desert CA 92260
(760) 5G8-G304
At 9:32 AM -0700 10/18/06, rklassen@ci.palm-desert.ca.us wrote:
Your comments will be included in the City Council's agenda packet. However, I'm
concerned that you refer to a letter appearing to have been sent by me. I have not sent
such a letter. Please advise.
If there is any other assistance I can offer, let me know. Thank you.
Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert
-----Original Message-----
From: noeshaire@aol.com [mailto:noeshaire@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:02 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: susan@silvergate.us
Subject: Larrea Street hotel
Dear Rachelle Klassen,
I agree with your letter that we do not need to have a hotel in our neighborhood that
10/18/2006
RE: Larrea Street hotel Page 2 of 2
is higher than our zo�_ _,, allows for buildings...Tell this develc,, . that he needs to
meet our current zoning for Palm Desert, or he can for�et it.
We have beautiful mountains and quiet streets, low crime and we need to keep it that
way. Plus Palm Desert doesn't need his money he needs us!
Thank You for all you do for Palm Dcsert, Sorry I can not make the meeting but I will
be there in spirit.
Good Luck,
Lee Lewis
73-166 Joshua Tree
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Lived here for 35 years and still going strong.
Check out the neH� _AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools,
free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and
more.
10/18/200G
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Neil Switzer [nswitzer@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:47 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: New Hotel �
I have lived in PD going on 3 years and reside on Shadow Mountain. I find it hard to believe that anyone
associated with the area would approve the ercction of taller than 2 story or high density buildings. Part of the
charm of PD and why it is such a successful resort community is that we maintain the feeling of an
underdeveloped neighborhood style town with upscale amenities.
This is a case where development does not lead to improvement, just to more opportunities for a few to make
money.
I vote "NO" on this hotel project.
Regards,
Neil Switzer
73820 Shadow Mountain #201
Palm Desert
10/18/200G
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
October 18 , 2006 PALM DESERT, CA
1006 OCT 20 AM I I� 31
City Clerk
o Rachelle Kiassen
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re : Case Nos . DA 06-01 & PP/CUP 05-20
Dear City Clerk,
I live near and walk, drive or shop in the affected
area almost every day . I believe the approval of
the boutique hotel condominium project located at
73-811 Larrea Street would cause blockage of view,
more density, more traffic, more noise and more
potential for crime and would lower my enjoyment of
my neighborhood .
Perhaps the developer can buy adjacent lots and
increase the size of his property and apply for a
permit for a one story project at a later time .
Sincerely,
/Y��,�y �`�,�,�a=-��
Nancy Humphrey
PO Box 12733
Palm Desert, CA 92255
cc : Susan Myrland
` , ,
. -- CITY OF PALM DESERT -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: October 3, 2006
CASE NO: PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of a precise plan,
conditional use permit and a Development Agreement to allow a new
12 unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel condominium project located at 73-
811 Larrea Street.
APPLICANT: Villa Property Developer, LLC.
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
1. BACKGROUND:
On April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-0
Commissioner Finerty absent) of a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment and change of zone for a proposed EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ) and a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 12-unit, 36 keys, boutique
hotel on Larrea Street.
On May 11, 2006, the EPROZ and hotel were presented to the City Council. After
the discussion, the City Council continued the public hearing to allow the applicant to
meet with the neighbors and directed staff to separate the two (2) items.
On June 8, 2006, the two (2) items were presented separately to the City Council.
The EPROZ was discussed first and denied by the City Council. Mayor Ferguson
stated that the proposed hotel could be approved through a development agreement
without the overlay zone. The development agreement will give the Council the
ability to review the each project on a case-by-case basis.
The hotel was then presented with two (2) options that lowered the rear building
heights reducing the view impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The first option had a
private spa on the roof removing the private pool, BBQ and seating area. The overall
building height of the rear buildings would be 25'6" with a 31'6" tower. The second
option completely eliminated the roof decks lowering the parapet to 26'6". The City
Council voted to refer the project back to staff and Planning Commission to allow the
applicant to initiate a development agreement for the hotel based on the second
design option.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The majority of the project remains the same as proposed at the previous Planning
Commission meetings (see attached staff report). The applicant has redesigned the
rear three (3) buildings eliminating the roof decks lowering the overall roof height to
STAFF REPORT _
PPICUP 05-20 AND DA 06-01
OCTOBER 3, 2006
26'6". Roof decks are proposed on the three (3) front buildings (fronting Larrea
Street), leaving the overall height at 28'6" with tower elements at 31'6". The term
of the development agreement is 15 years and wiN give the applicant a vested right
to develop the project as proposed.
III. ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission had previously approved the project due to its high quality
architecture and site planning design. The proposed changes will reduce the view
impacts to the adjacent neighbors on Shadow Mountain Drive. The development
agreement allows the City to approve the project with the exceptions sought without
amending the zoning ordinance.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determine
that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical
Exemption, and no further review is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01, subject to
attached conditions.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Exhibit A, Development Agreement
D. City Council Staff Report, dated May 11"'
E. Minutes from City Counal, dated May 11�' and June 8"' 2006
F. Exhibits
Prepared by:
Tony agato
Associate Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip Drell omer Croy
Director of Community Development ACM of Co ity Development
2
� -- CITY OF � - � tfrl DESE � 1
i73-510 FRED WARIVG DRIVE
iPALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25]S
reL: 760 346—o6�i
IF,tx: 76o 34i-7oq8
� info@palm-deserr.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 4, 2006
Villa Property Developer, LLC
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, California 92210
Re: PP/CUP 05-20 AND DA 06-01
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of October 3, 2006:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-20 AND DA 06-01 BY
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2420,
SUBJECT TO CONDfTfONS. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (COMMISSIONER
FINERTY VOTED NO, COMMISSIONER TSCHOPP ABSENTI.
Please call if you have any questions regarding this action.
�----�` ,
�
Philip Drell, S cretary �'
Palm Desert P anning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
:!n'mo a nncio�.ni
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2420
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS,
HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA
STREET.
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 05-20 AND DA 0601
WHEREAS, the Pfanning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did
on the 3"� day of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by the VILLA PROPERTY DEVELOPER, 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 Califomia Environmental Quality AcY',
Resolution No. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmental review
is necessary.
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 recommending to
City Council approval of said request:
1. The proposed hotel/condominium meets complies with goals and
objectives of the general plan and zoning ordinance.
2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord
with the objectives and policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance
and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
3. The proposed location of the condominium hotel 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.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend approval to City Council of Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20 and Development Agreement 06-01,
subject to conditions attached.
�
PLANN{NG COMMISS� � RESOLUTION NO. 2420
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of October, 2006, by the foliowing vote, to (
wit: (
AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, LOPEZ
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: TSCHOPP
ABSTAIN: NONE
JA L PEZ, h rson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL Secr�e�t,a,�.�.
Palm Desert PI n n�g Commission
i
I
2
" PLANNING COMMIS: N RESOLUTION NO. 2420
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PPICUP 05-20 AND DA 06-01
Deaartment of Communitv Development:
1. The deve{opment of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development� as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) year from the date of
final approval unless an extension of time is granted, otherwise said approval
shall become nuli, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. 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.
4. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said
landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and
which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this
condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The
final fandscape 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 materiais. AI1 to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
5. Access to trashJservice areas shall be placed sa 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.
6. The proje�t shall compiy with the Energy Efficiency Standards, Ordinance No.
1124.
7. A{I sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
3
PLANNING COMMISSI . RESOLUTION NO. 2420 �
8. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall
to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors.
9. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a
qualified lighting engineer.
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.
Deaartment of Public Works:
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 Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord.
801) and the approved landscape 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. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
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 the issuance of grading permits.
6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
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 on electric files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to the 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.
4
c (
PLANNING COMMISSI. . RESOLUTION NO. 2420
11. Landscape install shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the
City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04).
12. Landscape plans shatl be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
13. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards and the City's Circulation Network including the following:
• 6' curb adjacent sidewalk on Larrea Street.
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 the project.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of
Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of
grading permits.
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. The applicant shall file a tentative parcel map for condominium purposes.
Riverside Countv Fire Departme�t:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan
check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be
provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards,
CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20-psi residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed
on the job site.
2. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial stn�cture.
3. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant 4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5
PLANNING COMMISS► 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2420
4 Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
5. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings within
a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves
and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building with 50' of an
approved hydrant.
6. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and
Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, 10, but not less than 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K° type
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
8. 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 be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius tum around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these tum-arounds shali not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
9. 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".
10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
11. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
12. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or
when building permits are not obtained within finrelve months.
13. Sprinklers shall be installed in the under ground parking lots.
14. Due to compromising access for fire fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be
required.
!/
6
- DRAFY
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report in detaif and recommended approval,
subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution.
Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. CHRIS SHULTZ, Lowe Development, 74-001 Reserve Drive,
thanked Mr. Drell and Mr. Smith for their help. He said it was a
pleasure working with City staff. He said they reviewed the conditions
and they were fine as written. He asked for any questions.
There were no questions for the applicant. Chairperson Lopez asked if
anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project.
There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Lopez
asked for Commission comments or action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2419, approving
Case Nos. PP 06-10 and TT 34927, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
� B. Case Nos. PP/CUP Q5-20 and DA 06-01 - VILLA PROPERTY
DEVELOPER, LLC, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to City Council for approval of
a precise plan / conditional use permit and a development
agreement to allow a new 12 unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel
condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report and background of the case and
recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council
approval of PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01 as presented.
Commissioner Finerty asked about the height limit in that district. Mr. Bagato
replied 24 feet. Commissioner Finerty asked about the height of the existing
buildings currently in the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato said that on Shadow
3
DRAF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT P NN{NG COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006
Mountain there are some buildings that are two stories and some already
around 30 feet. They were built in the early 1980's when the height limit used
to be 30 feet. The other two-story buildings that were approved after the
height limit changed were around 24 feet.
Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Bagato addressed the density. Mr. Bagato
said yes, they looked at it and went over the overall design and from a lot
percentage standpoint they are at 41%. The key issue wasn't a concem from
staff's standpoint because as a hotel it meets parking, it meets the
requirements, and the development agreement gives them the right to have
the extra keys. The parking would be the same for condominiums and it
meets those standards as well. Commissioner Finerty asked if the density as
reported in the City Council Staff Report in May is 18 units. Mr. Bagato said
under the code that was correct. They are proposing 36. Commissioner
Finerty asked for and received confirmation that they were requesting double
the density.
There were no further questions for staff and Chairperson Lopez o�ened the
public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. WILLIAM DELEEUW, Villa Property Developers, 75-656 Via
Serena in Indian Wells, thanked the Commission for the opportunity
to present this project again. To quote a little from the staff analysis,
he said the Planning Commission previously approved this project at
the same time that they approved the hotel overlay zone due to its
high quality architecture and the site planning design. The proposed
changes would reduce the view impacts of the adjacent neighbors
and contrary to the one letter they probably didn't receive in their
packets (from Susan Myrland), they have worked diligently with all the
property owners in the area and he wasn't sure why, and he didn't
want to address each thing with the Commission, he would do that in
a letter to the Council, but once again they were here today to talk
about the development agreement, not the project per se. The project
was approved by the City Council as amended, slight amendments
from when it was approved by the Planning Commission. That was
mostly due to the height that the staff indicated. He was happy to
answer any questions. The development agreement was worked out
with the staff to address the problems and a zoning change was not
required. He asked for any questions. There were none.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was no one and the public
4
DRAF�r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3. 2006
hearing was r��. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments
or action.
Commissioner Finerty clarified for the record that although the Planning
Commission vote was 4-0 on May 11, she was not at that meeting and did
not vote on it. Secondly, she took some exception to the comment of Council
having approved this because if they look at the Council minutes dated June
8, it was to be sent back to Planning Commission and Councilmember
Benson feft it wasn't in the right location and too much was being crammed
into a small space and that it would set a precedent for others in the area.
She didn't feel that hotels of this size would impact El Paseo one way or the
other. Additionally, Mayor Ferguson had asked the developer, the applicant,
to take Councilmember Benson's comments to heart. So she didn't see that
it was approved. Mayor Ferguson also went on to say that the Council, after
the development agreement was put into place, the applicant was urged to
meet with the residents and to take Councif inembers' comments to heart
and then he would be in a better position to make a final decision once the
development agreement was retumed, along with the residents' comments.
So it was far from approved at the Council level.
Having said that, she thought it was really important to protect the residential
character of the neighbofiood and also honor our zoning ordinance. As she
pointed out in her questions with Mr. Bagato, the applicant is requesting
double, 36 units, where normally only 18 would be allowed. With regard to
the height, there are height exceptions anywhere from 2'6" up to 7' and when
an applicant comes to them and wants to put something of this scale into a
residential neighborhood, she thought it was incumbent upon the applicant
to be within the zoning and to honor the height requirement and not to be
asking for exceptions in height and in density. Therefore, she would not be
in favor of this application.
Commissioner Campbell said that at the meeting when they approved it 4-0,
since Commissioner Finerty was absent, they aU approved the project.
Seeing from the changes that have been made, as well as the average
footage in that area that Mr. Bagato stated was 24' to 30', this went right into
it. The developer made quite a few changes from the previous application he
made. Also from the Council minutes, Councilmember Benson disagreed
and she didn't approve it, but it seemed like Mayor Pro Tempore Kelly
agreed with Councilman Spiegel that it wouldn't be detrimental to anyone's
property, it wouldn't detract from anyone's property value and it had its own
underground parking which was another plus, so the vehicles wouldn't be
parked outside on the street. Even at that time it was Mayor Crites that
5
DRAF`t
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OGTOBER 3. 2006
stated at the beginning that he wouldn't be in favor of it, but from the physical
characteristics that were approved by the Planning Commission, he was also
in favor of everything. So her vote stands. She approved it the first time and
she would approve it the second time.
Commissioner Tanner concurred with Commissioner Campbell. He said they
looked at this project, looked at it hard, and decided at the time that they
would send it to Council. Seeing that there have been some additional
concessions made by the applicant, he too would move for approval and
send it back to Council.
Chairperson Lopez also concurred. The applicant worked on lowering the
height and concurred to send it back to Council for consideration. He asked
for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no, Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner,adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2420, recommending
to City Council approval of Case Nos. PP/CUP 05-20 and DA 06-01, subject
to conditions. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no,
Commissioner Tschopp was absent).
fX. MISCELLANEOUS
Chairperson Lopez stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and
vote on the first matter. He was unable to review the tapes, although he read
the minutes, so he would not be able to participate in the discussion and
asked Vice Chairperson Finerty to lead the discussion on this item.
A. Case No. HDP/PP 04-21 Amendment #1 - HAGADONE FAMILY
TRUST, Applicant
Presentation of a resolution recommending to City Council
approval of an amendment to a Hillside Development Plan /
Precise Plan to expand the approved graded area from 38,000
square feet to 61,110 square feet for a residence located at
706 Summit Cove in the foothills of the Canyons at Bighorn
Go{f Course.
6
_---_ .-
,� �- -
CITY OF PALM DESER r
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: That the City Council approve:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A
and 10.8 to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs
section of the general pian.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112
establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort
Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A change of zone to add the EI Paseo Resort Overfay Zone to
certain R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and
Portola Avenue.
D. A precise plan and conditional use peRnit to allow the
construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium
project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner M���HG DATE____���-Q �
APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock L7 CONTlNUED TO �0-�-d�D �
75-656 Via Serona
indian Wells, CA 92210 ❑ PASSED TO 2N0 READING
City of Palm Desert
(Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C2 05-05)
CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
DATE: May 11, 2006
CONTENTS: Recommendation
Executive Summary
Discussion
Draft Resolutiono6-67for GPA 05-04
Draft Ordinancell is for ZOA 05-05
Draft Ordinancs i�19 for C/Z 05-05
Draft Resolution 06-68for PP/CUP 05-20
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
Legal Notice
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2389 and 2390
Minutes from April 18, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report from April 18, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes from March 7, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
Staff Report -
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PPlCUP 05-20
Page 2 of 13
May 11, 2006
Staff Report from March 7, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
Traffic Counts and Trip Generation
Plans and project Exhibits
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-67 approving General Plan
Amendment 05-04, adding Policy 10, Program 10.A and 10.6 to the Residential
Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan.
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1118 to second reading approving
Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-05, adding Section 25.112 establishing
development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1119 to second reading approving
Change of Zone 05-05, adding the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to certain R-3
properties located on the no�th side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street,
between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-68 approving Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to oonditions attached.
Executive Summary:
Historically EI Paseo has been unique to the Coachella Vatley as an outdoor pedestrian
retail/restaurant boulevard. Today, other cities throughout the Coachel{a Valley are
developing commercial centers that will impact and challenge EI Paseo. EI Paseo's long-
term success is dependent on creating a stronger costumer base. Promoting new hotel
development adjacent to EI Paseo is one way to create a stronger costumer base.
Currently, the R-3 zone adjacent to EI Paseo allows hotel development as a conditional use.
However, no new hotels have been developed in the past 40 years and many of the existing
hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of 18 units per acre. Currently, there is 4.32
vacant acres of vacant land that can be developed as hotels within walking distance to EI
Paseo. Today, a one-acre vacant parcel costs between $1 million and $2 million. With
increased land costs, developers need to maximize use of every square foot of land to
insure economic viability. They cannot afford to use half of a one-acre parcel for parking
and recreational amenities at ground level. New design standards are needed to promote
new hotel development that makes economic sense adjacent to EI Paseo.
To encourage and promote new hotel development, staff is proposing a general plan
amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and change of zone to create an EI Paseo
Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), which will remove the 50% lot coverage, increase the
current density requirement of 18 units per acre to 36 and increase the building height from
24' to 30' for the R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and
Larrea Street between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue.
Staff Report _.
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PPtCUP 05-20
Page 3 of 13
May 11, 2006
Currently, a precise plaNconditional use permit application is being processed to allow a
12-unit 36 keys, hotel condominium with 40 subterranean parking spaces. Each unit has
three (3) fockout bedrooms that can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3). The
hotel design includes six (6) two-story buildings with the ends built above the subterranean
parking lots, a lobby/reception area, muiti-purpose room, pavilion with BBQ area, meeting
room, exercise room, and a common pool. The proposed project illustrates the need for the
proposed development standards under the EPROZ. The proposed project fully utilizes the
property to create a unique, village style, high-end boutique hotel, meeting the goals and
objectives of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. Except for the tower elements, the
proposed project complies with all the development standards of the EPROZ and zoning
ordinance. Section 25.56.300 states that tower elements may be erected 25' above the
height limit of the zone. The proposed tower elements are 1 foot above proposed 30' height
limit.
The goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high-end hotel rooms within
walking distance to Ef Paseo while maintaining compatibility and character of the existing
neighborhood. This goal will provide EI Paseo with a stronger costumer base and make
hotel development economically feasible for developers. The proposed overiay zone and
project impacts have been analyzed and it has been determined that there will be minimal
impacts on the adjacent properties. These findings have been presented at two (2) Planning
Commission meetings� a Neighborhood meeting and the EI Paseo Improvement District. On
April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0, Finery absent) recommended
approval of the proposed overtay zone and project.
I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT d� ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
A. eACKGROUND:
For years EI Paseo has been unique in the Coachella VaNey as an outdoor,
pedestrian-oriented, retaiVrestaurant boulevard. However, emerging
commercial centers are being developed in other cities throughout the
Coachella Valley chaflenging E{ Paseo's uniqueness. EI Paseo's ability to
successfully compete with other comme�cial centers is dependent on
attracting more people. One way to attract more people is to promote high-
end boutique hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo. New hotels can
provide EI Paseo with a reliable costumer base and generate new transit
occupancy tax (TO�for the City.
!n order to provide for new hotels it is necessary to identify the best possible
locations within walking distance to EI Paseo. The properties directly south of
EI Paseo (Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street) are zoned R-3 multi-
family. The R-3 zone currently allows hotels as a conditional use. Over the
past 40 years no new hotels have been deve{oped in this area. 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
�- .. .
Staff Report
� GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 4 of 13
May 11, 2006
Canyon is 41 units per acre. These hotels were bui{t before the City
incorporated. The design standards that currentfy affect hotel development in
R-3 zone are density (18 units per acre max), lot coverage (50% max), and
height (24', 18' within 120' of R-1 zoning).
To encourage hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo, staff is proposing a
general p�an amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment and a change of
zone to create an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied
to the R-3 properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and
Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue to encourage
developers to propose new hotels adjacent to EI Paseo. Currently, one such
application is in process. The proposed EPR02 and hotel application should
be reviewed simuftaneously to evaluate the appropriateness of the Overlay
design standards.
B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide
flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within the R-3
zone adjacent to EI Paseo. Adding the EPROZ to the R-3 zone will allow
property owners to choose whether to use the EPROZ standards for hotel
development or the standards of the base zone for non hotel developments.
The proposed general plan amendment will add Policy 10, Program 10.A and
10.B as described below (Exhibit A), to the Residential Goals, Polices and
Programs in the General Plan. The amendment provides the framework for
establishing the EPROZ in the zoning ordinance.
Pollcy 10: The City shall encourage new hotel development on the
residential properties within walking distance to EI
Paseo.
Program 10.A: The City shall establish an EI Paseo Resort Overlay
Zone (EPROZ) that will be applied to the R-3 and
Planned Residential properties located on the north side
of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed, between
Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea
Street.
Program 10.8: The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for
pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district.
The proposed zoning ordinance will add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) to the
zoning ordinance establishing the development standards for the EI Paseo
f � .
Staff Report
� GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 5 of 13
May 11, 2006
Resort Overlay Zone. Under the EPROZ, the development standards are a
follows:
Density: 36 unfts per acre
Setbacks: Base zone standards apply
Height: 30' maximum helght
Parktng: Sectfon25.58, Oft-street parking standards apply
Exceptlons: Standards may be modified by the development
plan approved by Planning Commisslon and City
Council
The proposed change of zone will add the EPROZ to the R-3 properties
located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street,
between Larkspur Lane and Portola Avenue. The proposed project illustrates
the need for the proposed EPROZ Development Standards.
C. COMMISSION AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS:
On December 15, 2005, the proposed overlay zone and appfication were
presented to the EI Paseo Improvement District. The Board of Directors
supported creating an overtay zone that will promote hotefs within walking
distance to EI Paseo and unanimously recommended approval of the
proposed zone and project.
The project was presented to the Planning Commission on March 7, 2006. At
that time, the proposed location of the overfay zone was on the R-3 and P.R.
properties Iocated on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed
Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue. The
Commission and adjacent neighbors expressed concerns regarding the
impacts from the overlay zone. It was continued to allow staff to study the
impacts from the proposed overlay zone. After restudying the area and
determining where development will initially occur, the location of the overlay
zone was changed to the R-3 properties on the north side of Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, between Larkspur Lane and Portola
Avenue.
A neighborhood meeting was held on March 23, 2006 to inform the public
about the proposed project and impacts. The meeting included the applicanYs
representative and architect, Commissioner Finerty and Commissioner
Tanner, City staff, EI Paseo merchants, and adjacent residents.
�.'_ ,.. '•
�
Staff Report
� GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05,�2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 6 of 13
May 11, 2006
On April 18�', 2006, the Planning Cornmission recommended approval, on a
4-0-1 vote (Commissioner Finerty absent) of the proposed general plan
amendment, zoning ordinance amendment, change of zone, and precise
plan/conditional use permit. Commissioner Tanner said that the proposed
hotel is a beautiful start of the overiay zone. Commissioner Campbell thought
the hotel is great for the area and that the location of the overlay zone was
perfect. Commissioner Tschopp liked the idea of reducing the overlay zone
location to a more manageable area and thought the project was very good.
Chairperson Lopez stated that the current overlay zone was a good location
and he believed that the vacant properties on Larrea Street need to be
developed and hopes that this project will initiate that.
11. EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPRO�:
A. BACKGROUND:
Property descriptlon:
The property, totaling 40,500 square feet, is located on the south side of
Larrea Street, 260' east of San Luis Avenue. Currently, there is an
abandoned motel located on the east half of the property and the west hatf is
vacant. It is zoned R-3 (3), Multi-family, which allows hotels as a conditional
use with a maximum of 18 units per acre.
PP 01-06:
On April 17, 2001, a precise plan of design for a two-story 12-unit apartment
complex was approved on the subject property. The project was never buift
and the entitlement has expired.
Ad�acent Zoning and Land Use:
North: R-3/ Parking lot and single story apartments
South: R-3/Two-story apartments
East: R-3/Vacant
West: R-3/ Single-story hotel
Project Descrtption:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design and
conditiona{ use permit to allow a i2-unit 36 keys, hotel condominium with 40
subterranean parking spaces. Each unit has three (3) lockout bedrooms that
can be rented separately or in groups of two (2) or (3). The condominium
description is for financing purposes. The project will not be sold as
residential condominiums. The hotel design includes six (6) two-story
buildings with the ends buitt above the subterranean parking lots, a
r %�
Staff Report
� GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05,—C2 05-05, AND PPICUP 05-20
Page 7 of 13
May 11, 2006
lobby/reception area, multi-purpose room� pavilion with BBQ area, meeting
room, exercise room, and a common poo{. Three (3) driveways, of which two
(2) lead to the parking lots, on Larrea Street provide access to the hotel.
Ten (10) units are two-stories with roof decks. The first floor has a foyer area
that provides access to two (2) bedrooms and a stairway to the other floors.
The first floor bedrooms have a private sitting area, bath, mini-bar and patio.
The second floor has a living and dining room area, full kitchen, bedroom,
bath, balcony and deck. The roof decks have an outdoor fireplace, private
pool, spa, and BBQ/sitting area.
The other two (2) units are two-stories without roof decks. The fi�st f400� has
an entryway to one-bedroom and a stairway. The bedroom includes the living
and dining area, full kitchen, bath, two (2) patios, and a private spa. The
stairway leads to a hallway that provides access to the other two (2)
bedrooms, deck, pool and spa.
Due to the unique design of the project, setbacks are described in four (4)
categories:
1. Main building
2. Architectural Projections
3. Decks:
4. Stairways:
1. Maln Bulldfng:
The main building is setback between 15' and 23' from the front
property line (north), 10' from the rear (south) and 10' from both
sides (east/west).
2. Archltectural ProJectlons:
The building design incorporates curved architectural elements and
the walls for the subterranean parking lots that extend beyond the
main building. The projections are setback 13' the front property line,
5' from the rear and 8' from both side yards. Section 25.56.210 allows
architectural projections to encroach 6' into a required front and rear
yard setback, and no more than 2' into the side ya�ds.
3. Stalrways:
There are two exterior stairways that provide access from the parking
lot to the first level of the hotel. The two (2) outside stairways are
setback 5' from the side yards. Section 25.56.230 allows open,
unroofed, steps to project no closer than 3' from the interior side yard.
i" J
Staff Report
" GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05,�2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 8 of 13
May 11, 2006
4. Decks:
There are two decks on the rear buildings that are setback 8' from the
rear p�operty line. Section 25.56.240 allows Decks to project 6' into the
required rear yard provided that the setback is not reduced to less
than 5' feet.
Architecture:
if the project is to attract EI Paseo customers, it needs to incorporate the
highest quality of architectural detail, interior space and amenities. The
architecture design is a Mediterranean/Middle Eastem blend that utilizes
round bay windows, roof domes, wrought iron guardrails, stone columns,
wood doors and window trim, fabric awnings, and smooth stucco in three
(3) earth tone colors.
On December 13, 2005, the Architectural Review Commission unanimously
granted preliminary approval of the building design.
Helght:
In order to achieve the highest quality of architectural detail and interior space
the primary building height for the end buildings is 28 feet 6 inches with tower
elements at 31 feet. Due to the narrowness of the lot and fimits on driveway
ramp angle, the semi-subterranean parking lots extend 2 feet 6 inches above
grade. The two f{oor levels with 9 feet 4 inches of interior space and 9 inches
of structural floor/ceiling element consume 20 feet 2 inches. The 5 foot 10
inch roof deck parapet provides privacy and noise control for the hotel guests
and neighboring residents, totaling 25 feet 6 inches.
Where there are no roof decks or subterranean parking the buildings are
lower. The front middle building height varies between 25 feet and 28 feet
with a dome element at 31'0". The rear middle building height varies
between 23 feet and 25 feet 6 inches.
Project Data:
TANDARI.�'. ; , � . i� :':�;; . � �, � �31EPRQIF PROJECT
Hotel Density 18 units per acre 36 12 units, 36 keys
Front Setback 15' �5� 15'/ 13'
ro'ections
Rear Yard 10' 10' 10'/5' (projections)
Setback
. �
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 9 of 13
May 11, 2006
Side Yard 20' combined, one 20' combined, one ��,�8,�projections)
Setbacks side no less than 8' side no less than 8'
Height 24' 30' 28'6"/31' Tower
Lot Coverage 50% No max 78%
Parking 40 40 40
11i. DISCUSSION:
Every hotel that has been approved by the City has required an exception. The
Marriott Desert Springs, Shadow Ridge and the Courtyard are a few examples.
These hotels have been buitt in Planned Residential zones. The Planned
Commercial Resort zone maximum density requirement of 30 units per acre was
removed and the height was increased to 35 feet (30 feet within 100 feet of
residential) to maximize hotel units developed in the City. The Embassy Suites,
Vacation lnn and Holiday Express were developed under the Planned Commercial
Resort zone. Both zones have an exception p�ocess in the development standards.
The R-3 zone does not have an exception process and no new hotels have been
developed ad)acent to Et Paseo.
The goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high-end hotel
rooms adjacent to EI Paseo. This goal will provide EI Paseo with a stronger
customer base and make hotel development economically feasible for developers.
Regardless of how compatible or desirable a land use may be it will not be built if it
does not generate a profit. Setback to setback building coverage and semi-
subtenanean parking are required to achieve this goal. To accommodate the high
level of hotel amenities necessary to attract EI Paseo customers, roof decks are
required.
IV. ISSUES/ANALYSIS:
During the March 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and the Neighborhood
meeting concems regarding density, traffic, height, noise and lighting were
discussed. The properties adjacent to EI Paseo were studied to identify the existing
land uses and impacts from new development.
Development under the EPROZ will initially occur on vacant or under developed
properties. All properties west of Lar4cspur Lane are developed and there is little
opportunity for redevelopment. East of Larkspur Lane there are five (5) vacant
properties totaling 4.32 acres. Three (3) vacant properties are located on Larrea
Street, one (1) on Shadow Mountain Drive and one (1) on Larkspur Lane.
Based on development of the 4.32 acres, different uses were studied to compare
density, traffic, and view impacts:
r
Staff Report . �
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 10 of 13
May 11, 2006
A. De�sity:
The goal of the EPROZ is to maximize the number of high-end hotel rooms
adjacent to EI Paseo while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
The current application is proposing a 12-unit� 36 keys, boutique hotel with
subterranean parking on a 40,500 square foot lot. The proposed project
density of 36 keys the maximum number of units that can be developed on
one-acre under the proposed two-story height limit. The proposed EPROZ
density standard would be 36 units per acre.
The fotlowing table identifies the possible densities for condominiums,
apartrnents and hotel development under the current development standards
and hotet development under the proposed EPROZ standards.
t :r
� x-
R-3 (4) 2.02 acres 22 22 36 72
R-3 (3) 2.30 acres 30 30 40 80
TOTAL ot 4.32 52 52 76 152
Acre area
Based on the proposed 4.32 EPROZ area, the maximum number of hotel
units is 152.
B. Traftic:
Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street are designated for two-lane
commercial traffic in the general plan. This area has a mix of residential uses,
hotels, office and pa�king lots. The currerit tsaffic vol�me is based on local
residents and business owners who live or work in the area.
The Institute af Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to
compare project traffic impacts to altemative land uses in the EPROZ area.
us�' � �, . 1i , o�� `;��:t�i�i���a: in��a as�
,
Condominiums 52 5.86 305 trips
Apartments 52 6.59 343 trips
Hotels (current 1 S units) 76 6.24 474
EPROZ (36 units) 152 6.24 948 trips
r•- -
. Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 11 of 13
May 11, 2006
The ITE uses an average number of 6.24 trips per day for hotel suites based
on case studies for various hotel suites throughout the country. The 152 hotel
units couid increase the trips per day by 948. The 948 trips per day would be
split onto the Shadow Mountain, Larrea Street and Larkspur Lane. Based on
development on these streets traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive may increase
from 3,564 per day to 3,730 trips per day and from 1,217 to 1,666 on Larrea
Street. In the Planning Commission staff report dated April 18, 2006, a 100%
of the trips were applied to both streets, which was incorrect. The traffic
impacts have been assigned to the streets where the vacant properties are
located.
According to the City's Transportation Engineer. less than 5,000 trips per day
on these streets is an acceptable traffic level for residents. Level of Service A
(60% capacity) in the general plan for these streets is 8,000 trips per day.
With the new hotel development, Shadow Mountain Drive would be at 26%
capacity and Larrea Street would be at 12% capacit�r. Given that new hotels
will be within wa{king distance to many to EI Paseo, it can be expected that
the traffic increase wili be less than 948 trips per day. If traffic did increase by
948 trips per day, both streets are well within quality of life standards. The
proposed EPROZ will not sign'rficantly increase traffic on Shadow Mountain
Drive and Larrea Street.
C. Vtaw Impact:
All of the properties within the EPROZ area are zoned for two-story
development, although there are single-story developrnents on Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. Any single-story developments
adjacent to vacant land will be impacted from single-story and two-story
development under the current 24-foot height limit.
The closest single-family homes on Shadow Lake Drive outside the
EPROZ area are 13' higher than the vacant properties on Larrea Street
and 6' higher than the vacant property on the north side of Shadow
Mountain Drive. These properties are at least 150' away from Shadow
Lake Drive. tn addition, the views for the single-family homes are to the
south and west. The EPROZ area is north of Shadow Lake Drive.
Increasing the current height limit by 6 feet, totaling 30 feet will not
significantly impact the view of the single-family homes to the south.
D. Noise:
Adjacent neighbors are concerned that there wil{ be loud noise from hotel
guests on the roof decks. A condition of approva! has been added
restricting hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm Sundays
through Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays. This
� . !"'•.
r '
. Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 12 of 13
May 11, 2006
condition will impiement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the
adjacent property owners.
The applicant is committed and concerned about potential noise issues due
to the fact noisy guests can negatively impact the hotel's business and
bottom line. A security guard will be on-site during nighttime hours.
E. Ughting:
A letter for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department states that lighting is
needed in around the complex an in the subterranean parking lots to reduce
vandalism. The City has an outdoor lighting ordinance (Chapter 24.16,
Municipal Code) that requires lighting systems which reduces and minimizes
light pollution. Since the parking lots are underground any lighting wifl not be
seen by the adjacent properties. A 6' high wall surrounding the project will
provide adding screening Lighting will not impact the adjacent neighbors.
V. �ONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
A. EPROZ:
In 2005, EI Paseo generated $210 million in taxable sales, which provides the
City with $2.1 million to the City's general fund. EI Paseo's retail dominance
and its ability to generate revenue for the Cit�r are being challenged by new
commercial centers throughout the Coachella Valley.
The EI Paseo Resort Overlay was created to promote new hotel
deveiopment, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone providing a stronger
costumer base for EI Paseo. The proposed EPROZ standards will remove the
50% lot coverage requirement, increase the current density limit of 18 units
per acre to 36 and increase the building height from 24 feet to 30 feet. The
proposed overlay zone will encourage new hotels with minimal impact to the
surrounding properties.
B. 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS HOTEL:
The proposed hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a
village style resort that is within walking distance to EI Paseo and compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, meeting the goals and objective of the
EPROZ. The precise plan complies with all the proposed and current zoning
standards.
. Staff Report - -
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 13 of 13
May 11, 2006
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined
that the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment and
change of zone will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and
staff has prepared Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined
that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical
Exemption, and no further review is necessary.
Submitted By: Department Head:
Tony agato Phil Drell
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
City Man ge
A or Dev t Services
( ^
- CIIY 0 � t� Nl �! D � SERI
73—S�O FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEt: 760 346—o6t�
Fax: 760 34i-7oq8
in fo@palm-desert.org
June 15, 2006
Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Welis, California 92210
Dear Mr. Breznock:
Subject: Request for Aparoval of a Precise Pian and Conditlonal Use
Permit to Allow Construction of a New, 12-Unit, 36-Kev Hotel
Condominium Proiect Located at 73-811 Larrea Street — Case
No. PPICUP 05-20 (Continued from the meetin�t of
Mav 11, 2006)
At its regular meeting of June 8, 2006, Palm Desert City Council considered the subject
case and took the following action:
By Minute Motion, referred the matter back to staff and the Planning
Commission, requesting that the Applicant initiate the Development
Agreement process for the subject project, further indicating that the
Applicant's Option 2 was preferable.
A copy of the staff report with City Council action stamp affixed thereto is enclosed for
your records. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact our affices.
Sincerely,
� �
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CMC
CITY CLERK
RDK:mgm
Enclosure (as noted)
cc: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
G:�CityClrk�Gbna M+nin�z�Lenen�63-002 P4m�np�EPROZ-E.BnznoU�C60806.Ooc
�j muu a urnue nn�
( . -
CITY OF PALM DESERT -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MISCJINFORMATIONAL ITEM
TO: City Council
FROM: Tony Bagato, Assistant Planner
DATE: June 8, 2006
SUBJECT: Modifications to proposed 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project
located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
The applicant is proposing finro (2) options to modify the rear buildings lowering the roof
height by three (3) feet. The first option is to allow a private spa on the roof removing
the private pool, BBQ and seating area. The overall building height of the rear building
would be lowered to 25'6" with a tower element at 31'6". The tower element houses the
stairway to provide access to the private spa.
The second option is to completely eliminate the roof decks on the rear building
lowering the height to 25'6" without a tower element since a roof stairway is not needed.
Both proposals lower the building height to reduce view impacts to the adjacent
neighbors.
The roof decks are proposed on the three (3) front buildings, leaving the overall height
at 28'6" with tower elements at 31'6".
Submitted By:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Tony B ato APPROVED DENIED
RECEIVED OTi:[ER ��
Assistant Planner �
P�SEETING DATE -
NOBS:�C'r7� �SQ� f���' ,Q,�x� _ S(m.
�
AasEr�r: - -- ----
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIBD 8Y: L �y�
Original on Pi1a w City Clerk's office
cc: Carlos Ortega, City Manager
Homer Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services
* By Minute 1�l�otion, referred the natter back to staff and the Planning Commission,
requesting that the Applicant initiate the Developaent Agreement process for the
subject project, further indicating that the Applicant's Option 2 was preferable.
4-1 (Besnon NO)
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Councilman Crites asked if the water features had gone through the City's
Landscape Department for requirement approval. Mr. Bagato stated a large
meeting took place at the beginning of the project where landscaping, plant
materials, and water features were discussed.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing o�en and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MR. CHAD MEYER, Developer of the project introduced himself and offered
to answer any questions.
Councilman Spiegel asked the developer what he planned to put in the open
areas. Mr. Meyer replied that after many discussions, it was felt that tennis
courts do not occupy enough people, a volleyball court would occupy more
and could possibly go into a retention basin; it would allow water to settle and
could survive a major rain.
Councilman Spiegel suggested a tot lot, and the developer indicated he was
open to that suggestion. Councilman Spiegel also invited the developer to
attend a Parks & Recreation Commission meeting for input. Mr. Meyer
agreed to attend the next scheduled meeting.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing
closed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and: 1) Adopt Resolution No.
06-65, approving Case No. GPA 05-03; 2) pass Ordinance No. 1117 to second reading,
approving Case No. C/Z 05-04; 3)adopt Resolution No. 06-66, approving Precise Plan 05-
25, Tentative Tract Map 33719, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Motion was seconded by Crites and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Mayor Ferguson ABSENT.
-X D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
ADDING POLICY 10, PROGRAM 10.A AND 10.B TO THE RESIDENTIAL
GOALS, POLICIES,AND PROGRAMS SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN;
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING SECTION 25.112 TO THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ);
CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE
TO CERTAIN R-3 PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LARREA STREET BETWEEN
LARKSPUR LANE AND PORTOLA AVENUE; PRECISE PLAN AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA NEW, 12-
UNIT, 36-KEY HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT
73-811 LARREA STREET Case Nos. GPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05. C/Z 05-05.
and PP/CUP 05-20 (Eugene Breznock and City of Palm Desert, Applicants).
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Assistant Planner Tony Bagato reviewed the staff report in detail, outlining
the project and proposal for a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment, and change of zone to create an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ). He mentioned that this project had been presented to the
Architectural Review Commission, EI Paseo Improvement District, the
Planning Commission twice and one neighborhood meeting. Each
Committee and Commission have recommended the project be approved.
He offered to answer any questions.
Upon question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Bagato replied that the Planning
Commission vote was 4-0 with Finerty absent.
Councilman Crites reported that he had a list of questions and comments on
the project. He stated the applicant could ask for exceptions, a change of
zone, and proceed without the overlay zone. Mr. Bagato replied that under
current standards, the developer would not be allowed an exception. He
stated that even with the overlay zone, a change of zone would be requested
on top of the existing zone. Both Mayor Pro Tem Kelly and Councilman
Crites agreed that the applicant could submit his proposal without an overlay
zone. Mr. Bagato replied that the applicant could proceed, but the R-3 Zone
would then need to be changed to allow for exceptions.
Councilman Crites stated he was skeptical this project would be necessary
for the long-term success of EI Paseo. He stated he did not have anything
against adding business to EI Paseo and having merchants be successful,
but didn't believe selling this as a make or break project, given the number
of people who shop on EI Paseo.
Mr. Bagato stated that this project is confined to a small area that currently
needs redevelopment and over time could expand further down toward Deep
Canyon where there are other hotels. The goal would be to get more units,
maybe 1,000. He offered that it was the 2,800 units that kept downtown
Palm Springs alive all these years, and studies had shown that hotels would
be beneficial to a City. The project's proposed development standards have
very minimal changes to promote the project and not significantly impact the
existing neighborhood.
Councilman Crites disagreed. He went on to say there were existing issues
with amplified music at ground level and now staff was suggesting putting
people on top of rooftops until midnight. Mr. Bagato answered that there
would be security in place to prevent noise disturbance. He noted that the
other businesses with amplified music are for entertainment only.
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Councilman Crites believed that the hotel security's priority would be to keep
the hotel full and their guests pleased.
In regard to height of the building with the rooftop decks, Councilman Crites
suggested removing the rooftop decks and the 5-foot wall to bring height to
about a 25-foot building, which would be closer to code. He further noted
that with the overlay zone, the applicant would already be asking for an
exception in height. Mr. Bagato clarified that it would not be an exception to
the height, because there is a specific ordinance in the City's Municipal Code
Provision Chapter 25.56, that would allow the towers to be approved as
standard and not considered an exception. Councilman Crites disagreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, stated he
had requested a continuance of this matter to make height changes. He did
not have anything specifically to propose but would provide a final drawing
prior to the final vote. He stated this project had been through two hearings
with the Planning Commission, plus three other public hearings with the
Architectural Committee, presented to the merchants group of EI Paseo, as
well as the community group. He stated the staff report was very complete
and acknowledged that the project could go forward without an overlay zone;
although,they would rather build under the overlay zone ordinance than have
to come back for each exception. He felt that City staff had done a lot of
work formulating the zoning and minimizing it to the proposed area. He
stated the project is basically 12 condominium units, not anything different
than what was approved by the Council five or six years ago, which had
expired(12 condominiums with 24 parking spaces). This project proposes 12
condominiums with 40 underground parking spaces; would be financed as
12 units, appear on the parcel map as 12 units, and be allowed to operate as
a hotel under the Conditional Use Permit.
In regard to previous comments regarding height, Mr. DeLeeuw stated that
by removing the parapet wall from the rooftop decks the height would drop
about 5 feet 10 inches,which would make it compatible to the east residential
area. He felt the roof decks were important to his project, not critical as a
whole, but relevant to the clientele they are hoping to attract. The hotel
would be an upper-end boutique hotel in the range of$200 to $500 per suite
and projected to generate about $10,000 a day in revenue and more than
$200,000 in T.O.T. to the City in the course of a year. He reminded the City
Council of his request to continue to the next meeting, following the public
hearing.
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Councilman Crites asked Mr. DeLeeuw if he read the letters from neighbors,
because some felt they were threatened by proposal to build low-cost
housing or walk away altogether. He asked if Mr. DeLeeuw would consider
going back to meet with the neighbors to engender a more positive attitude
as he proceeded with potential modifications.
Mr. DeLEEUW stated that he would consider meeting with the community
group, if it was even possible. He stated that at the first Planning
Commission meeting, requests for changes and modifications were made.
The changes were later presented to the community group, and the response
of the opponents was that they did not like the project no matter what
revisions or modifications were made. He said one of their representative
attended the community group meeting and he was very disappointed with
the response. He felt that in spite of having spent a lot of money on the
changes and new architectural drawing, the only thing that would be
acceptable to the group would be apartments. The representative then
explained that it would be foolish not to take the City up on bonuses allowed
by State law which are LMI (low -moderate income) density bonuses,
allowing a developer up to the present height without any discretionary
approvals. Those statements made by the representative may have been
misinterpreted by the opponents as a threat to build low-income housing. He
stated that was not the case at all, he was very familiar with LMI projects and
very proud to be the original developers of the San Tropez (name has since
been changed). They are proud of that project and felt that the City should
be too, believing there isn't a better LMI project throughout the whole County.
The representative shared that information as an option available to the
developer because the land cannot be left vacant, but not one that is being
considered. He felt the group was taking the position of not having a project,
and the applicant was taking the position of having a good project. In answer
to the initial question of working with the community group, he stated he
would be happy to work with them, but they would also need to be
reasonable and willing.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's questions, Mr DeLeeuw replied that
the City issued an abatement order to remove the abandoned building and
confirmed that it had been removed.
MR. DeLEEUW addressed the issue of noise and stated that the applicant
had a vested interest in keeping noise level to a minimum and would not want
to refund money to unsatisfied customers. He also noted the hotel would not
have a restaurant or bar. He stated that hotel businesses require higher
limitations than what the City may impose for any outside activity.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
MS. DEBRA HALL Joshua Tree Street, south Palm Desert, stated her
business is in Real Estate investment and shared her view of Palm Desert's
growth and development since the 1970's. She stated the first notice of
hearing was published February 21, and the second on May 1, and she
wondered why the Overlay Zone area coverage differed between the two
publications.
Mr. Bagato stated that at the first Planning Commission Meeting, a larger
overlay was presented. Due to traffic and density concerns raised and the
impact it may have on the community, the overlay zone was modified and
reduced to where most of the development could happen.
MS. HALL stated that she sent an e-mail to be read at the Planning
Commission but noted it was not mentioned in the minutes. She enumerated
the following concerns 2) excessive traffic of up to 1,000 cars on Shadow
Mountain; 2) the 30-foot high building; 3) light pollution; 4) entering and
exiting driveways would be a safety factor. She stated that the re-opening of
Washington Charter School would also have an impact. She felt the
merchants at the existing boutiques were very cooperative and willing to
resolve past issues. She wanted the Council to be sure the project would
enhance the entire community and not just increase revenue for the City. In
response to an earlier comment made by the developer in regard to working
with a community group that would be reasonable, she stated that she
considered reasonable to mean the removal of the roof deck, keeping it at
the current height zoning standard and building a condominium complex that
would fit the neighborhood.
Councilman Crites stated that the developer had asked for a continuance and that
he would leave the public hearing open.
MS.JAN HOLMLUND member ofthe City's Historic Preservation Committee,
stated she was not making a formal report on behalf of the Committee but
speaking as a member who is very interested in City planning and how it
functions. She stated she was neither in favor or in opposition to the project
but felt the Council was not receiving the benefits of her Committee's and of
other Committee's input when considering this type of planning. She noted
several of the projects already approved this evening were on brand new
land; this project is in the heart of the City, and staff is suggesting to Council
that an overlay would be good for development, but she had concerns for
existing neighborhoods. She suggested a formal, organized method for
reaching the City Council in the form of an advisory panel from all of the
Committees and Commissions when considering building in areas that
involved redevelopment. She stated that the Historic
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Preservation Committee would have been interested in considering this
overlay proposal because there are some properties in the area that are on
the Historic Preservation list
MR. DAVID FLETCHER, EI Paseo, Palm Desert, stated he was a resident
and on the Board with the EI Paseo Merchants Association. He stated the
applicant brought the project through the Merchants Association, which felt
it was a great project and passed their recommendation for approval. He
stated he attended the Planning Commission and the community group
meetings on this project and felt that the developer had a great-looking
project and was attempting to provide a project that would work well with the
neighborhood. In response to an earlier comment made by a local property
owner who was opposed to the project because it would block her view, he
shared that he could not see any difference between what this project is
proposing and an approved two-story building, which would be only two feet
lower. He recommended approval of the project, but also agreed with
Councilman Crites comments that this project would not make or break it for
EI Paseo.
MR. ROY ASARO, Gary Avenue, Palm Desert, shared he was an Architect
with his practice in Palm Desert. He attended the community meeting and
felt the project was good and healthy for that area. He shared that he is
working in several other cities on large shopping/lifestyle centers. He stated
he would like to see EI Paseo stronger and retain its ambiance. He is a fairly
frequent visitor to EI Paseo and felt that the number of people going there
had dropped. He believes the project's proposed wall would be effective. and
noise would be very minimal; he didn't feel light pollution would be of any
concern. He offered that he had worked in the Coastal areas where it's
difficult to get projects approved, especially if views are blocked but this
building and the proposed landscaping will be very low impact to anyone's
view. As far as the roof decks are concerned, he didn't believe that there
would be very much sound from those walls, noting he worked with the Ciry
of San Diego's school districts on planning projects that included skybridges
with overpasses, and with Cal Trans on sound studies, finding that sound
typically would go up and bounce off those walls; it would not be dropping
back down to the neighborhood. He is also an amateur astronomer and
worked in San Diego to get a dark sky environment. He believed the lighting
issues could be resolved at the staff level. He was for the project and
believed it would be a big boost for the City and EI Paseo.
MR. BRIAN HARNIK, Shadow Lake Drive, Palm Desert, stated he had lived
in the Coachella Valley since 1988 and was proud to be a resident since
1993. He lived close to the southern side of the proposed overlay zone. He
loves Palm Desert and believes it to be the best city for it leadership and staff
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
that worked hard to draw balance for all projects. He stated that most people
don't like change; and fear is the projection of a bad result before it happens.
He felt the Council's role is to try to create an appropriate balance between
neighborhoods, business, and the future and stated that when this project is
finally to a vote, iYs not just the current developer, but two or three owners
down the road in the future that should be considered. He shared that he did
not study the plans, but had tremendous faith in the City Council and staff to
do what is right to draw that balance; however, he did have an issue with
Augusta and their loud music. He requested that appropriate controls be in
place so that Code Enforcement has the ability to prevent loud parties, late
night interferences, and difficulties.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, Highway 111, Palm Desert, Architect for the
project, stated he had attended all the meetings and heard the concerns
about height and mass. He shared that he and the developer are willing to
make adjustment in all areas, including height, to accommodate concerns.
MS. BEVERLY BURIES, Mountain View, Palm Desert,apologized forthe late
letter given to the Council. She felt that it was disingenuous for the developer
to state that the community had not been supportive or helpful; she felt the
community had been an afterthought in this whole process. She
stated the community meeting mentioned earlier involved two Palm Desert
residents,which were the only two invited. The response from the community
was not that they didn't want any project, but that the project borders right
next to a residential area; iYs not about the views but the impact that pools
on rooftops would have to their neighborhood. In her last communication with
Code Enforcement after calling the Sheriff's Department, she was told the
issue of Augusta was at the City Manager's Office, but she had not learned
how it was resolved. If after two years of complaining to Code Enforcement
about Augusta, she wondered how rooftop pool parties would be controlled
on Friday and Saturday night. She lived on the corner of Mountain View and
Shadow Lake, which was like a tunnel, where the sound lifts and falls right
on top of them. As a retired teacher, she is extremely concerned about the
issue of traffic and transiency, which both relate to the building and the
overlay zone and having to pack that many transient residents into a small
space. She thought the project is lovely, but on property too small for it, it
would be a big eyesore. She wanted the City Council to proceed with
caution—preserve the integrity of the area, neighborhood, and safety of
children. She offered that the projected number for Washington Charter
school would be doubling to an enrollment of 750; present conditions felt like
a freeway but was told there was nothing that could be done about it.
Neighbors have suggested closing off streets to residents only. She felt this
project was being imposed upon a residential community and hoped there
would be a better dialogue between community and developer.
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
MS. MARY FOSTER stated she grew up in Shadow Mountain and Desert
Lilly. Her biggest concern is that this type of project would change the
character of south Palm Desert and EI Paseo. She was a previous merchant
on EI Paseo for nine years, and she and her family would not like a project
of this size in that area. Palm Desert was built as a small, beautiful
community, and it does not need a big hotel like downtown Palm Springs.
MS. KIM HOUSKEN, Somara, Palm Desert, asked the Council ifthe overlay
zone was developed at the Council's pleasure or for another reason.
Mr. Bagato answered that part of his job in planning is to look at long-term
liability for the City. The overlay zone was staff-initiated.
MS. HOUSKEN commented that the General Plan was approved two years
ago and this proposed project had been in the works for a year. She had no
comments on the project itself; her concern was about making changes to a
General Plan approved only two years ago. She asked about the process
regarding overlay zones. In reading through the minutes, she understood
there was once a freeway overlay zone that went to a Zoning Ordinance
Review Committee, which had since been dissolved. She felt that if the City
wanted the project to be developed in the EI Paseo area, a lot more
community buy in was needed for something this substantial. She
recommended more public hearings for community input before the General
Plan is drastically changed.
With no further public testimony offered, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly stated that the
developer had asked for a continuance, and he would leave the public hearing open.
Councilman Crites suggested that the items be separated for the next
agenda. He stated that having to consider the value of the project for the EI
Paseo area and community, and whether an overlay zone be approved to
potentially add 1,000 hotel rooms to a residential area, according to Mr.
Bagato's figures, are two separate matters.
Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, continue the matter to the meeting
of June 8, 2006, asking staff to separate the two issues being considered (i.e., the project
and the EI Paseo Overlay Zone). Motion was seconded by Crites.
Councilmember Benson commented that she would vote for the continuance
but had deep concerns on this type of project in that area and what overall
inpact it would have. Having been a former resident of Larrea Street, she
would not like to see three or four of these projects crowded into a space that
the City prides itself on.
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 2006
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly called for the vote, and the motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with
Mayor Ferguson ABSENT.
E. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION,
APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW JIFFY LUBE OIL CHANGE FACILITY WITH A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.28.060 OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE, ALLOWING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED
"DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE" SETBACK FROM 43'8"TO 24'AND A VARIANCE
FROM SECTION 25.56.400, ALLOWING SERVICE BAYS TO FRONT
ONTO A PUBLIC STREET — 74-180 HIGHWAY 111 Case
Nos. PP/CUP 05-05 and VAR 05-04 (Ernest Ramirez, Applicant).
Councilman Crites stated that this project had been reviewed by the
Architectural Commission many times and stated that it was a difficult site to
be developed. He said the current code section does not permit garage bays
facing the street. Because of how this land and project were laid out, it was
not possible to have it face one street.
Mr. Bagato stated that the property is surrounded by three streets, Highway
111, Cabrillo Avenue, and Alessandro, and given the small lot size, different
ways were considered, but it was not possible to accomplish that.
Councilman Crites stated the reason this project was before the Council was
because the garage was visible from Highway 111, as he saw for himself.
He requested Planning ask the developer to agree to keep the garage doors
closed except when the vehicles were actually entering or exiting the work
bays, so that there wouldn't be an ongoing view of the inside of the garage
from Highway 111. The response was that it would wear out the garage
doors from having to open and close them.
Mr. Bagato indicated that the applicant agreed to keep the doors closed
during the slow times, but it would be impractical to open/close the doors
every 20 minutes during the peak periods when they have 12 to 14 cars
waiting.
Councilmember Benson wondered what happened to the DMV.
Councilman Spiegel asked if the building could be turned around, coming in
from Alessandro rather than from Highway 111. Mr. Bagato replied that
entering from Highway 111 was not possible because of the narrow frontage
road. He noted that Public Works is requesting to have that road closed
because of the turn radius, so there wouldn't be any physical access from
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
� E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ADDING
POLICY 10, PROGRAM 10.A AND 10.B TO THE RESIDENTIAL GOALS,
POLICIES,AND PROGRAMS SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN;ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING SECTION 25.112 TO THE PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ);
CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE
TO CERTAIN R-3 PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LARREA STREET BETWEEN
LARKSPUR LANE AND PORTOLA AVENUE, Case Nos. GPA 05-04.
ZOA 05-05. C/Z 05-05, (City of Palm Desert, Applicant) (Continued from the
meeting of May 11, 2006).
Mayor Ferguson explained that Items E and F would be considered
separately; first would be Item E regarding the overlay zone over the whole
area, and the second, Item F on the specific project proposed on Larrea
Street.
Mr. Bagato referred to his staff report previously submitted at the last City
Council meeting. He stated that staff at the Development Department were
trying to encourage and promote new hotel development adjacent to EI
Paseo. The Council was not in favor of previous development standards
presented and was now proposing an alternative. The proposed zoning
ordinance amendment would allow a hotel exception in the R3 Zone identified
in the same area that was outlined in the EPROZ . The ordinance would only
be applied on a case-by-case basis. If approved this evening, the ordinance
could then be applied to the project that followed this matter. He provided a
copy of the proposed ordinance to the Council.
In response to questions by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Bagato responded that
staff had worked on establishing standards that could approve new hotels.
The initial option was an overlay zone because the R3 Zone would not allow
developers to comply with the height and density development standards.
The ordinance amendment proposed was their second option. Upon further
question by Councilman Spiegel, Mr. Bagato stated that it was true that an
applicant would still need to go through Council for approval, but there were
no exceptions in the R3 Zone that would allow approval unless staff
recommended variances, which would be harder to approve.
Responding to Mayor Ferguson and Councilman Crites, Mr. Bagato said a
development agreement was, in essence, an exception process created on
a case-by-case basis, and this project could do that through a development
agreement.
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
In response to Councilman Crites' question regarding the General Plan, Mr.
Bagato replied that although he was not part of the General Plan discussions,
he did not recall any reference to an overlay zone. Councilmember Benson
agreed.
Councilman Crites asked if anything had remarkably changed in the last two
years. Mr. Bagato replied that property value had gone up and changed how
development could be accomplished with affordability and how much design
could be put into hotels. Councilman Crites didn't feel that the City should
have to modify standards on a piece of land because the price of the land
went up, even though a developer would make more money once they were
done with it.
Mr. Bagato stated that if the City wanted the land to remain vacant, the City
wouldn't need to change their standards. Developers would just have to wait
until the value of the land went back down to make for an affordable project.
Mayor Ferguson stated he was not present for the May 11 meeting but had
the same questions as his colleagues. He felt staff was dealing with the
convergence of residential neighborhoods with commercial activity. He was
interested in exploring other sites for a possible boutique hotel. He felt all
proposals would be unique and needed to be considered on a case-by-case
basis. To slap an overlay on the area would imply to hundreds of
" homeowners that they may have a hotel in front of their house. He would like
to work on a development agreement that would not create the perception that
hotels would run from Ocotillo to Portola.
Mr. Bagato noted these properties were similar to that of Fred Waring--it was
a transitional land use and not solely residential. He said there were offices
on Larrea, hotels on Shadow Mountain like the Mojave, and motels
throughout the R3 Zone. He stated most of the properties were developed
before the City was incorporated, and it was not a new land use. The area
was limited between Larkspur and Portola because it needed redevelopment
along with that portion of EI Paseo. Staff was not trying to push a new
commercial use on the residents; the goal of the overlay zone was to enhance
the overall area of Larrea and EI Paseo.
Mayor Ferguson remarked the project had gone from Ocotillo to Portola,down
to Larkspur and Portola, from an overlay zone to an exceptions process, and
this matter could of been handled through a development agreement with
. public hearings with the directly affected neighbors. Mr. Bagato agreed.
Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing oqen and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, Shadow Mountain Drive, thanked Mr. Bagato for
having been responsive throughout this difficult process. She was surprised
to hear of the option that could have been discussed a few months ago but
was pleased that the Council had been careful with the development of the
area. She said during summer months, the small hotels were only half-full
and worried that the area may be rapidly overbuilt. She felt the developer
knew what the zoning standards were when he bought the property on Larrea
Street, believing he was making a good investment. She stated good projects
would come at the right time.
MS. DEBORAH W. HALL,Joshua Tree Street,stated she felt the process had
been enlightening and educational. She said it made sense to have
individual hotels make modifications to their project in order to comply with
current standards. She would like to keep the current process in place with
the current zoning standards and was against a blanket overlay zone over the
area. She said the quality of life in Palm Desert was unlike any other and
shared how at one time Walnut Creek, California, was a lovely little City with
lots of trees, but noW it looked like Wilshire Boulevard. She did not want that
to happen to Palm Desert. In addressing the General Plan, she read out loud
from Section Ili, Page 28 of the Land Use Element and Policy II, Page 29.
She would like for those plans to continue to be implemented.
MR. MICHAEL GILBERT, Larrea Street, stated he generally favored the
overlay district. He felt the City of Palm Desert had two principal assets: The
Mall and EI Paseo. Although, the Coachella Valley had become very
competitive,with each City competing against the other with their commercial
developments, citing the success of The River, the proposed Miles Crossing
in Indian Wells, and an even larger complex being developed in La Quinta.
He said EI Paseo was no different- it was a goose that lays golden eggs-but
the City needs to do all it can to increase its value. If the subject overlay
would benefit EI Paseo, he encouraged the City to approve it; he felt it would
increase the foot traffic there, especially in the evenings.
MS. BEVERLY A. BURIES, Mountain View, stated her opposition to the
overlay zone. She expressed appreciation for all the questions that Council
asked during the process, it gave an indication that their letters were read and
that they were heard. She agreed that Shadow Mountain Golf and Tennis
Resort was the backbone of the area, as Mr. Bagato indicated, and said they
had coexisted beautifully for a long time, with the golf resort literally in her
back yard. The two-story facility melded well with the neighborhood.
However,she did not believe an overlay zone would accomplish the same and
was not compatible with the area. The area is historic, and she would like the
Council to preserve its integrity with balance. The potential for a hotel row
caused her to worry about an increase in crime, traffic, and transiency. She
asked how the residents were going to be better notified and conferred with
better for future projects.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
MS. MAUREEN J4RDAN,Mountain View Avenue,said her main concern was
the traffic because she and a lot of her neighbors have children. She felt
boutiques were great but felt the height was too high. She said they already
hear the music from EI Paseo as if it was in their garage.
Councilman Spiegel said he did not see the need for an overlay zone. He
said projects to be developed in that area in the way of a boutique hotel would
need to go through the Council and be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to
make sure that people in the surrounding area were notified for their input.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Ferguson decfared the public hearing
closed.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly motion to, by Minute Motion, deny the recommendation for
Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05. Motion was seconded by Benson.
Councilman Crites stated that he appreciated staff's intentions of wanting to
. protect and enhance the area of EI Paseo, but given the fact that it directly
affected the residential neighborhood, it needed to be dealt in a delicate
fashion through a development agreement on a case-by-case process.
Mayor Ferguson agreed and clarified to the development community in the
audience it was not a no-growth initiative by the Palm Desert City Council, but
recognition of the fact that the City had sensitive pockets yet to be developed
in the EI Paseo district. He felt an overlay zone would paint the area with too
broad a stroke. He personally would prefer to have the developer or any future
developer meet with residents first rather than just going ahead based on the
Planning Department's recommendation, pointing out that it was not a
criticism of the Planning Department. He felt overlay zones engendered fear
and curiosity in people because of the uncertainty it posed to their property.
He believed the market would support one or two small boutique hotels, but
an overlay zone over the whole district was not needed. He said that Mr. Bill
Kraonen, langtime City friend articulated very weil in one of his letters to the
Council that a tradition for development in Palm Desert was thoughtful,
sensitive, and generally done on a case-by-case basis when dealing with
existing neighborhoods. Arbitrary discussions between affected residents and
developer were part of that process. He also agreed with his colleagues to
continue with that approach.
Mayor Ferguson called for the vote, and motion to deny the overlay zone carried by a 5-0
vote.
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 12-UNIT, 36-KEY
HOTEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 73-811 LARREA STREET,
Case No. PP/CUP 05-20 (Eugene Breznock, Applicant) (Continued from the
meeting of May 11, 2006).
Mr. Bagato stated the applicant had made some changes to the project since
the last City Council meeting and was proposing two (2) options. The first
option limited the BBQ seating area and private pools on the roof decks,
maintaining a spa that would be pushed further away from the residences and
closer to the inside courtyard of the project. A tower element would remain
because it would provide access for a stairway to the roof. The second option
would eliminate everything off the back buildings from the roof lowering the
rear building to 25'6". Since the overlay zone ordinance and the proposed
amendment were not approved, the matter would need to be continued to
obtain a development agreement for the project to be approved.
Councilman Spiegel asked for clarification of the picture included with their
agenda packet. Mr. Bagato explained the picture showed two story poles for
referencing the different heights discussed in the original proposal of 28 feet,
current code standards of 24 feet, and 25'6" after modifications were made.
The front page displayed the front view from Shadow Mountain.
Mayor Ferguson asked how many rooms a 12 unit, 36-key boutique would
have. Mr. Bagato stated there were 12 kitchens, and each unit had three
bedrooms. Each bedroom could be rented separately or as a group of two or
three. The room-keys varied with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 36
rooms.
Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR
of or in OPPOSITION to this matter.
MR. WILLlAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, stated
since the last meeting, they had redrawn the plans to lower the total height of
the project in addition to eliminating roof decks and spas on the side closest
to the residential structures. He stated he met with two groups of residents
of the area. He wasn't sure the group he met with on Monday was in support
of the project, but was confident they understood it. The other group was
generally supportive of the project. He felt the direction of the Council at the
last meeting was to lower the height specifically on the structures adjacent to
the residential area and to obtain community input in attempts to arrive at a
consensus with the residents. He felt those two goals were accomplished
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
and requested the Council's support. In response to the Mayor's question
regarding the 12 unit, 36-key room, a Conditional Use Permit was being
requested to rent the 12 units separately, similar to what Shadow Mountain
Resort does with their condominiums. He stated the Architect was also
available to answer any questions regarding the height.
MS.DEBORAH HALL,Joshua Tree Street,stated she metwith the developer,
and he answered a lot of questions. However, only the second option was
mentioned. She went on to share she was unclear on the following: 1) She
understood that the upstairs units with three bedrooms provided a regular
kitchen and an efficiency kitchen, which would mean 12 units and something
else; 2� it was mentioned that the towers were 30 feet tall, but the overall
height was dropped 12 feet, and questioned if that included the roof deck wall;
3)who monitored to make sure that the height and everything were correct.
Her concern was quality because it affected everyone.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, Highway 111, Palm Desert, Architect for the
project, pointed out the correct height would be 30 feet for the towers; the
reason to keep the towers was to give a little bit of dynamic to the elevation
of the buildings. If Option 1 was approved, the towers would be needed for
access to the spa. He noted that in order for a kitchen to qualify as a kitchen,
it would need to include a range. Each unit had only one kitchen; the other
ones were mini bars with no cooking facilities. Lastly, the parapets were
lowered by three feet, not twelve, to a height of 25 feet 6 inches.
Councilman Crites asked if Option 2 eliminated the spa and the towers as
indicated in the staff report.
MR. OCHOA said that was not correct in regards to the towers. He stated a
very short tower would remain.
Mr. Bagato explained that when he looked at the new plans, he thought there
were no towers because they were difFicult to notice. He said the towers were
lowered, but were still six inches above the parapet.
MR. MICHAEL GILBERT, Larrea Street, stated he was in support of the
project. He heard one of the principal concerns mentioned earlier dealt with
the quality of the construction. He stated he knew the architect and developer
and was personally satisfied and pleased that something this beautiful was
proposed for that area. He felt it would be an encouragement to other
developers to do something similar in quality; the City of Palm Desert and its
residents would be the beneficiaries. He felt this project was one to be
admired and could be the measuring stick bywhich other developments would
need to follow.
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, Shadow Mountain Drive, stated her co-op faced
directly at the project She said she met with Mr. DeLeeuw and Mr. Ochoa on
Monday, and a shorter building was discussed. Initially, there were few
meetings with few in attendance, and remarks were made that six feet would
not make a difference. In her opinion, six feet made a huge difference when
you could see the mountain, which was one of the reasons she bought her
unit. At the time, she knew a two-story building would be built, but was not
anticipating the building height to creep up. She appreciated that the
developer agreed to lower the height closer to the existing zone. She also
appreciated efforts made to have more civil and respectful discussions. She
said despite the changes, this would be a 36-key hotel to be sold at one
million a piece and then rented out, which she felt sounded fairly speculative.
She felt this project would have a tough time getting ofF the ground and could
live with one half-failing hotel in her backyard, but not more. She wanted the
Council to keep the developer to Option 2, as promised.
Councilman Crites asked Ms. Myrland if she was aware that the reduction in
height was on the portion of the project that was nearest to her home, and the
portion furthest away from the residential areas was at 28'6",with the idea that
an angle view further away could be taller but less impact. She said she
understood that and mentioned she would have preferred the view poles had
been placed closer to her building so that she wouldn't have to guess at the
end results.
With no further public testimony offered, Mayor Ferguson declared the public hearing
to be closed.
Mayor Ferguson noted that the City Council was being asked to approve a
project for which there was no zoning and no exception process;and while the
idea of a development agreement process had been suggested, he asked the
City Manager and City Attorney for their advice on how to proceed.
Mr. Erwin recommended sending the case back to staff and the Planning
Commission with a request that the developer initiate a development
agreement process,pointing out that the City could not require a development
agreement; it needed to be requested by him.
Councilman Crites said he understood why City staff needed to be involved,
but assuming that the project retained its existing physical characteristics,
which were approved by the Planning Commission, he wondered why a
simple change in this process would have to go back through Planning
Commission.
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
Mr. Erwin replied the reason was that a development agreement requires
public hearing both at Planning Commission and City Council levels, with the
required public notification procedure for both bodies, and its approval is by
an ordinance of the City Council.
Councilman Spiegel congratulated the developer and the residents in working
together to reach an agreement. He said there was nothing of this character
adjacent to EI Paseo; he felt it would be a plus to the City and would not
detract from anyone's property value. On the contrary, he believed it would
increase the value of their property to have a project this unique. He stated
if it was possible to approve this evening, he would move to approve.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly agreed with Councilman Spiegel. He was impressed
that the project would have underground parking, with no vehicles parked
outside and with no restaurant. He felt it was an upscale project and would be
a nice-looking building to look at when driving by. He would be supportive of
having the Council agree to move the process along.
Councilmember Benson disagreed. She did not feel it was the right location
for this project--too much was being crammed into a small place. Secondly,
the remark that it would set the precedent for others in the area would be
setting the wrong precedent. She did not feel hotels of that size would impact
EI Paseo one way or the other; a "Mojave" -type would be more appropriate
than a big hotel. She stated she was not in favor of the project.
Mayor Ferguson asked the developer if a development agreement would be
something he was interested in pursuing.
MR. DeLEEUW stated he would like a motion by Council to give its blessings
to the project and direct him through the proper procedures with an affirmative
direction to get a development agreement.
Mayor Ferguson explained that land use planning could be done through a
change of zone or through an exception process, which he did not favor.
However, on a case-by-case basis, it gives the Council an opportunity to
prepare a development agreement,which is a contractually binding document
between the developer and the City of Palm Desert. It sets forth with great
specificity what will go where and how high;it is a negotiated document,which
would include input from residents, City, and developer. He felt tremendous
strides had been made recently, but the process would likely take another 30
to 60 days given the public notice requirements. He encouraged the
developer to continue meeting with the residents and to take Councilmember
Benson's comments to heart. He was generally supportive of what the
developer was trying to accomplish but felt more thought and care was
needed because of the constraints of the area. He was pleased that the
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 8, 2006
developer was choosing to move forward, and with everyone's extra effort,
the City and residents would be happy, and the developer would have a good
return on his investment. He said the Council would be in a better position to
make a final decision once the development agreement was returned along
with residents' comments.
Upon Mayor Pro Tem Kelly's question if Council could direct staff to prepare
a development agreement based on Option 2, Mr. Erwin said it could.
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly moved to by Minute Motion, refer the matter back to staff and
the Planning Commission,requesting that the Applicant initiate the Development Agreement
process for the subject project, further indicating that the ApplicanYs Option 2 was
preferable. Motion was seconded by Spiegel.
Mayor Ferguson stated that if the residents and developer came up with
additional concessions, they could include those as well.
Mr. Erwin noted the Council would still have the ability to reject the project
when it was presented again.
Councilman Crites stated he had intended to vote against the project,
because of the poor way it was handled with the neighbors and their
objections to height, etc., but obviously, a lot of progress had been made. He
asked staff if the developer was asking for additional exceptions other than
height. Mr. Bagato stated the other exception was density. The current
zoning allowed for only 18 rooms.
Councilman Crites stated he was referring to setbacks, land coverage, and
other requirements of the zone. Mr. Bagato replied the applicant complied
with everything except for height and what they were doing within the building
in reference to the 12-unit, 36-key rooms.
Mayor Ferguson called for the vote. Motion carried by a vote of 4-1, Benson voting
NO.
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS
APPROVALS TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU SPECIALTY COFFEE OUTLET
ADJACENT TO COOK STREET, PAD NO. 4, LOCATED AT 37-825 COOK
STREET. Case No. PP 03-11. Amendment No. 1. (Prest Vuksic Architects
and The Evans Company, Applicants).
Mr. Smith reviewed his staff report in detail. The project required an
amendment from the original site plan of the area. Staff believed the architect
came up with a reasonable and workable circulation layout for the site. The
project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, which found
25
September 25, 2006
Tony Bagato , �^� , � T �-�-�
Assodate Planner R� . �., i.. t� L. �
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive S�P 2 � �
Palm Desert, CA 92260
'.0�1u F . . •t:.`:T
Dear Tony, ctT�ur ,..�. .. :.�,
I plan to attend the Commission meeting on October 3rd, but in the event I cannot, I would Iike
to have my comments included in the staff report on the Larrea Street hotef.
As you know, on lune 8th the City Coundl instructed Vllla Property Developers to contlnue
meeting with residents, and to flnd ways to better integrate the proiect into the surrounding
neighborhood, particulaNy with regard to the project's density.
The develapers community Snvofvement canslsted of sending out an email to one resident,
Debbi Hatl of loshua Tree Street, inviting her to review plans that she and I had already seen.
He made no attempt to contact the peopie who live in the buildings adjacent to the proposed
project. Those are Shadow Mountain Apartments (two buildings of 13 units apiece),
Continental Six (6 units), and Sombra de la Monta�a (20 units). Each of these buildings will
have their views af�ected by the proposed hotel, as will various oondos and apa�tments along
the south side of Shadow Mountaln Drive.
Sending an email to one resident, and asking her to do his legwork in contacting the
communtty, is not wfthin the spirit of what the City Coundi i�tended. This developer stands to
make considerable money from the project. He could have afforded to have an ofFtce intern
distribute a flyer to these homes, posted a sign, hosted a group meeting, or come up with some
other form of outreach. But he did none of these things. Instead he has consistently
overstated his degree of o�mmunity involvement, while at the same time tried to paint the
neighbors as uncooperative. We are not un000perative — in fact, several of us have indicated
that we support elements of the project. We are trying to ensure that our current zoning is
upheld, and that this project will not have a detrimental efFect on our homes and quality of life.
Secondly, the developer has made no changes to the projed in response to the City's concems
regarding density. It ls stlll the same "squished,"overly-dense project that prompted negative
remarks from the Architectural Revfew Commission, the Planning Commiss(on and the C(ty
Council. I notice that the developer is now backing away from calling it a 36-key hotel, instead
describing it as twelve condo u�its. From the outset, neighbors have said that we would
welcome twelve condo units. But let's be rea{istic —this project will be marketed as a 36-key
hotel and that impad on the neighbort�ood has to be considered.
The questions of height and view interference are stlll unresolved. The developer piaced view
poles on the lot, but placed them at the �owest point. As you explained to me, the lot wlll be
graded to a point in the �Jg of the lot, not graded down to the very lowest point. Therefore,
the view impact on the bulldings east of the projed will, tn fact, be higher than the poles
represent. Because the poles were placed so fa�away from our building, we have had to guess
at the flnal height instead of having a real sense of it.
As you know, this project wili be one of the flrst new developments in thts block in many years,
and stands to change the charader of this neighborhood. When I talk with my nefghbors, I flnd
that people who I(ve two, three and even four blocks away are aware of this hotel and
concerned about the negative effects. Even if thel�views will not be directly affected, they are
worried about the precedent that this will set for future development. The project exceeds our
current zoning. The scale and architecture are complete{y inconsistent with the rest of the
Lette� 'ony Bagato • Sept 25 2006 • Page 2
neighborhood. There is no evidence that the area can support a hotel of this size. The Mod
Resort, Mojave and Casa Larrea sat empty or near empty all summer. Even a beautiful, new,
high-end hotel like the Mod d(d nothing to draw summer traffic to the Paseo. Let's face it — the
typical Paseo customer simply does not want to walk around in 110-degree heat. In an August
21�` artide in the Desert Sun, Mod owner Laura Slipak admits that next year she'tl close in the
summer because she didn't have any bookings.
Off-season vfsitors will go to the big, sprawling resorts where rates are cheap and families can
play in huge pools. The City can and will continue to beneflt from this type of summer traffic,
but it is a fundamentally different market than the Paseo's exclusive clientele. It would be an
enormous and irreparable mistake to overbuild this neighbofiood and end up drawing deal-
seeking visitors just to fill rooms. This is the very mistake that Palm Springs made, leading to a
surfeft of T-shirt shops and tourist traps.
It's clea�that the developer neve� really considered a project that would be compatible with the
residences nearby. His arguments for (ncreased height and denslty were based on the premise
that since land is so expensive, hoteis have to hold the maximum number of guests in order to
be profltable — so in other words, this building has to fundion as a 36-key hotel in orde�to
work. If the existing properties were booked to capacity all year long — or even all winter long
— it would make sense to have another hotel. But they are not. So why add another, larger
property to the neighborhood? Where is the evidence that this projed will succeed? Will the
existing hotels have to cut rates to compete, and what will that do to the Paseo's image?
I believe this is a critical point in Palm Desert's maturation. This developer did everything
possible to alienate the community. If he had made even the slightest effort to genuinely
involve us — if he had accepted that many of us are investors and business people who can
recognize a sound marketing plan when we see one — if he had presented reasonable
projections and alternatives — if he had even considered building something that is consistent
with the current zoning — he might not have faced such opposition. But from the outset the
process has been marked by condescension and an attempt to steamroll over us. He ignored
the fact that we all share the same goal: to see the Paseo kept strong and this neighbofiood
kept valuable.
Will the City allow this behavfor? Or will it develop a better process, one with standards and
procedures for community involvement, to guide the development of one of its most valuable
and profltable neighborhoods?
I appreciate all you've done on behalf of the community, and I appreciate the developer's
removal of the rear roof decks. But I am extremely dlsappointed that he igno�ed Mayor
Ferguson and Councilmember Benson's comments, has acted dlsingenuously wlth regard to the
view poles, and has made no good-faith attempt to involve the people who will be affected by
this building. For these reasons, I do not support this project.
S c ely,
C
Susan Myrland
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 568-6304 - home
(619) 316-6022 - cell
cc: Mayor Jim Ferguson
City Councilmember Jean Benson
Debbl Hall
Pagc 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Alice Bellanich [abellanich@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: case nos. DA06-04and PP/CUP 05-20 73-811 Larrea Street
City of Palm Desert
Rachelle Klassen
This email is in response to the meeting that will be held on October 26Th at 4:OOpm concerning the project
located on 73-81 1 Larrea street in Palm Desert. We as residents of Palm Desert and Joshua Tree street are
unable to attend the meeting but would like to voice our opinion.The property in question is in a prime area of
Palm Desert and we believe that the developer should make it's plans in accordance to zoning laws in which we
all have to abide by. Residents who have lived here for years have to comply with zoning laws so should a
developer, developing a new project. We believe this project height is to high and will have to many rooms to
fit into a residential neighborhood. This will increase traffic flow to our residential roads. If the developer has
refused to make changes to the projects density and height then we don't need this kind of development in our
town. We are Palm Desert not the developer. We have lived here for years and are very comforcable with our
wonderful beautiful town. If the developer is already making demands and refusing to make changes than this
sounds like a bad fit. Bad fits will not get better but worse. If they knew the density restrictions and heigi�t
restriction why wouldn't they honor the cities request? Sounds like greed to me and we strongly oppose.
Alice & Larry Bellanich
73327 Joshua Tree St
Palm Desert CA 92260
abellanich@yahoo.com
Alice Bellanich
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Cl�eck it out.
10/23/2006
RtC�IVED
C1T Y CLERK'S OFFiCE
PALN DESERT. CA
Mayor 1im Ferguson, 1006 OCT 23 AM I I� 43
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260.
October 18, 2006
� ��
I am a homeowner in the South Palm Desert community of Shadow Lake Estates and as
such, I have been greatly concerned about the proposed hotel/condo development slated for
Larrea St. Many (of us) from the surrounding community voiced our concerns to the City
Council over a series of ineetings last spring and eazly summer. Our concerns revolved around
the exceptions being considered to current zoning guidelines of height and density. The property
in question is slightly less than one acre in size and the proposal is to pack that plot with what
will amount to a 36 key facility. My understanding is that with a property that size the density
should be held to approximately 16-17 units.
Our City Council suggested,in June,that the developer give greater consideration to the
surrounding community and develop a plan that would be more compatible with it. Well, here
we go again. In the pending proposal only minimal changes have been made. The development
is sti1131'6" at its highest and 26'6"at the lowest building height. The front three buildings
continue to have roof decks and the promise is that there will be a security guard to control noise
that might emanate from them. We have the Riverside Sheriff's office (and now the City
Manage�s of�ice)attempting to control the current noise from Augusta Restaurant, but that
nuisance continues. Let's think about this...a security guard, paid by the owner/developer
regulating the activities of the paying customers...hum, that seems a bit like the fox tending the
chickens. If that guard is attempting to crack down on party activities, how long do we expect
that he will remain employed? Unfortunately good faith and good sense collide on this issue.
I become very confused by the density proposals. As I understand it, the developer is
now describing this as a 12-condo complex; but I have not seen any change in the initial
description of each of those units being divisible into 3 separate rental spaces. So in reality we
aze still talking of the possibility of 36 keys operating at the same time...semantics,what a
wonderful smokescreen they can provide. With a minimum of 2 occupants per unit, we will
have 72 people occupying the same (less than) acre space. Pools, patios and common spaces will
make this area totally over-crowded. This is a semi-residential azea and we really don't need the
influx of traffic this would bring.
The residents of this community welcome a development that will improve our
neighborhood. This project is NOT compatible with the neighborhood; it significantly
overbuilds this space. The scale and azchitecture, of the proposed construction, is completely out
of line to the adjacent properties and inconsistent with the essence of this old Palm Desert
community. Let the development of hotels, of this nature, take place in the undeveloped lands
throughout the city but don't bring it into the older established communities. Consider this
question before deciding; would you, personally, want this development in your backyard?
Sincerely,
Beverly Buries
45-831 Mt. View
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
letter from Lois Lyon to the City Council Pa�e 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:57 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: letter from Lois Lyon to the City Council
Hi Rachelle,
Lois Lyon does not have access to a computer or the Internet. She handwrote her letter and asked me to email it
to you. A copy is being sent to the Desert Sun. I'd be happy to mail you the original if you'd likc.
Thanks for forwarding it to the Council.
Very best,
Susan Myrland
568-6304
*************************
October 28th, 2006
In regards to the City Council meeting of October 26th about the "boutique condo hotel" project on Larrea
Street, Palm Desert, I wish to thank Mayor Jim Ferguson and Councilwoman Jean Benson for voting against
"the project."
I think it utterly ridiculous to put such density on a very small lot. I'm definitely against high-rise buildings in
this valley.
I came to the desert 26 years ago because I was drawn to the charm of a small town with gorgeous mountain
views in every direction. To put a high-rise on E1 Paseo's doorstep in the midst of residences is ludicrous. This
project will only compound the traffic problems (parking included) in the immediate area.
Why destroy the charm of Palm Desert and this valley, and the laws that have been i►1 place for years to protect
us from this very thing?
I happen to live within blocks of this proposed hote] and the once quiet residential street I live or► has become a
speedway and thruway for East-West traffic to avoid downtown Palm Desert stoplights.
I will be voting for Mayor Jim Ferguson, Councilwoman Jean Benson and Cindy Finerty in the November
election.
Sincerely,
Lois J. Lyon
73-475 Ironwood Street
Palm Desert, CA 92260
340-1566
10/30/2006
RECEIVED
CtT Y CIERK'S OFFICE
P�LM DESERT, CA
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clcrk's Piling Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P) 2006 OCT I g AM I I: 20
STA'1'E OF CAI.IFORNIA
County of Riverside
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen -----------------------------
years,and not a pxrty tu or interested in the
above-entitled matter, 1 am the principal clerk of a
printer of the,DESERT SLN PUBLISHING
COMPAtiY a newspaper of general circulation,
plp. 3249
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, �I7Y oF PALM�
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ��Np�, p 0�6-Ot�IWD PP/CUP 06-7D
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the ND�E��pEgY p1yEN that e dic�fl
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of will bs heW b�foro the Petm Dseer�C�0ty�v�to(��
to consider e f e4�f gY Vllk�pro��bcondltlon�
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case LLC. tor epp P�
Number 191236; that the notice,of which the uae permit and a Deveiopn�snt A�ro e r r w�t�t�
bw a new 12-unit, 36 keye, bo
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smallcr dominlum project located et 73-8�1 l.e►rea SVe°t.
than non pariel,has been published in each regular ��p public neer�np wi11 be held on Thursday,
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ocrober 2s, 2oos et a:00 p.m. In ths Councn
Chamber at the Palm pesert Civ(c�'��5'D
supplement thereof on the following dates,t0 wlt: F�� Warin9 Drive, Palm D�seR, �
whkh time end place all interested pe�s
October 16'",2006 invlted to attencl and be heard.Wrltte��o�Tb^u
I�9�a jcs9ehall tbe.eccxp ed up to the dete of�the
------------------------------------------------------- h��ng. Information concerning the proposed
PB°feew in�erDePartment of�Communitya�bleOpr
---------------------------------------------------- ment at the above addreas between the hours of
---- g�pp a.m. and 5:00 p.m.•Mondey through Friday.
All in the year 2006 If yoe challenpa the proposed actions in court,
you mey be limited to rafeing only those isaues
you or somea�e else reised al the public heanng
tlescnbed In thls notice, or in wrftten carresPo^�
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the dence denvered co tne Planning'C�ommission �a
foregoing is true and correct. c�ry counciq et, a pha to, tne pubuc hearing.
�City o1 Palm�Deeen, C 11om e
Dated at Palm Springs,California this--- 17'h,----day pUBLIBHED: D�s�rt Sun Octobsr 18,2ooe
of----------Octobe ----- ---- ------ ---,2006
� Sig ature
Kiassen, Rachelle
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us�
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: for City Council
Dear Rachelle, please forward this to the Council. Thanks!
Best,
Susan
*****************************
Dear Mayor Ferguson and City Council members,
I will not be able to attend the Council meeting this week, however I
trust that you will continue to put the residents' quality of life
first when casting your vote on the Larrea Street project. As I and
my neighbors have said many times, we would welcome a project that
would improve that street and bring more business to the Paseo. But
it must be a project that fits in the neighborhood and adheres to the
City's well-established height and density standards. When the
developer is ready to present such a project, I would be happy to
meet with him and would encourage my neighbors to do so as well.
Thank you for all the time and effort that you give on our behalf,
and for your leadership now and in the future. It is deeply
appreciated.
Happy holidays and best wishes to all,
Susan Myrland
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #6
Palm Desert, CA 92260
568-6304
� �
� �--1
� �"-r.
T'�'i �g'��
� �r�P'�"1
C:3 tYt�^
N m��'e
cn�_.
m
� �e�''�
�
� Op
� n�
.�' 2s�
t'�3 �
1