HomeMy WebLinkAboutEPROZ/Res 06-67, PC 2389, PC 2390/Ord 1118, 1119CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: That the City Council approve:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A
and 10.6 to the Residential Goals, Polices and Programs
section of the general plan.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112
establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort
Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A 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.
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit 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
APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
City of Palm Desert
(Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 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 Resolution06-67for GPA 05-04
Draft Ordinance1118 for ZOA 05-05
Draft Ordinance 1119 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 PP/CUP 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 10.13 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 El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
That the City Council pass Ordinance No. 1119 to second reading approving
Change of Zone 05-05, adding 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.
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 06-68 approving Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached.
Executive Summary:
Historically El Paseo has been unique to the Coachella Valley as an outdoor pedestrian
retail/restaurant boulevard. Today, other cities throughout the Coachella Valley are
developing commercial centers that will impact and challenge El Paseo. El Paseo's long-
term success is dependent on creating a stronger costumer base. Promoting new hotel
development adjacent to El Paseo is one way to create a stronger costumer base.
Currently, the R-3 zone adjacent to El 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 El
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 El 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 El 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 PP/CUP 05-20
Page 3 of 13
May 11, 2006
Currently, a precise plan/conditional 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) lockout 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, mufti -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 El 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 El Paseo while maintaining compatibility and character of the existing
neighborhood. This goal will provide El Paseo with a stronger costumer base and make
hotel development economically feasible for developers. The proposed overlay 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 El Paseo Improvement District. On
April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0, Finery absent) recommended
approval of the proposed overlay zone and project.
I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
A. BACKGROUND:
For years El Paseo has been unique in the Coachella Valley as an outdoor,
pedestrian -oriented, retail/restaurant boulevard. However, emerging
commercial centers are being developed in other cities throughout the
Coachella Valley challenging El Paseo's uniqueness. El Paseo's ability to
successfully compete with other commercial centers is dependent on
attracting more people. One way to attract more people is to promote high -
end boutique hotels within walking distance to El Paseo. New hotels can
provide El Paseo with a reliable costumer base and generate new transit
occupancy tax (TOT) for the City.
In order to provide for new hotels it is necessary to identify the best possible
locations within walking distance to El Paseo. The properties directly south of
El 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 developed 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 built before the City
incorporated. The design standards that currently 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 El Paseo, staff is proposing a
general plan amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment and a change of
zone to create an El 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 El Paseo. Currently, one such
application is in process. The proposed EPROZ and hotel application should
be reviewed simultaneously to evaluate the appropriateness of the Overlay
design standards.
B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide
flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within the R-3
zone adjacent to El 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
10.13 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.
Policy 10: The City shall encourage new hotel development on the
residential properties within walking distance to El
Paseo.
Program 10.A: The City shall establish an El 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 10.6: 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 El Paseo
Staff Report
G PA 05-04, ZOA 05-05,
Page 5 of 13
May 11, 2006
C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Resort Overlay Zone. Under the EPROZ, the development standards are a
follows:
Density: 36 units per acre
Setbacks: Base zone standards apply
Height: 30' maximum height
Parking: Section25.58, Off-street parking standards apply
Exceptions: Standards may be modified by the development
plan approved by Planning Commission 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 application were
presented to the El Paseo Improvement District. The Board of Directors
supported creating an overlay zone that will promote hotels within walking
distance to El 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 overlay zone was on the R-3 and P.R.
properties located 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 applicant's
representative and architect, Commissioner Finerty and Commissioner
Tanner, City staff, El Paseo merchants, and adjacent residents.
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05,
Page 6 of 13
May 11, 2006
C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
On April 18", 2006, the Planning Commission 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 overlay 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.
II. EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE (EPROZ):
A. BACKGROUND:
Property description:
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 half 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 built
and the entitlement has expired.
Adjacent 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 Description:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design and
conditional use permit to allow a 12-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 built above the subterranean parking lots, a
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 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 pool. 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 first floor 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. Main Building:
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. Architectural Projections:
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 yards.
3. Stairways:
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.
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 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 property 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 El Paseo customers, it needs to incorporate the
highest quality of architectural detail, interior space and amenities. The
architecture design is a Mediterranean/Middle Eastern 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.
Height:
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 limits on driveway
ramp angle, the semi -subterranean parking lots extend 2 feet 6 inches above
grade. The two floor 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:
lHotel Density
(Front Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
18 units per acre
15'
10,
36 12 units, 36 keys
15' 157 13'
(projections)
10, 1075' (projections)
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
1078'(projections)
Setbacks
side no less than 8'
side no less than 8'
(Height
24'
30'
28'6"/31' Tower
JLot Coverage
50%
No max
78%
Parking
40
40
40
III. 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 built 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 Inn and Holiday Express were developed under the Planned Commercial
Resort zone. Both zones have an exception process in the development standards.
The R-3 zone does not have an exception process and no new hotels have been
developed adjacent to El Paseo.
The goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number of high -end hotel
rooms adjacent to El Paseo. This goal will provide El 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 -
subterranean parking are required to achieve this goal. To accommodate the high
level of hotel amenities necessary to attract El Paseo customers, roof decks are
required.
IV. ISSUES / ANALYSIS:
During the March 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and the Neighborhood
meeting concerns regarding density, traffic, height, noise and lighting were
discussed. The properties adjacent to El 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 Larkspur 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:
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 10 of 13
May 11, 2006
A. Density:
The goal of the EPROZ is to maximize the number of high -end hotel rooms
adjacent to El 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 following table identifies the possible densities for condominiums,
apartments and hotel development under the current development standards
and hotel development under the proposed EPROZ standards.
R-3 (4) 2.02 acres
R-3 (3) 2.30 acres 30 30 40 80 1
(TOTAL of 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. Traffic:
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 parking lots. The current traffic volume is based on local
residents and business owners who live or work in the area.
The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual was used to
compare project traffic impacts to alternative land uses in the EPROZ area.
Condominiums 52
5.86
305 trips
Apartments 52
6.59
343 trips
(Hotels (current 18 units) 76
6.24
474
EPROZ (36 units) 152
6.24
948 trips
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 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 could 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% capacity. Given that new hotels
will be within walking distance to many to El Paseo, it can be expected that
the traffic increase will 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 significantly increase traffic on Shadow Mountain
Drive and Larrea Street.
C. View Impact:
All of the properties within the EPROZ area are zoned for two-story
development, although there are single -story developments 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. In 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 will be loud noise from hotel
guests on the roof decks. A condition of approval 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
Staff Report
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 12 of 13
May 11, 2006
condition will implement 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. Lighting:
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 will 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. CONCLUSION / SUMMARY:
A. EPROZ:
In 2005, El Paseo generated $210 million in taxable sales, which provides the
City with $2.1 million to the City's general fund. El Paseo's retail dominance
and its ability to generate revenue for the City are being challenged by new
commercial centers throughout the Coachella Valley.
The El Paseo Resort Overlay was created to promote new hotel
development, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone providing a stronger
costumer base for El 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 El 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, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
Page 13 of 13
May 11, 2006
V11. 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:
7:5
Tony 13ragato Phil Drell
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
City Man ge,!,,I
A A 0 v
Gfvl or DevA t Services
-'ITY' COUACIL ACTI�jrv.
APPROVED DENIhij
RECEIVED OT14-ER
MEETING DATE
NOES: NW
ABSE.bTT
ABSTAI�:
VERIFIED PY: ir
Orig, Nn,
inal on File witWCi'�Y Clerk's officp'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO ADD POLICY 10, PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.6 (EXHIBIT A) TO THE
RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICES AND PROGRAMS SECTION OF THE
GENERAL PLAN.
CASE NO. GPA 05-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 111h
day of May, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the CITY
OF PALM DESERT for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 71h day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to April
18, 2006, to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2389 recommended
approval of the GPA 05-04; 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. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request:
1. That the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the intent
of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed general plan amendment will create the framework for
establishing an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) in the zoning
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 05-04 (Exhibit "A")
3. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified (Exhibit
"B" attached).
RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 111h day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
1861
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS:
Policy 10
The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within
walking distance to El Paseo.
Program 10.A
The City shall establish an El 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.
Responsible Agency: City Council,
Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Program 10.6
Planning Commission, Community
The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the
EPROZ district.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works,
Community Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Cj
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "B"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: GPA 05-04 as it relates to ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B
(Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112
(Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential
properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo
Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
May 11, 2006
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CI
C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2389
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10,
PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.8 (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT
OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS
INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C.
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7t' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
April 18,2006, to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the
above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to
City Council approval of said request:
That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment,
and change of zone 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:
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 GPA 05-04
(Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C").
PLANNING COMMISSIQ - RESOLUTION NO. 2389
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 181' day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FINERTY
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL Secretary
Palm Desert PI inning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISS`,.,N RESOLUTION NO. 2389
EXHIBIT A
RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS:
Policy 10
The City shall encourage new hotel development on the residential properties within
walking distance to El Paseo.
Program 10.A
The City shall establish an El 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.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community
Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Program 10.13
The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ
district.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development; Redevelopment Agency.
3
Public Works,
PLANNING COMMISSIC . RESOLUTION NO. 2389
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 25.112
EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
25.112.010
Purpose
25.112.020
Location
25.112.030
Development Standards
25.112.040
T.O.T.
25.112.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible
design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to El
Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant
may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the
standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted
or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a
conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community
Development/Planning.
25.112.020. Location.
The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential
properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane,
between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street.
25.112.030. Development Standards.
Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development
standards:
A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel
development.
B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base
zone set forth in this chapter.
C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ
district shall be thirty feet.
D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off -Street Parking and
Loading standards set forth in this chapter.
E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required
unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
25.112.050. T.O.T.
The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient
Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the
room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping
purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out.
4
{i I ICI I I -y- =
i
raja
STATE HWY 111
4LW6311ERI�
CltyofPalm DesAmixftsert GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION
Case Nos. GPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO. 2 3 8 9
ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05
EXHIBIT C ftto. 04/18/06
PLANNING COMMISSI�-' RESOLUTION NO. 2389 ( •,
EXHIBIT D
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: GPA 06-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
APPLICANTIPROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONILOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.8
(Exhibit A), a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B)
establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a
change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the
north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea
Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
. > ril18.2006
PHILIP DRE L DATE
DIRECTOR F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C-J
r..
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2390
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL 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 Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7t' day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
April 18, 2006, to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the
above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, 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 El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
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 office boutique 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:
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, subject to conditions attached.
PLANNING COMMISSI(^ 'RESOLUTION NO. 2390
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of April, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, TANNER, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FINERTY
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DREL Secretary
Palm Desert PI nning Commission
2
son
PLANNING COMMIS6, _ N RESOLUTION NO. 2390
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20
Department of Communiitv Development:
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. Applicant shall record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director
of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13
acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
3
PLANNING COMMISSIC . RESOLUTION NO. 2390 ( .
7. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be
applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling,
lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such
room(s) are rented out.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City regulating non -transient if the condominiums are sold to individual
buyers.
9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
10. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and
Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors.
11. 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.
12. Use of the roof decks 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.
CI
PLANNING COMMISLN RESOLUTION NO. 2390
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.
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:
5
PLANNING COMMISSI� . RESOLUTION NO. 2390
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.
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 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".
0
PLANNING COMMISLN RESOLUTION NO. 2390
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.
11
I7
ORDINANCE NO. 1118
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 25.112 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE, EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-05
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the City Council does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment, as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to create Municipal Code Chapter
25.112 et. al. The El Paseo Resort Commercial Overlay Zone.
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B".
SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, and shall be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 11 t" day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
ORDINANCE NO. 1118
Chapter 25.112
EXHIBIT "A"
EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
25.112.010 Purpose
25.112.020 Location
25.112.030 Development Standards
25.112.040 T.O.T.
25.112.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible
design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to El
Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant
may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the
standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted
or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a
conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community
Development/Planning.
25.112.020. Location.
The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential
properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane,
between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street.
25.112.030. Development Standards.
Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development
standards:
A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel
development.
B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base
zone set forth in this chapter.
C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ
district shall be thirty feet.
D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off -Street Parking and
Loading standards set forth in this chapter.
E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required
unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
25.112.050. T.O.T.
The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, transient
occupancy tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the room
rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes
regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out.
2
ORDINANCE No. 1118
EXHIBIT "B"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: ZOA 05-05 as it relates to GPA05-04, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B
(Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112
(Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential
properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between
Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
Califomia, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
May 11. 2006
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
ORDINANCE NO. 1119
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM
DESERT ZONING MAP BY ADDING THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE (EPROZ) TO CERTAIN R-3 PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND LARREA STREET BETWEEN
LARKSPUR AND PORTOLA AVENUE, EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. C/Z 05-05
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B".
SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 11th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
5)L
R; 2(5)
-R`3
c.
R-3
C-1, S.P.
R-3(4)
ot(t
2000
0000
0000
0000
_ 1R-2 8000(_4) `6-2
- 8000,
- S.P.
- O.S.
'�
�N 'y
cc
edo "� £e6
-L, R-2,
": R 3 -if=2, S 0. 1-&0.
O.P.
-U-
•
OR.Q.P.
R-3,�
4)
.O.S.
O: S.
—R�1
F14000
11,
4.1 iNaRt1 14000
R-3(
I
away
Rz1
14000
R-1- -R;1-
4.
Atgrolly
s�
F R=2
0-P
RR3(4) O.P. II?-3
0,AP. L 11111111 C 1,1S.P.11 1 11 I I C-1, S.P1 I I (41 �C-1,SP.
w
I
lIlIlR-�Il1•A.-5,Piag[
I1111llll 1
ll �u-i�-LL
R-1
ION
III
rol!p.iicers
1�
L
C-1, S.P.
C-1
Ri 313000(3)
R-112000 l
116000
11R-I1L290011 J
i n120010 ( ( )
I II � R-3 4
iii
R=2 800u, ('
S.P.
0o�etog
R-3(4)
R-3(4)
I !�
C-1,-S.P
i I �I
I T ll IIRIR;1I,20O0
SLR-�112000
0. S.
0.S.
CHANGE OF ZONE
Case No. CIZ 05-05
EXHIBIT A
y
n
-R4
013(4)
L [ Ill III
R1
Proposed
Change of
Zone
EL PASEO
RESORT
OVERLAY
ZONE
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO.
Date:
ORDINANCE NO. 1119
EXHIBIT "B"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: C/Z 05-05 as it relates to 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B
(Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112
(Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential
properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between
Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
Mav 11, 2006
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 12:05 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: EPROZ
Dear Ms. Klassen - please forward this to the City Council members. Thank you!
Dear Mayor Ferguson and members of the City Council,
Yesterday a neighbor, my husband, and I met with representatives of
Villa Property Developers to review the changes made to the hotel
being proposed for Larrea Street. I came away feeling even more
convinced that the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone is a bad idea. This
developer's business plan is based on finding twelve people willing
to pay $1 million each for his three -bedroom condos -- and then
finding enough tourists willing to pay $300 a night to rent those
rooms. He's "hoping for" 50% occupancy during the summertime. And
this is the best project that the Planning Department could put
forth? I can only see it go downhill from here.
At one point my husband said to the developer, "You'd better hope the
EPROZ doesn't get approved, because you'll have a hard enough time
making a go of this without any competition." The developer agreed,
and said he thought the EPROZ was a "dead issue." So even the
potential beneficiaries of the EPROZ think it's a loser!
Personally, I don't think the Larrea Street hotel will work. And
unfortunately this developer does not have a track record of
maintaining his buildings (see the Saville Apartments on Country Club
at Monterey -- cracked stucco, broken fountains). But I'd rather
have only one failing hotel in my neighborhood than several -- which
could be the case if the Paseo area gets overbuilt.
And if this hotel does take off, you'll have people lining up to
bring in excellent projects. Projects that will strengthen our
uniqueness instead of diluting it. Projects that may not require any
zoning variances to succeed. Please, continue to manage this
precious resource carefully, and don't let short-term profits destroy
it.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing you at
Thursday's meeting.
Best regards,
Susan Myrland
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #6
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 568-6304
e C_rn• T •
crt IT)
• t ti)
r' n-
'- r,
1
r"
�.
B�ayato, Tony
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:20 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: public comment meeting on larrea project
�
Hi Tony, thank you for taking the time to meet with me recently
regarding the hotel that is proposed for Larrea Street. As it turns
out, I will be out of town for part of January, and I'm concerned
that I will miss the announcement about the public meeting. There
are six units in my complex but your mailing list only had my
address, so that means my neighbors won't hear about it either. Will
the meeting date be posted on the City's website? Or, can I add one
of my neighbors to your list? His address is:
Brian Blatchley
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Thanks in advance,
Susan Myrland
568-6304
✓... vavriiay.0 va. LCLl1VR JLLccL
Bagato, Tony
From: FRED GERBER [finroslackerboys@msn.comj
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:38 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Bagato, Tony; susan@silvergate.us
Subject: Development on Lanea Street
Deaz City Council and Planning Commissioq
I am a resident and homeowner on Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert.
Before we approve any large scale development in our azea we need to address
the concerns of the residents first to the deteriorating quality of life in
our area.
Since the opening of The Gardens we residents now have to put up with heavy
trucks using our street for quick access for deliveries to The Gardens.
Besides the constant vibrations, we notice hairline cracks in our ceilings
and wonder if the multi-ton trucks are to blame. Shadow Mountain should have
limited access to commercial vehicles like Fairway, Haystack, and Grapevine.
With the continued development along El Paseo more trafiic uses Sbadow
Mountain as a shortcut, and drive at lugh speeds. No attempt to conuol this
speed has been made. A 30 mph speed limits means most people drive 40+mph
which is too fast for a pedestrian area, especially one lacking sidewallcs
and crosswalks.
The children in the area walking to Washington Charter school aze forced to
walk on the street, with heavy traffic, due to lack of sidewalks. Larrea has
no sidewallcs or streetlights, so hotel guests will be walking on the street
in the dark. Trash &om the commercial operations blows down our street and
collects on the empty lots, and in the gutters giving the azea a worn, seedy
look.
Any multi-storied building will have visual access to our private back yazds
and take away our privacy.
While I understand the desire for a municipality to increase it's revenue
sources we have to weigh the effects of this development on the quality of
life in our community. We believe before anymore high density development
occurs in our azea the infrastructure must first be improved.
Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings regazding the hoteUcondo
development on Larrea Street and in the area.
Thank you,
Brian Blatchley
Fredy Gerber
760.776-1679
Page 1 of
2/28/2006
,�
Bagato, Tony
--.From: Meliki88@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:29 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Hotel on Shadow Mountain Drive
Page 1 of
I live in south palm desert and would like more information on the citys view of the proposed hotel as neighbors have informed
me of this issue. To increase the hieghts from what is legally on the books at 24 feet is not in the best interest of the neighbor
hood. I'm sure the 24 foot maximum height is a number that was not just pulled out of the sky but a number that would not be
abusive to the surrounding neighborhood. Viewing to the hotef or having the hotel users view back into our backyards is not an
ideal situation. I would like to get the city's idea on this as I can go on and on about the future exposure problem of living next
to or close by the proposed hotel. The current hotets and apartments are a mix that is working well in the neighborhood. There
have to be people who are concerned about the mix and not emotionally charged as that is never a good result, designers are
paid to design and neighbor have to live in the proposed area, i'm sure that is why there are stipulations in hieghts. Thanks for
your time and please let me know future meetings and information so this dosen't become an ugly situation for the city and
nieghborhood. Sincerely George Johnson
12/28/2005
,"
Bagato, Tony
From: stephbesant�aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:53 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Proposed 36 room Hotel on Larrea
Dear Mr. Bagato,
Page 1 of
Since I am not able to attend the meeting on March 7th, I am voicing my disapprovaJ and concern of the
proposed hotel on Larcea via this email. I Iive at 73930 Shadow Lake Drive which is just south of the San Luis
Rey/Shadow Mountain intersection.
Unfortuanately, MANY people use our street as a short cut to avoid Shadow Mountain and EI Paseo or a as a cut-
through to Fairway. My husband and I are already concerned not only with the amount of traffic that continues
to increase on our street, but also with the fast speeds at which these cars travel. We have a 4 month old so thi
is obvious{y of great concern to us.
If this hotel is approved, traffic will only increase on our street and our fear is that someone may, at some point,
get hurt due to the high speeds at which cars come down the street and turn the bend. More traffic will only adc
to the problem.
Please feel free to call us with any questions.
Thank you for your time,
Todd and Stephanie Besant
73930 Shadow Lake Drive
760-340-4504
2/27/2006
CiiY �� Pfll�i DESER�
73-5io F�D V7�tuNG DxtvE
P1u.M Dese�tr, CAI]FORNIA 922G��LE�VED
��, 760 ;�6-06��
F�x: 760 34i-7o98 E'�S 2$�
;ofc�palm-ddr�ee^.or�
—A-� ---�,0!A511'Nl7'YT OYPALMDESE�6'PY�TiIENi
CITY OF PALM DESER7
LEGAL NOTtCE
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, CR 05-05� AND PPlCUP 05-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a Public hearing wiU be held before the Paim Dese�t
Pianning Commission to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESERT 1 EUGENE
BREZNOCK for approvat of:
a
B.
C.
q general plan amendment adding Pollcy 10 and Program 10.A (Exhibit A) to the
Reside�ial Goals. Polices and Programs sedion of the ganeral pfan.
A zoning ordinance amendment adding SecGon 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing
devebpment standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
A change of zone to add �e EI Paso Resort Oveiiay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential properties as indicated in Exhiblt C.
p, A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12
unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project iocated at 73-811 Larrea Street.
�C�t��-„�+�-� , �-�� �o�
���� � L�� �J
�'���-� , �'y� . ��
� � � ����� ��
. - ,
(SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE)
ar�,�-�--�" ��
,��—
���r.�� �� 9���0
��� '
�
� G �� _ �
,, ,
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, Ma�+ch 7, 2006 at 6:Q0 p.m. i� the Councit
Chambe� at the Palm. Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
Califomla. at which tlme and place aN interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Writte� oomments c�onc�ming aU items oavered by this pubifc hearing notice shaH
be acoepted up to the date oi the hearing. informatbn conceming the proposed projed
andlor negaWe dedaraation is avatlabte for revisw in the Department of Community
Development �at th� above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through F�y. if you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
fimited to raising only those issues you or someone else ra�sed at the public hearing
descxibed in this. notice, or in writter� corresponder►ce delive�ed to the Plannireg
Commission (or ctty oouncU) at, or prior to, the puWic hearing.
PUBLfSH: Desert Sun PHIUP DRELL, Secretary
February 24, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission
� - _ Page 1 of 1
� �
�_. ..
Bagato, Tony
From: debbi hall [debbihall99@hotmail.comj
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:32 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Public Hearing March 7,2006
Legal notice re case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z OS-05 and PP/CUP 05-2
I will be out of the country and not be available to attend the public meeting concerning the above case nos.
Please take into consideration and read at the meeting my comments as follows.
I live on the corner of Joshua Tree St. and San Luis Rey St. directly across San Luis Rey St. from my property is
Shadow Mountain Country Club. This creates a large amount of pedestrian traffic on San Luis Rey St. There are
no sidewalks so they of course walk in the street. While the speed limit on Joshua Tree St. is 25 mph and on
San Luis Rey St. it is 30 mph it is rarely observed by drivers. The majority of the vehicles go between 40 mph
and 50 mph on both streets. In the last 3 1/2 years I have personally witnessed at least twenty near misses of
pedestrians being struck by speeding vehicles. I believe the increase in traffic in an already unsafe pedestrian
area could be deadly. The creation of a"resort zone" from Portola to Ocotillo would most assuredly increase
both noise pollution and traffic creating making an unsafe pedestrian condition go from bad to worse.
I am vehemently opposed to a change in the zoning. This neighborhood is unique. There are very few areas
that one can live in and walk to the shops, restaurants. Fortunately, we do not need to build a artificial mixed
use area, we already have one. The zoning laws are in place to protect and enhance the area. Please let these
laws do there intended job and protect the neighborhood and surrounding area from becoming another Palm
Springs.
Thank You
Deborah W. Hall
73673 Joshua Tree St.
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
3/ 1 /2006
Page 1 of ]
�`� �`
Bagato, Tony
From: BRENDAVIRG0911@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:11 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Legal Notice / Ref. Shadow Mt. Dr.
Mr. Tony Bagato,
I am writing you regarding Case No's.....
GPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05. C2 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20
I am a homeowner on Tumbleweed Lane, but will not be able to attend the meeting of March 7, 2006. I
would like to strongly voice my opinion against the project. This is a residential area not a"RESORT
ZONE" and a 3 story complex will be like a GIANT WHITE ELEPHANT in our area.
My husband made the comparison of EI Paseo being our deserts Rodeo Drive, which most if not all
people that live in the desert would agree. They choose, with all the congestion of that area, to keep the
area looking special and welcoming to people. If they would have let such building go on in and around
that area it would have been it's down fall... Look at Palm Springs. It's an eclectic area of mishmash
buildings that has turned into a ghost town.... It's not special anymore. There are plenty of RESORT Zones
in the Palm Desert Area... the EI Paseo area does not need to be one of them......
3/2/2006
f, ...
Ba�ato, Tony
From: Ken Seals [kenseals@msn.comj
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 8:39 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone
�
I am a resident of Palm Desert and also a resident of Shadow Mountain Dr.
strongly feel this would be a big mistake for the citizens of Palm Desert.
There is already an enormous amount of traffic that frequents Shadow
Mountain Dr. and flow off of E1 Paseo. Please stop the Planning Commission
on voting for the "resort zone" for this area.
Thank you
Linda Buchanan
73820 Shadow Mountain Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
�Fy
� ... .
l
Susan and Doug Myrland
73860 Shadow Mountain Dr #6
Palm Desert CA 92260
760 . 568 . 6304
.R�C�I�T�D
March 6, 2006
Jim Lopez, Chair
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
��::�;� il 0 2006
04fJ7U`ITY DrVELOP�iE\T DEP�RTJSE`T
!'?TY GF F:1(.11 DESERT
Dear Mr. Lopez,
We are urging you to vote N�( on any height and density waivers for the proposed
hotel on Larrea Street. This neighborhood is aiready dense, with row after row of
multi-family housing units along Shadow Mountain Drive. Shadow Mountain, Shadow
Lake, Mountain View and ]oshua Tree are all used as shortcuts for people racing
through the neighborhood, trying to avoid the Paseo and Highway 111. We do not
want "traffic calming" devices that inconvenience residents — we want to avoid
building big hotels that will bring in more cars!
The current boutique inns are good neighbors. Their architecture is consistent with the
character of nearby homes, so they blend in. They increase the appeal of this area,
making it attractive for visitors and residents alike. We cannot see how a 36-unit hotel
crammed onto the Larrea lot, and topped by a 5' 8" block wall, will be anything but an
eyesore. The Architectural Review Commission called it "realiy squished together."
This hotel will exceed even the relaxed standards proposed under the EPROZ. With the
grade buildup for the parking garage, it will be over 36', destroying our mountain
views and sense of space.
There is also the issue of the noise this project will generate, particularly with so many
rooftop pools and spas. I'm sure you know that the Augusta restaurant and nightclub
is a nuisance. The noise moves up the hillside, disturbing people blocks away. The
Larrea Street project will simply increase that problem.
We support reasonable development that preserves the character of this
neighborhood. Palm Desert is unique and distinctive, and that is what attracts people
to visit, shop, work and live here. The area is valuab{e because the current zoning is
logical and has been enforced. Our neighborhood is a great example of equitable
mixed use, and we are depending an you to keep it that way.
Sincerely,
�
�` / / i �
,� �
�
,���� � i
� . � ./
�
Jim Lopez,Chair
Palm besert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred DJaring L7rive
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
NIr. Lopez,
l
��
RECEI'��D
�5;�;� u o 2��'6
�'UMMUNITY DEVELOP;tE\T DEPART1iENT
CITY OF P9LK DESERT
I was very disturbed to see the suggested changes that are being discussed at the public hearing
on Tnesd�y, March 7, 2006. I was a member of the original general plazaning conamittee and felt
very comfortable with our plan. I do not believe that we should make the entire area surrounding
El Pasco into an area for commercial hotels. I am �ware of thc hotel on Larrera and am not
opposed to it as long as it stays wit�in the curretrt height aad density restrictions. I would Iike to
see thc area remain a mixture of homcs, smail hotels and other businesses. I have lived in the
Shadow IV�ountain Estates are for over IO years. With increased commercial development ae�r
traffic it that area has increased and become dangerous. The neighborhood is vsed for a pathway
from EI Paseo to Fortola and back again. My address is 45-95Q Moimtain View. I a:n at the far
ead af Mountain Yiew and can still hear the music from August� which is very disturbing. I�rn
not ar�, expert on what thc total intent of the city is in this regard. I can only exprtss that it does
not sound like these changas are in the best interest of our neighbarhood. I have been an active
participate n�ot only on the General Plan Committee but most currently Art and Public Placcs.
Unfortunately I wi11 not b� able to attend the Public Hearing but am. available if you have any
questions o� concerns.
Sin el Yr�
Donald and Maureen Thompson
45�950 Mountair� View
Pa1m Desert, Ca. 92260
(760) 346-1b7b
848-� Z00/100�d 110-1 9898 l!!,+ 13NNOSa3d-��� Wd16�50 900Z-��I-90
�
��._
DESERT S.�vDS LNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
�t%-950 DUNE PALMS ROAD
LA QUCNZ'�, C � 9?253
FACSIMtLE TflAN3M1TTAL SiIE�'I' /
'COs �; � � � / 1f 1°IIOM: ��li��' "� �" �" �=i ����� �/ /� G7
�(/ L�+ .2/?�
COntAAMY: bp� '� '
3� �-- O b
F U �`�����j��/� TOy'A1, NQ QF PAGBS INQ(JDlNG COVE1:
T Ui
P 6 N1J1�61L• SF.PtDEt'S REFEitF.A1�E N111�ER
REs
[7'Cxc�rrr q Fo� Revi�vo�
N01'Ei/COMl�t�1'1�
P��-�
rn,�����'
YOLt� REl61[i�ICE NU61dg�ts
❑ PLEASE COMMBN7' O PLEAS$ REPLY � PLEASE RBCYQ,$
�''►,�i! ��✓`i dY �'
� - �-o�
�
�
fl�s8-� Z00/Z0�'d 110-1 9898 ll1+ 13NMOSa3d-�no�a md�a:cn ann��JEM-on
��.
Page 1 of
Bagato, Tony
From: Gail Basse [gbasse@indio.org]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:09 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Cc: jlopez@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Subject: Larrea SUEI Paseo Resort�Overlay opposition
Mr. Bagato,
I am among a large group of South Palm Desert residents who vehemently oppose the changing or amending of current
zoning ordinances andlor subsequent designation of a Resort Overlay Zone that would adversely affect the traffic, noise,
views, and characteristic architecturat style af our South Palm Desert neighborhood. The cuRent zoning of this area was
undoubtedly put into place to inhibit just such over blown developments as the one proposed in the "EI Paseo Resort Overlay
area and specifically the project on Larrea Street. If exceptions are allowed, the future of the area and exact types of
developments approved to be built in the area in the future are unknown, but the welcome mat for large developments and
special zoning waivers will be open.
As a city employee myself, I know the responsibility of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission and City Council is to
represent the best interest of the residents first and foremost, not the monetary gain of developers. It certainly is not for the
good of the residents of this area to have zoning changed to allow for higher structures with more "keys" than current zoning
allows. Each "key" potentially represents at least finro automobiles and two or more residents, and higher structures block viev
and jeopardize privacy of the surrounding residents.
We are proud of the uniqueness of our neighborhood and the "small town feel" when you walk down EI Paseo and the
surrounding streets. We came to live here precisely for the way this neighborhood area is right now and urge the Planning
Commission and City Council to use sound judgment that supports our way of life. We can support reasonable development
that fits within the current zoning constraints but let the big developments continue to over populate Orange County and Los
Angeles and allow our neighborhood to prosper under the current zoning limitations.
Sincerely,
Gail A. and Jack L. Basse
73298 JOSHUA TREE STREET
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
(760) 340-9454
3/7/2006
(,_
Bagato, Tony
From: Thompson, Maureen [Maureen.Thompson@dsusd.us]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone
Page 1 of
I am a resident in Shadow Mountain Estates. I live at 45-950 Mountain View in Plam Desert. My husband and I are very much
opposed to the change in zoning to a resort zoning changes. I was a member of the general plan committee and have always
been very proud of our city and the great planning that is done with both commercial and neighborhood planning. I was aware th�
of the Larrea St. Hotel and felt that it was a needed feature. I do not want to see it increased above the current restriction of 24
feet. I do not want to see the general plan amended and certainly do not want this to become a comdor of hotels. Our
neighborhood community already become a dangerous traffic pattem as people cut through from EI Paseo to Portola. We need t�
protect our enviornment not add more commerical hotels. As I state one fine but do not change all of the zoning. Thank-You for
your attention to this matter.
Maureen Thompson
Director of Certificated Personnel
Desert Sands Unified School District
(760) 771-8787
3/7/2006
rauu ,�esen neignt ana liensity W a�vers Page 1 of
i
�.
Bagato, Tony
From: Omey, Russ [Russ.OmeyQexperian.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:36 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Paim Desert Height and Density Waivers
Dear Mr. Bagato,
Since I am currently traveling on business and will miss tomorrow's meeting, I decided to email you to register my NO on the
proposed zoning changes. I see no benefit for our great city. I live two blocks from the proposed resort overlay, and I see only
bad effects from this, and the precedent that could be set, with proceeding with such an approval. Again, I strongly urge a NO
vote.
Sincerely,
Russ & Colette Omey
73-510 Juniper St.
Palm Desert 92260
3/7/2006
� Page 1 of
l-
Bagato, Tony
From: Fred Gerber [fred.gerberQverizon.net]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:47 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: zoning change, EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ)
From: Fred Gerber
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006
To: Tony Bagato
Subject: Development on Larrea Street, proposed zoning change
Dear City Counsel and Planning Commission,
I am unable to attend tomorrows meeting regazding new development / zoning change.
My main concern in regazds to the proposed zoning change is the ever-increasing traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive.
During the last few years several factors have contributed to a great increase in private as well as commercial tr�c o
our street:
. The Gardens, with all it's employees, deliveries as well as customers
. The raising of the speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph
• Installation of traffic signal at Shadow Mountain and Portola
I would expect that with additional development traffic will continue to increase and I ask that you consider taking
mitigating action.
One of the reasons so many drivers use Shadow Mountain is that there are few stop signs, speed limit is rarely enforce
and that it saves time versus driving on Hwy 111 or El Paseo.
I would like to propose the following:
• Shadow Mountain be closed to commercial through traffic
• Every intersection have all-way stop signs
• Speed limit reduced to 25 mph
• Continuous sidewalk from Portola to Tumbleweed before any new construction
I have read the note about the "no commercial through traffic" rule not being enforceable, but I do remember that the
city of San Francisco has been doing so for many years on selected streets.
Thank you for your time,
Fred Gerber
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5
Palm Desert
760.861.4844
fred.gerber@verizon.net
3I7/2006
�
City Pianning Department/Planning Commission
City of Palm Desett
73-510 Fred Wazing Drive,
Palm Desert, CA
Dear Commissioners,
�.. ����I�ED
'ti?�a� � � �oOv
J�MMG'YITY DEVELOP1fEtiT DEPARTMEYT
CITY OF PALJ! DESERT
Having been Palm Desert homeowners for over 20 years we are extremely distressed at the 3 story
developmeM curretrtly being negotiated for the property at 73-811 Larrea St. and the proposed rezoning
amendment to estab(ish an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
The City Charter of Palm Desert was developed for and has always held as a primary tenet of it's existence
the snpport of the residerts of �h_� citv. This proposal and t6e variance being sought is not in the best interest of
the residents in the surrounding area for the following reasons:
* The increased traffic resulting &om the rebuilt Washington Charter School (to house 700 + students,)
coupled with that which could result from development in the proposed redesignation zone and the
Larrea project, will significantly impact the areas on and around Portola Av., Shadow Mourrtain Av.,
San Luis Rey, Shadow Lake Dr. and Lanea St. This increase in traffic could pote�rtially endanger the
walking student population and residents of those streets.
# The impact on tUe privacy of residents in properties adjacent to the Larrea St project will be negative.
The residents of the projected development will have an activity area two full stories (20+ feet) above
their neighbors allowing the invasion of the privacy of those in spaces below.
* Increased noise factors will disrupt the peace Qf the sunounding homeowners. There are already
oon4tant noise code violations being perpetrate� on azea homeowners by the Augusta Restaurant The
Lanea project sits immediately south of the Augusta facility and would add one more tayer of noise
pollution to our environntent.
* Local residents have a sense of who is familiar and who is not in our given areas. The possible
increase in transience generated by the variance of the current zoning designations will make it more
difficult to identify those who are justified in being in an area and those who are not.
* Home property values will be negatively affected by noise and traffic issues. The beauty of Palm Desert
has always been found in iYs gorgeous views and peaceful style of living. We certainly dodt want to
see our spectacutar views blocked or our peace lost. Both of these proposals lead us down those paths.
As residents of Palm Desert, we care about our community and consider it important that reasonable
growth and developmeat be allowed in the appropriate areas. The single family homes were in this area long before
the first shops and/or hotel complexes existed. The icrtroduction of reta.il shops and hotels were allowed within the
guidelines of the "neighborhood community" and those in charge were good stewards of those guidelines.
We are not suggesting that development be disallowed in the south Palm DesertlEl Paseo area, but that
those developers who wish to work within a residential community (of long tenure) embrace the esssence of that
community rather than attempt to detract from it. We ask that our Planning Commissioners and City Council
members continue the stewardship of the original founders of our community. We thank you for your consideration
in this matter and expect that you will work to preserve the "essence" of this wonderful community.
Sincerel�, ` �
._ ��� � 1► ��'��'-, ���k�+� Q �
Ron L. Buries and Beverly A. Buries �
45-831 Mt. View Av., Palm Desert, CA 92260
r ��
Page 1 of
( �
Bagato, Tony
From: Robert Rosteck [RRosteck(a�coNegeofthedesert.edu)
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:37 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone Designation
I am writing with regards to the "resort zone" designation for Shadow Mauntain Drive between Portola and Ocotillo. I would also
like to express my opinion on height and density waive�s fo� construction on Larrea Street.
I have been a resident of the Coachella Valley for the past nine yeacs and in that amount of time 1 have seen numerous changes
sometimes for the better and sometimes not for the better. One thing that attracted me to this area, especially the city of Palm
Desert, was its charm. Being from the Southeast. many cities base their entire appeal on the charm they offer visitors and Palm
Desert has much to offer in that category. However, changing zoning designations to allow for resorts — especially on the edge c
residential properties — will detract from these neighborhoods and allow the commercial to encroach into the residential. Southei
Califomia is changing as it grows, but that doesn't mean that a city like Palm Desert has to give up its character while there are
areas that have yet to be developed (Cook Street) or commercial areas that could be redeveloped to accommodate resorts.
For the past three years, I have lived at 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive in an apartment complex that spans between Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. The properties adjacent to the apartment complex on Lanea Street are in need of
development due to the homeless people who have presented themselves as a threat at times to the community, the unsightly
appearance of the unkempt lots, and the danger the dilapidated buildings present. I am all for development of these properties
within the zoning regulations, however, I don't see the need to approve special height and density waivers. Again, this would
detract from the charm and the appearance of the valley. It's nice to be able to stand and look at the mountains from almost any
point in the city without actually having to drive to the mountains to see them.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions on this matter. I know urban development is a problem in trying to balance th�
needs of development with the character of any area. Hopefully, Palm Desert will continue to grow in a manner that doesn't
sacrifice its charm for short term gain.
Sincerely,
Robert Rosteck
73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive #106
3/7/2006
• ` l/ \
Ba�ato, Tony
Fram: Bill D Etherton [pdwilly@juno.comJ
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Cc: gbasseQindio.org
Subject: larrea StJEI Paseo Reso�t Overlay.
Palm Desert is the best city in the desert. Due in large part to
the fine work our city council & planning department has done in the
past. I implore you not to change the zoning South of E1 Paseo to
accommodate developers. Do what is best for the residents of this area.
Hotels belong on Hwy. lll.especially those asking for height variances.
Let's keep Palm Desert the best city in the Coachella Valley.
Thanks, Bill
Etherton
(,,-� (. .
Page 1 of
A Bagato, Tony
From: Eva DeRosier [ederosier@dc.n.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:05 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Tonight's public hearing
To: City Planning Department
Attn: Tony Bagato
This is to voice my strong opposition to the proposal outlined in the City of Palm Desert Legal Notice regarding Case
Nos. GPA OS-04, ZOA OS-O5, C/Z OS-O5, and PP/CUP OS-20.
Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the public hearing today on this subject so I request you accept this email as
my input.
I live on Mountain View Avenue which is a neighborhood that would be directly affected, I believe to its great
detriment, by the approval of the proposal. The benefits of living in our quiet, safe, low-traffic community woul.d
be lost forever.
Please do not approve this proposal! I pray the Planning Commission shows consideration for the e�sting year-roun�
residents by not making these changes.
Eva DeRosier
73940 Mountain View Avenue
3/7/2006
l
Ap�t1 18, 2006
Dear Plsnninp Commission rnembers:
_.._.._. _ ...... �o�r �oa�oa P.02
i li../�,� ' j � �°� �
D�/�
Susan and Dou� Myriana
73860 Shadow Mt a� #6
P�Im Desert CA 92?b0
(760)568-63Q4
Due to s schedulln� confl�d, Y t�m unable to attend tont�ht's meetinp re�ardin9 the EPROZ
and the l.arrea Street project. However, i wlsh to expro�s my contlnued opposition to the
zonin9 chsnge, the project, and tha way the procesa w�s handled.
At the Camml�slon ses�lon on March 7th, you direrted City st��f and the developer to
lnvolve the �ommunity in the planning, and flnd ways to redute the hel�ht �nd denslty ot
the Larroa project to better fit In the nel�hborhoad.
Stalf held p� rneetinq, on March 2�rd. A week before the meetin�, an emall went out to
eleven peaple. Three days before, another ntne people recelved an invitation. A.� a r�sult
of this short notice, only four resldcnts were able to attend. There w�s ne a�enda and na
expta�n�tlon �bout what we were supposed to accomplish. There has been no other
resident involvement or communication since then.
'I'he EPR02 chanqes wlll �ffect hundreds who ilve a�lon� Shadow Mounteln, Shadow Lake,
San Luis Rey� and ]oshua tree - but the community invoivement haa consisted ot �
R�1�.
At the meeting on M�rch �3rd, It waz very clea� that Phti Drelt d!d not take our inter�sts,
or hls role a�s a� pubUc servant, serlously. He joked about the process and the sm�ll
turnout of resldents. At the end of the meeting ha con�ratula�ted the developer snd his
tesm. 4ne of the project's supporters, Qavid Fletcher, sald, "So they 9et some le�tters
from tenanta. Who c�res nbout them7" Hla aRogance and conde�censlon sum up the
attitude towards residents. .
it's very clear to the people who tive In the nelghborhood that we w�ll get thls project
whether we Nke 1t ar not. There heve been no compromises In the denslty. Clty staff
have dlsmissed our concerns �bout trefY9c. We have not seen any drawln9s or otl�er
Indicators to show helght. The architect was wlll(nq to make changes but his sug�estions
were overruled. Essentlatly we'va been told that we'll just have to put a second atory on
our buildlnq In order to keep our views.
The developer knew the extsttnQ zonin9 when he bauQht thls property. Ne knew
construction costs. Now he's sayinq that you need to chan�e the zo�ing so that he can
maximtze his proflt. Yf he paid too much for the iand, thet's his problem. This project was
- and still is - wran� tor the neiqhborhood and wr�n� for P�Im Desert.
5i�c ely,
��� , :
�
Susan Myrla
Page 1 of
Bagato, Tony
� � ,�PC�
��
From: Robert Rosteck [RRosteck@collegeofthedesert.edu] � �� l �l �G �� .
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:15 AM
To: Bagato, Tony; �nert�22@aol.com
Subject: FVV: Resort Zone Designatian
Due to my work schedule, I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. I have previously
emailed a letter against this proposal (see below). Currently, I am still against, not so mucY
•the development of the proposed areas, but the increase in density and height of the units. I
believe development is good for the area until it negatively impacts the aesthetics of the
area.
Sincerely,
Robert Rosteck
From: Robert Rosteck
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:37 AM
70: 'tbagato@ci.palm-desert.ca.us'
Subject: Resort Zone Designation
I am writing with regards to the "resort zone" designation for Shadow Mountain Drive between Portola and Ocotillo. I would also
like to express my opinion on height and density waivers for construction on Larrea Street.
I have been a resident of the Coachella Valley for the past nine years and in that amount of time I have seen numerous changes
sometimes for the better and sometimes not for the better. One thing that attracted me to this area, especially the city of Palm
Desert, was its charm. Being from the Southeast, many cities base their entire appeal on the charm they offer visitors and Palm
Desert has much to offer in that category. However, changing zoning designations to allow for resorts — especialiy on the edge o
residentiai properties — will detract from these neighborhoods and allow the commercial to encroach into the residential. Souther
Califomia is changing as it grows, but that doesn't mean that a city like Palm Desert has to give up its character while there are
areas that have yet to be developed (Cook St�eet) or commercial areas that could be redeveloped to accommodate resorts.
For the past three years, I have lived at 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive in an apartment complex that spans between Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. The prope�ties adjacent to the apartment complex on Larrea Street are in need of
development due to the homeless people who have presented themselves as a threat at times to the community, the unsightly
appearance of the unkempt lots, and the danger the dilapidated buildings present. I am all for development of these properties
within the zoning regulations, however, I don't see the need to approve special height and density waivers. Again, this would
detract from the charm and the appearance of the valley. IYs nice to be able to stand and loak at the mountains from almost any
point in the c'ity without actually having to drive to the mountains to see them.
Thank you for allowing me to exp�ess my opinions on this matter. I know urban development is a prob{em in trying to balance the
needs of development with the character of any area. Hopefully, Palm Desert will continue to grow in a manner that doesn't
sacrifice its charm for short term gain.
Sincerely,
Robert Rosteck
73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive #106
4/18/2006
Bac�ato, Tony
From: Drell, Phil
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: FW: Contact Us Form
-----Original Message-----
From: Klassen, Rachelle
Ser.t: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Michelson, Wilma; Drell, Phil; Smith, Steve
Subject: FTi1: Contact Us Form
-----Original Message-----
From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [mailto:fndorcom@aol.com]
Sert: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:58 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon
Subject: Contact Us Form
First name: Nancy
Last name: Leppert
E-mail address: fndorcom@aol.com
Addressl: 73860 Shadow Mtn Dr # 3
City: Palm Desert
State: CA
ZIP code: 92260
Phone: 760 341 7510
Comments: I would like to keep alive the discussion regarding the Planning Commission
Resort Overlay zoning changes.
Wnile I ar.d many neighbors do not oppose the growth and economic opportunities along E1
Paseo a project like this will bring to Palm Desert, I would just like for everyone to be
certain that the changes are the correct ones, for both residents and business owners,
and city coffers.
Please do not let them go any higher than the 30 feet that passed this past week.
I do not feel that they have considered the "whole" impact. Is there a model city they
are using? Lets hope it ins not Vegas or Phoenix. What architectural restrictions will
there be? What ever changes are passed will be ours for the future.
I would like �o be notified when this subject wil hit the City Council Chambers.
The planning commission folks generally provided us with 2 days notice for any meetings
they :nad - other than the Tuesday night meetings. That is not enough time for many of
cur group to be able to plan their attendance.
Thank you for your consideration
Nancy Leppert
1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: City of Palm Desert Web Site [stephbesant@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:51 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Kim Shannon
Subject: Contact Us Form
First name: Stephanie
Last name: Besant
E-mail address: stephbesant@aol.com
Addressl: 73930 Shadow Lake Dr
City: Palm Desert
State: CA
ZIP code: 92260
Phone: 760-340-4504
Comments: I am writing to voice my concern over the hotel/rezoning on Larrea St. My
husband is a small business owner so I am usually an advocate of business development and
opportunity, however...we live on Shadow Lake, a street just south of Shadow Mountain.
Unfortunately, our street is already used as a"cut- thru" so people can avoid E1 Paseo.
Now that we have a new baby, the increased traffic is of huge concern to us as people
already "barrel" through our street at high speeds. The last thing we need is to add more
traffic to a family, residential area. Please consider this when making your decision.
There are plenty of places to put hotels in this desert and with a real estate background,
I understand how important location is. But South Palm Desert is such a desirable place
to LIVE, T am concerned also that real estate sales could suffer in the immediate area
with such an increase of traffic- T heard 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain
alone, which would then cause our street to get even busier and more unsafe. Please think
about all side when making your decision. Thank you.
�-..,
:� � �
.-� .
rn
� .-
�* -
� -. _ .,
t ,_
� ' _:�;
�,. , . `, : .. .
j�� - ;.
_�' �:, �
-+ _ «� :,.
� K' � __
O �' �=;
CJ1 �
letter to City Council regarding EPROZ
Klassen, Rachelle
From:
Sent:
To:
Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Friday, May 05, 2006 12:26 AM
Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com
Subject: letter to City Council regarding EPROZ
Page 1 of 3
Dear Ms. Klassen, I am sending hard copies of the following letter to each of the
Councilmembers. If you do not receive the hard copies in time, please use this
electronic version.
Thank you for your assistance,
Susan Myrland
-----------------------------------
Susan and Doug Myrland
73860 Shadow Mt Drive #6
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 568-6304
May 5, 2006
Jim Ferguson, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mayor Ferguson,
-.>
«]
.:J
�
�
b
�
,
cn
�
�
N
l� �
'- r-,-:
::� ;.,,
� ;..;;:
:,� ;. _._
_: ,�
�J�J"`
_,.� _.
:,�,
;� --
::
�
We will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on May 11th, but wish to express
our strong opposition to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project for the following
reasons:
This rezoning will significantly change the nature of our neighborhood, yet there has
been minimal community involvement. There were no public meetings held prior to the
March 7th Planning Commission hearing. Only one notice was sent to each multi-family
complex along Shadow Mountain Drive. The Commission chided the Planning
Department and the Larrea Street developer for this, and instructed them to do more
community outreach. One meeting was held, on March 23rd. Eleven people were sent
an invitation via email with one week's notice. Nine more people received an email
invitation with three day's notice. As a result, only four people who live in the affected
area were able to attend.
The developer claims that he met with "all the residents directly around them." That is
completely untrue. Our co-op is immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel and it will
block our view. The developer met with two of our neighbors, Brian Blatchley and Fred
Gerber, and has a financial arrangement with a third neighbor, Faith Messenger. None
5/5/2006
letter to City Council regarding EPROZ
Page 2 of 3
of the other people in our building, or in the apartment complexes on either side of us,
ever received a tetter, phone call or email from the developer. The EPROZ changes will
have an impact on hundreds who live along Shadow Mountain, Shadow Lake, San Luis
Rey, and Joshua Tree - but the community involvement has been limited to a handful of
people.
Because of the lack of community awareness, it would appear that opposition is
minimal. That is not the case. You'll notice that the letters of support for this project
mainly come from people who do not live in Palm Desert, are not in the overlay zone, or
who stand to benefit financially. The Planning Department received manv letters from
residents opposed to the rezoning. Only one of those letters was included in the most
recent staff report.
A leading concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated under the rezoning -
almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive if all the vacant lots are
developed, and even more if existing properties are turned into hotels or if the EPROZ is
extended east of Portola.
You only have to stand outside our home on Shadow Mountain to see that this road
could not handle 1000 more cars every day. Our safety and quality of life are at stake.
We already have cars constantly whizzing by, day and night. Traffic spills over onto
Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree, and this will get even worse when the Washington
Charter School opens. We have expressed our concerns to the Planning Department,
but have been told that they will not do anything about it and that the increased traffic
is within acceptable limits. We say it is not.
Similarly, our concerns about increased height have been dismissed. We knew when we
bought our unit that the lot behind us was zoned for two stories. We agreed to those
conditions, but not to the variances that would be allowed under the EPROZ. The
Planning Department says that we should just put another story on our building. We
have a distinctive mid-century modern complex, one of Palm Desert's oldest, and we
cannot just slap another level on it.
This proposal does not have the unanimous support that the Planning Department would
like you to believe. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board
expressed concerns about height and density. When the project came before the
Architectural Review Board in December 2005, Commissioner Lambell called it "really
squished together for a residentiai area" and compared it to the Westin Mission Hills. At
the Planning Commission hearing on March 7th, Commissioner Tanner noted that the
EPROZ "opens the door for future establishments with a greater impact than 30
feet...There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the Coachella Valley."
Commissioner Finerty expressed her concerns about "losing Palm Desert as we know
it...This project doesn't belong in one of our neighborhoods." These concerns are being
ignored.
On March 7th, the Planning Commission told the developer to compromise on the height
and density of the Larrea Street hotel. He has not made any compromises. He
promised to contribute $20,000 towards putting the utilities underground. This promise
does not appear anywhere in the staff report, and the Planning Department doesn't
seem to know anything about it. He has threatened repeatedly that he could build low-
income housing if he doesn't get the variances he wants. In other words, this developer
is only interested in his short-term gain. He knew the area's zoning and costs when he
5/5/2006
letter to City Council regarding EPROZ Page 3 of 3
bought the property. If he can't make it pencil out, that's his problem. The City Council
should not make far-reaching zoning changes so that an individuai can maximize his or
her profit at the expense of the larger community.
The Planning Department is trying to argue that hotels are necessary to save the Paseo
from competition, and that development won't happen without zoning changes. But
Michael Shimer, head of the Paseo Merchant's Association, said in the Desert Sun on
March 14th that he wasn't worried about competition. At the Planning Commission
hearing, the Larrea Street developer said that his project could be built without the
overlay zone. Even Phil Drell admitted on March 23rd that the EPROZ "wouldn't
transform the Paseo's economy," and that building hotels would not guarantee year-
round visitors. '
At that meeting, it was very clear that Phil Drell did not take our interests or his
responsibilities seriously. He joked about the process and the small turnout of
residents. At the end of the meeting he congratulated the developer and his team. One
of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said, "So they get some letters from
tenants. Who cares about them?"
We are hoping that�ou will care about tenants and homeowners. We believe that the
EPROZ has fihe potential to turn Shadow Mountain Drive into a hotel row, destroying the
very qualities that make this area attractive. Our current zoning is the reason why this
location is special and valuable. Please vote to preserve our unique, beautiful
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Susan Myrland Doug Myrland
5/5/2006
Susan and Doug Myrland
73860 Shadow Mt Drive #6
Paim Desert, CA 92260
(760)568-6304
May 5, 2006
Jim Ferguson, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mayor Ferguson,
We will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on May 11"', but wish to
express our strong opposition to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project for the
following reasons:
..�
�-�
= _�
.-�-.
_�
;�
�
0
�
-�
N
.^
�
This rezoning will significantly change the nature of our neighborhood, yet there has
been minimat community involvement. There were no public meetings held prior to
the March 7�' Planning Commission hearing. Only one notice was sent to each multi-
family complex along Shadow Mountain Drive. The Commission chided the Planning
Department and the Larrea Street developer for this, and instructed them to do more
community outreach. One meeting was held, on March 23rd. Eleven people were
sent an invitation via email with one week's notice. Nine more people received an
email invitation with three day's notice. As a result, only four people who live in the
affected area were able to attend.
The developer claims that he met with "all the residents directly around them." That
is completely untrue. Our co-op is immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel and it
will block our view. The developer met with two of our neighbors, Brian Blatchley and
Fred Gerber, and has a financial arrangement with a third neighbor, Faith Messenger.
None of the other people in our building, or in the apartment complexes on either
side of us, ever received a letter, phone call or email from the developer. The EPROZ
changes will have an impact on hundreds who live along Shadow Mountain, Shadow
Lake, San �uis Rey, and Joshua Tree — but the community involvement has been
limited to a handful of people.
Because of the lack of community awareness, it would appear that opposition is
minimal. That is not the case. You'�I notice that the letters of support for this project
mainly come from people who do not live in Palm Desert, are not in the overlay zone,
or who stand to benefit financially. The Planning Department received manv letters
from residents opposed to the rezoning. Only one of those letters was included in the
most recent staff report.
�:
U':
;,, e::.
(:!' .
'_^;,.� ` -
- ° :.; �;.�
_ _.,,
\'1'�
��
�
A leading concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated under the rezoning —
almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive if all the vacant lots ai-e
developed, and even more if existing properties are turned into hotels or if the EPROZ
is extended east of Portola.
Letter to Mayor Ferguson, Page 2
You only have to stand outside our home on Shadow Mountain to see that this ro�ad
could not handle 1000 more cars every day. Our safety and quality of life are at
stake. We already have cars constantly whizzing by, day and night. Tra�c spilis
over onto Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree, and this will get even worse when the
Washington Charter School opens. We have expressed our concerns to the Planning
Department, but have been told that they will not do anything about it and that t�e
increased traffic is within acceptable limits. We say it is not.
Similarly, our concerns about increased height have been dismissed. We knew when
we bought our unit that the lot behind us was zoned for two stories. We agreed to
those conditions, but not to the variances that would be allowed under the EPROZ.
The Planning Department says that we should just put another story on our building.
We have a distinctive mid-century modern complex, one of Palm Desert's oldest, and
we cannot just slap another level on it.
This proposal does not have the unanimous support that the Planning Department
would like you to believe. Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Board expressed concerns about height and density. When the project came
before th� Architectural Review Board in December 2005, Commissioner Lambell
called it "really squished together for a residential area" and compared it to the
Westin Mission Hills. At the Planning Commission hearing on March 7"', Commis-
sioner Tanner noted that the EPROZ "opens the door for future establishments with a
greater impact than 30 feet...There was going to be disruption of the beauty of tr�e
Coachella Valley." Commissioner Finerty expressed her concerns about "losing Palm
Desert as we know it...This project doesn't belong in one of our neighborhoods."
These concerns are being ignored.
On March 7�', the Planning Commission told the developer to compromise on the
height and density of the Larrea Street hotel. He has not made any compromise�;.
He promised to contribute $20,000 towards putting the utilities underground. This
promise does not appear anywhere in the staff report, and the Planning Department
doesn't seem to know anything about it. He has threatened repeatedly that he could
build low-income housing if he doesn't get the variances he wants. In other words,
this developer is only interested in his short-term gain. He knew the area's zoning
and costs when he bought the property. If he can't make it pencil out, that's his
problem. The City Council should not make far-reaching zoning changes so that <�n
individual can maximize his or her profit at the expense of the larger community.
The Planning Department is trying to argue that hotels are necessary to save the
Paseo from competition, and that development won't happen without zoning char�ges.
But Michael Shimer, head of the Paseo Merchant's Association, said in the Desert Sun
on March 14�" that he wasn`t worried about competition. At the Planning Commission
hearing, the Larrea Street developer said that his project could be built without the
overlay zone. Even Phil Drell admitted on March 23�d that the EPROZ "wouldn't
transform the Paseo's economy," and that building hotels would not guarantee ye�ar-
round visitors.
Letter to Mayor Ferguson, Page 3
At that meeting, it was very clear that Phil Drell did not take our interests or his
responsibilities seriously. He joked about the process and the small turnout of
residents. At the end of the meeting he congratulated the developer and his team.
One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said, "So they get some letters from
tenants. Who cares about them?"
We are hoping that �ou will care about tenants and homeowners. We believe that
the EPROZ has the potential to turn Shadow Mountain Drive into a hotel row,
destroying the very qualities that make this area attractive. Our current zoning is the
reason why this location is special and valuable. Please vote to preserve our unique,
beautiful neighborhood.
Sincerely,
, ���� !.�
'�`��1, � ,
, � r��. � ` e=�..�
Susan M rlan%��
Y
/
oug rland
� „ I..�+
.. �'�' : '� (�! F10E
. . ,. �I . 1•+ iJ � � f � ` r t .- � �4' }�
May 8, 2006
City of Palm Desert, ���� t��;l' -� P�i y= �S7
City Council Members
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Pa(m Desert, CA 92260-25678
Dear City Council Member,
I am opposed to the EPROZ.
I have been a full time resident of South Palm Desert for four years. I
live at 73673 Joshua Tree St. which is on the corner of San Luis Rey
St. and Joshua Tree St. I purchased my home specifically because of
the proximity to EI Paseo. It is an ideal location, close to dining and
shopping yet buffered from the commercial area by R-3
zoning. Before I bought the property I did my home work and
checked the zoning. I took into consideration that there would be more
noise and traffic than if I were further south, but the trade off was
convenience. It is not a situation like someone buying a house next to
the airport then complaining that there are planes flying over.
The speed limits on both Joshua Tree and San Luis Rey are acceptable,
25 mph and 30 mph respectively. But the traffic does not observe the
speed {imit on either of those streets. Joshua Tree St. is used as a cut
through to avoid traffic lights and stops on EI Paseo and on Highway
111 as are Shadow Mountain, Larrea and Shadow Lake
Drive. According to the staff report the present traffic volume is 3,564
trips per day on Shadow Mountain and 1,217 trips per day on Larrea.
If the EPROZ is approved and all the currently empty lots are buitt to
maximum density (152 units), traffic could increase to 4,512 trips per
day on Shadow Mountain and 2,165 on Larrea. The staff report says
"According to the City's Transportation Engineer, {ess than 5,000 trips
per day is an acceptable traffic level for residents." If you were to ask
the question of the residents in this area," Would you consider 5000
trips per day, which is an increase of 1436 cars on Shadow Mountain
to be an acceptable traffic level?", you would NOT get yes as an
answer. It is not acceptable. EPROZ, if approved, will degrade the
neighborhood.
I believe that each project, such as the one under consideration on
Larrea, should be examined individually and should be approved or
declined based on its individual merit. If a project does not benefit the
community as a whole then it should not be approved. It must have
value esthetically as well as financially. I am pro-business and
understand the developers desire to make a pro�t. I would hope that
the developer checked the zoning and height restrictions before he
purchased the property. If he did then he should know what the zoning
and height restrictions are, if not the adage "Buyer beware" comes
into play. Zoning is there for the protection of the community not to
maximize profit.
Please, do not create the EPROZ. This is a unique community and we
ail benefit by the quality of life it creates.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Deborah W Hall
73673 ]oshua Tree St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-340-2005
760-880-1615
May 8, 2006
City of Palm Desert,
City Council Members
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-25678
Dear City Council Member,
I am opposed to the EPROZ.
I have been a full time resident of South Palm Desert for seven years.
I currently live at 73860 Shadow Mountain Dr. which is situated behind
and adjacent to the proposed development of the boutique hotel
proposed to be built on Larrea.
The rear of my home will face directly onto the southeast corner of this
project. My home is ideal(y located near the shopping and dining
district of EI Paseo, and it was big draw to my decision to purchase
here.
I am very concerned about the noise, density and increased traffic this
project will bring. Although my view of San Jacinto in the distance will
become obliterated, this is a complaint I can't bring to you, as with the
current zoning height restriction of 28 feet, it would still vanish. A
bummer - yes - adding insult to injury, I stand to be subjected to
increased noise levels from the hote! guests on the roof top pools late
into the night. I am also concerned for those residing in the rooms
under these roof top pools in the event of an extreme earthquake, but
I am prepared to assist if needed.
I am apposed to EPROZ because of the height issues and density. I
am also concerned that the project might also be sold as a 12 deeded
project. If this is the case, what would happen to the project if it fails
as a hote! and reverts to a condominium project? Will it be
grandfathered with the approved heights and density? Parking would
become an issue if there are not enough assigned parking spaces in
the underground lot. Will it open a"can of worms" for other condo
projects in the future wanting increased height restrictions? These are
serious questions that must be addressed before allowing the Larrea
project to be approved.
I am not opposed to bringing hotels to the area; it will be a big boost
to the economies of the existing and future businesses on EI Paseo, as
well as the city coffers. I am not against this project to continue, but
I am against the current proposed EPROZ efforts.
You have heard from other residents regarding the traffic issues, I am
in agreement with them and do not feel that I should include the
statistics for you again - but I can if you want! I would like to ask if
you, City Council members and your neighbors would not object to a
project in your neighborhood that would increase the traffic by nearly
30%.
I am also in agreement with other neighbors of EI Paseo that a project
such as this should not be approved if it does not benefit the
community as a whole.
The developer has threatened to put in low-income housing if the
variances he requests are not met. Threats do not make a good
neighbor. At the time the iot was purchased, current zoning was not a
secret. To quote my neighbor Susan Myrland "He knew the area's
zoning and costs when he bought the property. If he can't make it
pencil out, that's his problem. The City Council should not make far-
reaching zoning changes so that an individual can maximize his or her
profit at the expense of the larger community. "
I am not against the boutique hotel industry making a profitable
impact for the city of Palm Desert, nor am I against it being built
adjacent to my home, I am against the current EPROZ proposals with
regards to the height and density issues.
I moved here from a quaint community in Old Town Alexandria,
Virginia, established in 1774. Two hundred years later, a
redevelopment boon began - it exploded. It took just 20 years to
become an area of bumper to bumper traffic, high rise industrial parks
and increased crime - Please; do not allow this EPROZ to come to
fruition. This unique community will continue to benefit from the
quality of life that has already been created. In twenty years, what
will we have created for your children and grandchildren? Orange
County?
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Nancy Hammett Leppert
73860 Shadow Mountain Dr
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Sea4Blis@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:26 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Re: Letter to City Council regarding EPROZ
Dear Mayor Ferguson:
We are writing with regard to the EPROZ and the Larrea Street project. We will try to attend the City Council meeting if
work permits.
We have lived on Shadow Lake Drive for 5 years. We are very concerned about how this project and rezoning will
impact our neighborhood as well as our property values. Currently, our street is used as a cut through for speeding
cars to Portola and with the passing of this rezoning it will only increase the traffic to our street. We truly believe our
safety and most importantly our quality of life will be changed forever.
I grew up in what was a small town named Corona. Maybe you have been there. Some small business men decided it
would be beneficially to change our town, revive it, increase revenue to their businesses thus Urban Renewal! So they
bulldozed my town along with all my childhood memories (downtown was a gathering place for all), our stunning tum of
the century library was torn down and if you go there now you will see the still vacant lot where this gorgeous building
once stood. No one shops in Corona or has since that faithful day a few men decided what was good for our
community.
What does this have to do with this issue.,.take a look at what is happening to our desert now. Please listen to your
constituents. We love Patm Desert, we Iove our neighborhood, we co exists with small B& B's now but this is not the
place for large commercial hotels.
After attending two of the Planning Commission meetings with regard to the Larrea project. It was disheartening to see
Phil Drell leaning back in his chair with his eyes closed with little regard to how the residents of this area feel. Perhaps,
Mr. Drell's position is not an elected one but I do believe our tax dollars pay his salary.
We believe the Larrea project is only opening the doors for larger projects that will change our neighborhoods and the
beauty of our valley forever. It is our hope that you will care about our neighborhood and the beauty of our desert by
voting no on this project.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Joy Bliss and Laury Searle
'V r;
� ....
� -�
� r,�
.� • �'�
� -. -
'-� '.
� ..
\fl "'t7 ' ..
�n � _.. :
� �;r�'^^
N _ �C`'�
.. r; �
cn Y �,
_ m
5/9/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Fndotcom@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:03 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com
Subject: EPROZ
For yours, and the city councils' consideration, please enter my letter to your files on opposition to the EPROZ proposal
scheduled for this weeks meeting.
Thank you
My kindest regards,
NancyHammett Leppert
-��
.-., ��
<� �.�;
rn
� `_ _
=�• _„ _ ..
-C --
� : . . - ..,
�.rJ .
='" _=� . , P -
,�- --3 n + �
GO _� . _
•• C? ^r,
� � �
l.jJ r,�
5/9/2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: debbi hall [debbihall99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 4:11 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: EPROZ
Please forward this e-mail to each council member.
Thank You
Deborah W. Hall
May 8, 2006
City of Palm Desert,
City Council Members
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-25678
;-,,
:�
J
�
..A
-�:
r
�
�
�:.
�
W
�
:�
��=.
� , f �
y' , �..
_.,:n- .
-: ,�, w
�� � ,._
-g,
� �
�
Dear City Council Member,
I am opposed to the EPROZ.
I have been a full time resident of South Palm Desert for four years. I live at 73673
Joshua Tree St. which is on the corner of San Luis Rey St. and Joshua Tree St. I
purchased my home speci�cally because of the proximity to EI Paseo. It is an ideal
location, close to dining and shopping yet buffered from the commercial area by R-3
zoning. Before I bought the property I did my home work and checked the zoning. I
took into consideration that there would be more noise and traffic than if I were further
south, but the trade off was convenience. It is not a situation like someone buying a
house next to the airport then complaining that there are planes flying over.
The speed limits on both Joshua Tree and San Luis Rey are acceptable, 25 mph and 30
mph respectively. But the traffic does not observe the speed limit on either of those
streets. Joshua Tree St. is used as a cut through to avoid traffic lights and stops on EI
Paseo and on Highway 111 as are Shadow Mountain, Larrea and Shadow Lake
Drive. According to the staff report the present traffic volume is 3,564 trips per day �on
Shadow Mountain and 1,217 trips per day on Larrea. If the EPROZ is approved and all
the currently empty lots are built to maximum density (152 units), traffic could
increase to 4,512 trips per day on Shadow Mountain and 2,165 on Larrea. The staff
report says "According to the City's Transportation Engineer, less than 5,000 trips per
day is an acceptable traffic level for residents." If you were to ask the question of
the residents in this area," Would you consider 5000 trips per day, which is an increase
of 1436 cars on Shadow Mountain to be an acceptable traffic level?", you would NOT
get yes as an answer. It is not acceptable. EPROZ, if approved, will degrade the
neighborhood.
I believe that each project, such as the one under consideration on Larrea, should be
examined individually and should be approved or declined based on its individual merit.
If a project does not benefit the community as a whole then it should not be approved.
5/8/2006
Page 2 of 2
It must have value esthetically as well as financially. I am pro-business and understand
the developers desire to make a profit. I would hope that the developer checked the
zoning and height restrictions before he purchased the property. If he did then he
should know what the zoning and height restrictions are, if not the adage "Buyer
beware" comes into play. Zoning is there for the protection of the community not to
maximize profit.
Please, do not create the EPROZ. This is a unique community and we all benefit by the
quality of life it creates.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Deborah W Hall
73673 ]oshua Tree St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-340-2005
760-880-1615
5/8/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Faith Messenger [faithmessenger@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: rob.bignell@thedesertsun.com
Subject: Zoning Overlay Ordinance in Palm Desert
Gentlemen
I have been a resident of 73-860 Shadow Mountain for 4 years and have lived with the overriding neglect of
Larrea Street for way too long.
At long last, after nearly 2� years in waiting, the City Council will be able to address the issue of outdated
zoning laws and the poor results that they created near the El Paseo area. The current zoning on what should be
a fashionable, high end adjunct to El Paseo (i.e., larrea Street), has yielded no new developments or property
improvements in nearly 20 years. What it has yielded are vacant semi-commercial lots, abandoned buildings
with homeless, drug, and criminal elements, along with some poorly maintained properties from the'S0's, not to
mention a general feeling of neglect by planners, developers and property owners. Amongst all residents of
Palm Desert, none will be more effected that I, in that I live right next to the beautifully designed Paseo Hotel
and Villas that is being proposed for approval under the new zoning.
We now have before the Council a vision from the Planning Department and the private sector to change all of
this. The Zoning Overlay on Thursdays agenda, May 11, 2006, will not only encourage the upgrade of exisitng
properties but will incentivize developers to invest substantial sums of money in the high-end boutique hotels of
a world class quality. This will enable El Paseo to become a true destination resort in and of itself as people
would now have top quality hotels to match the excellent stores and restaurants available on El Paseo.
Furthermore, all of this energy and commercial acrivity would not result in increased traffic because the original
design of the city shopping area was to encourage foot traffic. In fact the essential draw to the hotel zone is to
avoid having to drive. This will nat only benefit our great merchants (especially in the "off season") but will
inject energy and vibrance throughout the year.
The merchants, planning groups and general community are in enthusiastic support of the overly zone; lets
hope that the vision can move forward under the City Councils leadership.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely
Faith Messenger
��
Q
;� �v .�
G"1
� `
�' � ��',
� CJ i�: s'..
-- r• "� .'�';
us �:. _..
r' � - l-�
—T � � r,/5 T'r':
� ���
�'J "T�
� -.1
ry a �
� m
5/11/2006
SuzA� O'HAIR
73480 �eather Trail
Palm Desert, CA 922fi4
760-837-0212
wzieohair�mac.com
Apri! 24, 200b
Mayor 1im Ferguaon
Ciiy of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Falm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mayar ferguson,
The Planning Commission made a te�rible mistcke in recommending ta the City Council that the
height restriction along El Paseo be raised. EI Paseo's charm comes both 6rar» the fact that it
isn't jusi a shcpping district bvt roiher is part cf a naighborhood, witF� homes just a btock away,
as well as from its scale; that the buildings are low and the streei is long is unique. Wa may cdN
it the Rodeo Orive oF the Desert, bvt lfiere's �o mistaking EI Paseo for Rodeo Drive, nor should
the�e be.
What's more, the renson #or this recommendation is particularly ahortsig6ted. The Planning
Commission thinks i+'s chonging the rutes to accommvdate a bautique hotel when, in fact, iYs
changing the character and styfe oF the entire El Paaeo area. A change like that wilf impr�ct vs
all more than a Few dolfars in hotel tax revenue.
Rc�ise tfie restrictions, as you d'+d, where iYs approp�iate: at Universify Park, not downtown.
I urge the City Councit to reject the Plaarring Commission's recommendation.
Very sincerely yours,
� �
��
Suzie ' air
`� � c,
�
C �
��'
� � �
�
�
� �
� /�
Apri124, 2006
Mayor Jim Ferguson
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
Honorable Mayor Ferguson,
The. recent recommendation from The Planning Commission to raise the height
restriction along El Paseo flies in the face of everything Palm Desert stands for. We have
never been a town that took the "short-term" path, lining our coffers without concern for
the overall good of the town and its citizens. But all one has to do is look up Highway 74
and see the 30,000 square-foot homes of Big Horn protruding from 'the mountains to
realize that the direction of the City Council and the Planning Commission is changing.
If we start changing our codes, we'll end up with a gradual increase in building height
that eventually blocks the views of the very mountains we are fighting so hard to
preserve.
Part of governments' job is to protect us from ourselves and, as Mayor, that responsibility
falls with you and with the Council. Protect us, the citizens of Pa1m Desert, from this
poor decision and send a message to the Planning Commission that their job is not to
appease the developers but to maintain the quality of life we enjoy here in Palm Desert.
Sincerely,
l �
�__ �
M. Connor Limont
72-720 Bel Air Road
Palm Desert CA 92260
��
�� /
�
��
1�
� �
O
.Iim Ferguson, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73-5 I O Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Ivfayor F�rguson,
We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday May 11�';
but wish to register our strong objection to two issues being addressed by the Councit at
that time. T'hose issues aze the Larrea Street project and the EPROZ.
We are residential owners in the area to the south of the proposed projects and are
distressed to consider the significant changes that will be created by these proposals. We
have voiced our oppositions (to the Planning Department) throughout the first steps in
this process, but have found those concerns to fail on deaf eazs. Little attention has been
paid to input of residents and their concerns. What (little) public notification and input
has existed, has come about because of community pressure and the one or two people,
from our community, who have diligently checked and rechecked the vaiidity and
txuthfulness of informarion being provided to the residents. Developers and City
Planners make strange bedfeliows, especially when they high-five one another in public
meetings and totally disregard community input and sensitivities.
This effort by the develaper (of Larrea) and City Plannets ta gain business support for his
personal project by linking it with EPROZ puts unwitting business owners up against the
community that has long supported them. No one in this community is saying NO to
development, we are only asking thaz it be within the reasonable limits long established
for this azea. This developer knew the existing city building codes at the time he
purchased the Larrea property but apparently bought with the assumption that there
would be code changes for his personal project. Now he claims that he can't make it
profitable within the existing codes. Why should the community be burdened with his
inability to make a profit within existing codes? Did he have assurances before the
purchase was made that those codes would be changed for his project? It would seem so.
�ur primary concerns with the I.arrea project involve:
1. Height regulations were ereated for good reason in Palm Desert. Our
�,� � community is built on a downhill slope*; this creates an even greater height
�'` �= �, variation from one property to the next. Palm Desert is biessed with awesome
;��- � views and although that doesn't bring money into the city coffers, it is the
�``�` � � thing that makes us so special. To block that with (the equivalent o� 3+*
'�'.'' ^!_r_p .�
�, .,,,_; _ story buildings which border residential areas is a big loss to the community
;; �� :_ >.. and certainly not desirable for anyone's neighborhood.
�^_ —� Additionally, the Larrea development proposal calls for individual swimrnuig
`- �' � pools sitexated on the rooftop. There is now and has been a long standing issue
`" ��' (in the city) related to code enforcement for noise issues related to Augusta
Restaurant (a property within approximately I OOyds of the Larrea project.)
Rooftop pools and the noise that they will generate will create a noise
nightmare. The promise has been made that "they're �oing to keep folks off
the roof after 10 P.M. weekdays, and 12 midnight on weekends."(Kaufmann)
Who is going to enforce this when we can't even get the city to enforce the
codes related to Augusta? At present, we have to call the Sherif�s Dept. and
they dispatch an officer to the premise to shut down the music at midnight or
1 A.M. We then have to foliow this up with a call to the P.D. Code
Enforcement Dept. and it still is not corrected. I have little faith in the follow-
up to noise issues for private citizen's pools. I,et the improvement of the
properly proceed with center courtyard pools/spas and have the buildings act
as sound buffers to attenuate noise generated by pool activities.
2. The pmposed increase in density of the Lan�ea property is of great concern.
We strongly object to the requested doubling of the number of keys for the
allotted space. During the Architectural Review Boazd (December, 2005) it
was suggested that the project was "really sc�uished together for a residential
azea" (Lambell.) In the March 7�' Planning Commission meeting the
developer was advised to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea
project. Little, if any, compromises have been made, instead the developer
has threatened that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the
variatices he wants. It appears that he has ND intention to take any less than
what he has proposed. When city departments aze in your back pocket it
would appear that allows you to thumb your nose at and threaten the
community at Iarge?
Additionally, this community includes a newly renovated Elementary school
which is going from an enrollment of 300+ to a proposed enrollment for fa11
20(}6 of 750 chiidr�n. With this enrollmeat increase comes (at Ieast) a
doubling of the traffic which cuts through the community on Shadow
Mountain, Shadow Lake Drive and Mountain View Av. This was a major
problem even at the 300 + student aumber. It has even caused neighbors to
discuss procedures for closing those streets off to all but residents. Speed
bumps, stop signs or even lights on those streets, Larrea and San Luis Rey are
not the solution to the safety issue of children on foot walking to and from
school.
In addition, the increase in number of the transient population tt�roughout an
area so close to an elementary school intensifies the potential dangers for
children.
EPROZ has been biiied as the "hope" for EI Paseo i�y the Ptanning Dept and the way by
which we will keep our unique business establishments from moving down county to the
newly developing azeas. El Paseo doesn't need a"hotel row" in it's backyazd to thrive.
It has done quite nicely with the smalter boutique hotels as neighbors and with the larger
hotels that exist in neazby azeas; in fact, Michael Shimer, of the Paseo Merchants Assn.
has indicated that he "isn't worried about competition" in 1us comments to the Desert Sun
Newspaper. These boutique hotels have been acceptable to the community at large as
well; so why is it necessary to make such radical changes to include a.n entire azea? As
individual lots are brought up for development, look at plans for each aad how it
conforms to the area rather than making sweeping changes in building codes for one
project. VJe don't need the increase of 1000 cars per day in this general azea that has
been projected by tfie Pianning Dept. We don't need an increase in the transient
population this close to a major Elementary School.
The bottom-line is that EPROZ is not compatibie with a residentiat area and tlus is a
residential area. We aze hopeful that as you make your decisions regazding these issues
the overriding questions in your mind wiil be "would I want this in my backyard?" and
"would I want the traffic, noise and increased transient population generated by both
issues to be foisted upon my neighborhood?"
Piease vote to preserve the integrity of our unique neighborhood. A developer who
attempts to call the shots without having concem for the azea around his proposed
development is no friend to the city or it's residents; and a planning department who
works against the residents (who are the very backbone) of the city has no right to take a
paycheck from that city. Allow development, but da it with conscience. That is all that
we ask.
Sincerely,
'�-t�, �(�,'�."'--�-a ,
Ron Buries Be eriy Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
76Q-346-0472
Robert A. Spiegel, Councilman
w
J „�
� L�
�: `c ; _.
,y k `_�.' ,; s
.: v�
;r;��„ ,
:� -__
— i� '
e� �
l_%
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Councilman Spiegel,
We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday May 11�';
but wish to register our strong objection to two issues being addressed by the Councif at
that time. Those issues are the Larrea Street project and the EPROZ.
We are residential owners in the area ta the south of the proposed projects and are
distressed to consider the significant changes that will be created by these proposals. We
have voiced our oppositions (to the Planning Department) throughout the first steps in
this process, but have found those concerns to fall on deaf ears. Littte attention has been
paid to input of residents and their concerns. What (little) public notification and input
has existed, has come about because of community pressure and the one or two people,
from our community, who have diligently checked and rechecked the vatidity anci
truthfulness of information being provided to the residents. Developers and City
Planners make strange bedfellows, especially when they high-five one another in public
meetings and totally disregard community input and sensitivities.
This effort by the deveioper (af Larrea) and City Planners ta gain business support for his
personal project by linking it with EPROZ puts unwitting business owners up against the
community that has long supported them. No one in this community is saying NO to
development, we ace oniy asking that it be within the reasonable limits long established
for this area. This developer knew the existing city building codes at the time he
purchased the Larrea property but apparently bought with the asstunption that there
would be code changes for his personal project. Now he claims that he can't make it
profitable within the existing codes. Why should the community be burdened with his
inability to make a profit within existing codes? Did he have assurances before the
purchase was made that those codes would be changed for his project? It would seem so.
Our primary cancerns with the Larrea project involve:
1. Height regulations were created for good reason in Palm Desert. Our
commtuuty is built on a downhill slope*; this creates an even greater height
variation from one pmperty to the next. Palm Desert is blessed with awesome
views and although that doesn't bring money into the city coffers, it is the
thing that makes us so special. To block that with (the equivalent o� 3+*
a story buiidings which border residential azeas is a big loss to the community
� and certainly not desirable for anyone's neighborhood.
� Additionally, the Lazrea development proposal calls for individual swimming
�" pools situated on the rooftop. There is now and has been a long standing issue
.� (in the city) related to code enforcement for noise issues related to Augusta
?-- Restaurant (a properry within approximately 100yds of the Larrea project.)
C::
G—
v=
r•
r.•
��
Rooftop pools and the noise that they will generate will create a noise
nightmare. The promise has been made that "they're going to keep folks off
the roof after 10 P.M. weekda.ys, and 12 midnight on weekends."(Kaufmann)
Who is going to enforce this when we can't even get the city to enforce the
codes related to Augusta? At present, we have to call the Sheriff's Dept. and
they dispatch an officer to the premise to shut down the music at midnight or
1 A.M. We then have to fol�ow this up with a call to the P.D. Code
Enforcement Dept. and it still is not corrected. I have little faith in the follow-
up to noise issues for private citizen's pools. Let the improvement of the
property proceed with center courtyazd pools/spas and have the buildings act
as sound buffers to attenuate noise generated by pool activities.
�. The proposed increase in density of the I.arrea property is af great concem.
We strongly object to the requested doubling of the number of keys for the
allotted space. During the Architectural Review Board (December, 2005) it
was suggested that the project was "really squished together for a residential
area" (Lambeli.) In the March 7�' Planning Commission meeting the
developer was advised to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea
pmject. Little, if any, compromises have been made, instead the developer
has threatened that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the
variances he wants. It appears that he has NO intention to take any less than
what he has proposed. When city departments are in your back pocket it
would appear that allows you to thumb your nose at and threaten the
cammunity at Iarge?
Additionally, this community includes a newly renovated Elementary school
which is going from an enrollment of 300+ to a proposed enrollment for fa11
2006 of 750 children. With tlus enro�lmem increase comes (at least) a
doubling of the tr�c which cuts through the community on Shadow
Mountain, 5hadow Lake Drive and Mountain View Av. This was a major
problem even at the 3t10 + student number. It has even caused neighbors to
discuss procedures for closing those streets off to alI but residents. Speed
buu�ps, stop signs or even lights on those streets, Larrea and San Luis Rey are
not the solution to the safety issue of children on foot walking to and from
school.
In addition, the increase in number of the trausient population throughout an
area so close to an elementary school intensifies the potential dangers for
children.
EPROZ has been billed as the "hope" for El Paseo by the Flanning Dept and the way hy
which we will keep our unique business establishments from moving down county to the
newly developing areas. El Paseo doesn't need a"hotel row" in it's backyazd to thrive.
It has done quite nicely with the smaller boutique hotels as neighbors and with the larger
hotels that exist in neazby areas; in fact, Michael Shimer, of the Paseo Merchants Assn.
has indicated that he "isn't worried about competition" in his comments to the Desert Sun
Newspaper. These boutique hotels have been acceptable to the community at large as
well; so why is it necessary to make such radical changes to include an entire area? As
individual lots are bmught up for development, look at pians for each and how it
conforms to the azea rather than making sweeping changes in building codes for one
project. We don't need the increase of 1000 cars per day in this general azea. that has
been projected by the Platming Dept. We don't need an increase in the transient
population this close to a major Elementary School.
The bottom-line is that EFRaZ is not compatible with a residential area and this is a
residential area. We aze hopeful that as you make your decisions regazding these issues
the overriding questions in your mind will be "would I want this in my backyard?" and
`�vouid I want the traff c, noise and increased transient population generated by both
issues to be foisted upon my neighborhood?"
Please vote to preserve the integrity of our unique neighborhood. A developer who
attempts to call the shots without having concem for the azea azound his proposed
development is no friend to the city or it's residents; and a planning department who
works against the residents (who are the very backbone} of the city has no right to take a
paycheck from that city. Allow development, but do it with conscience. T'hat is all that
we ask.
Sincerely,
��--���(-�tJ�,�S-�c
Ron Buries Beverly Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
�60-346-t�#72
Buford A. Crites, Counciiman
City of Palm Desert
73-5 I O Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Councilman Crites,
We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday May 1 l�';
but wish to register our strong objection to two issues being addressed by the Council at
that time. Those issues are the Larrea Street project and the EPROZ.
We are residential owners in the area to the south of the proposed projects and are
distressed to consider the significant changes that will be created by these proposals. We
h�ve voiced our oppositions (to the Planning Department) throughout the first steps in
t6is process, but have found those concerns to fall on deaf ears. Little attention has been
paid to input of residents and their concerns. What (little) public notification and input
has existed, has come about because of community pressure and the one or two people,
from our community, who have diligently checked and rechecked the vaiidity and
truthfulness of information being provided to the residents. Developers and City
Planners make strange bedfellows, especially when they high-five one another in public
meetings and totally disregard community input and sensitivities.
This effort by the develoger (of Larrea} and City Planners ta gain business support for his
personal project by linking it with EPROZ puts unwitting business owners up against the
community that has long supported them. No one in this community is saying NO to
develapment, we are only asking that it be withiu the rea�onable limits long established
for this azea. This developer knew the existing city building codes at the time he
purchased the Larrea property but apparently bought with the assumption that there
would be code changes for his persona.! project. Now he claims that he can't make it
profitable within the existing codes. Why should the community be burdened with his
inability to make a profit within earisting codes? Did he have assurances before the
purchase was made that those codes would be changed for his project? It would seem so.
Our primary cancerns with the Lazrea project involve:
� a 1. Height regulations were created for good reason in Palm Desert. Our
��; N community is built on a downhill slope*; this creates an even greater height
��� :_= variation fram one praperty to the ne�rt. Palm Desert is blessed with awesome
�`� �`�' a views and although that doesn't bring money into the city coffers, it is the
`�_� _ -
�� �==`�' thing that makes us so special. To block that with (the equivalent o� 3+*
��:�-:.. --
�' L= �=_: � story buildings which border residential areas is a big ioss to the community
... -_ � and certainly not desirable for anyone's neighborhood.
�-� � Additionally, the Larrea development proposal calls for individual swimming
- � pools situated on the rooftop. There is now and has been a Iong standing issue
(in the city) related to code enforcement for noise issues related to Augusta
Restaurant (a property within approximately 100yds of the Larrea project.)
Roaftop poals and the noise that they will generate wiil create a noise
nightmare. The promise has been made that "they're going to keep folks off
tt�e roof after 10 P.M, weekdays, and 12 midnight on weekends."(Kaufmann)
VVho is going to enforce this when we can't even get the city to enforce the
codes related to Augusta? At present, we have to call the Sheriff's Dept. and
they dispatch an officer to the premise to shut down the music at midnight or
1 A.M. We then have to follow this up with a call to the P.D. Code
Enforcement Dept. and it still is not conected. I have little faith in the follow-
up to noise issues for private citizen's poois. Let the unprovement of the
property proceed with center courtyard poois/spas and have the buildi.ngs act
as sound buffers to attenuate noise generated by pool activities.
2. The proposed iacrease in density of the Larrea pr�perty is of great concern.
We strongly object to the requested doubling of the number of keys for the
a.11otted space. During the Architectural Review Boazd (December, 2005) it
was suggested that the project was "reatly squished together for a residential
area" (Lambell.) In the March 7`� Planning Commission meeting the
developer was advised to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea
project. Little, if any, compromises have been made, instead the developer
has threatened that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the
variances he wants. It appears that he has NO intention to take any less than
what he has proposed. When city departments aze in your back pocket it
would appear that allows you to thumb your nose at and threaten the
community at large?
Additionally, this community includes a newly renovated Elementary school
which is going from an enrollment of 300+ to a proposed enrollment for fa11
2406 of 754 ctuldren. With this enrollment increase comes (at least) a
doubling of the traffic which cuts through the community on Shadow
Mountain, Shadow Lake Drive and Mountain View Av. This was a major
problem even at the 300 + stucient nwnber. It has even caersed neighbors to
discuss procedures for closing those streets offto all but residents. Speed
bumps, stop signs or even lights on those streets, Larrea and San Luis Rey are
not the solution to the safety issue of children on foot walking to and from
school.
In addition, the increase in. number of the transient population tt�roughout an
area so close to an elementary school intensifies the potential dangers for
children.
EPROZ has been bilted as the "hope" for El Paseo by the Planning Dept and ihe way by
which we will keep our unique business establishments from moving down county to the
newly developing areas. El Paseo daesn't need a"hotel row" in it's backyard to thrive.
It has done quite nicely with the smaller boutique hotels as neighbors and with the larger
hotels that exist in nearby areas; in fact, Michael Shimer, of the Paseo Merchants Assn.
�as indicated that he "isn't worried about competition" in his comments to the Desert Sun
Newspaper. These boutique hotels have been acceptable to the community at lazge as
well; so why is it necessary to make such radical changes to include an entire area? As
individual lots are brought ug for development, look at plans for each and how it
conforms to the area rather than making sweeping changes in building codes for one
project, We don't need the increase of 1000 cars per day in this general area that has
been projected by the Planning Dept. R�e don't need an increase in the transient
population this close to a major Elementary School.
The bottom-line is that EFROZ is not compatible with a residentiai area and this is a
residential area. We are hopeful that as you make your decisions regarding these issues
the overriding guestions in your mind will be "would I want this in my backyazd?" and
"would I want the traific, noise and increased transient population generated by both
issues to be foisted upon my neighborhood?"
Please vote to preserve the integrity of our unique neighborhood. A developer who
attempts to call the shots without having concem for the azea around his proposed
deve�opment is no friend to the city or it's residents; and a pla,nning department who
works against the residents (who are the very backbone) of the city has no right to take a
paycheck from that city. Allow development, but do it with conscience. That is all that
we ask.
Sincerely,
� ���°
Ron Btuies Beveriy Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
7b0-346-(3472
lean M. Be�son, Councilmember
w�
�; .�
w U
� -
�as--
t,:.: �,•:��
." ;� «�
; t�<<.�
`,,�.
_, ,
�-- :1
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Uear Councilmember Benson,
We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday May 11�';
but wish to register ow strong objection to two issues being addressed by the Council at
that time. Those issues are the Larrea Street project and the EPROZ.
We are residential owners in the area to the south of the proposed projects and are
distressed to consider the significant changes that will be created by these proposals. We
have voiced our oppositions (to the Planning Department) throughout the first steps in
this process, but have found those concerns to fali on deaf ears. Littie attention has been
paid to input of residents and their concerns. What (little) public notification and input
has existed, has come about because of community pressure and the one or two people,
from our community, who have diligenfly checked and rechecked the validity and
truthfulness of information being provided to the residents. Developers and City
Planners make strange bedfellows, especially when they high-five one another in public
meetings and totally disregazd community input and sensitivities.
This effort by the developer (af Larrea) and City Planners to gain business support for his
personal project by linking it with EPROZ puts unwitting business owners up against the
community that has long supported them. No one in this community is saying NO to
deveiopment, we are oniy asking that it be within the reasonabte limits long established
for this area. This developer knew the existing city buiiding codes at the time he
purchased the Larrea properry but appazently bought with the assumption that there
would be code changes for his personal project. Now he claims that he can't make it
profitable within the existing codes. Why should the community be burdened with his
inability to make a profit within existing codes? Did he have assurances befare the
purchase was made that those codes would be changed for his project? it would seem so.
Our primar� concerns with the I.arrea project involve:
1. Height regulations were created for good reason in Palm Desert. Our
community is built on a downhill slope*; this creates an even greater height
variation from one property to the next. Palm Desert is blessed with awesome
views and although that doesn't bring money into the city coffers, it is the
o thing that makes us so special. To block that with (the equivalent o� 3+*
o story buildings which border residential areas is a big toss to the community
N and certainly not desirable for anyone's neighborhood.
= Additionally, the Lazrea development proposal calls %r individual swimming
pools situated on the rooftop. There is now and has been a long standing issue
- (in the city) related to code enforcement for noise issues related to Augusta
� Restaurant (a property within approximately 100yds of the Larrea project.)
i
��
. �.,
c=�
C�-
Rooftop pools and the noise that they will generate will ereate a noise
nightrnare. The promise has been made that "they're going to keep folks off
the roof after 10 P.M. weekdays, and 12 midnight on weekends."(Kaufrnann)
Who is going to enforce this when we can't even get the city to enforce the
codes related to Augusta? At present, we have to call the SherifPs Dept. and
they dispatch an officer to the premise to shut down the music at midnight or
1 A.M. We then have to follow this up with a call to the P.D. Code
Enforcement Dept. and it still is not corrected. I have little faith in the follow-
up to noise issues for private citizen's pools. Let the improvement of the
property proceed with center courlyard pools/spas and have the buildings act
as sound buffers to attenuate noise generated by pool activities.
2. The proposed incresse in density of the Lanea pmperty is of great concern.
We strongly object to the requested doubling of the number of keys for the
allotted space. During the Architectural Review Boazd (December, 2005) it
was suggested that the project was "really squished together for a residential
azea" (Lambell.) In the Mazch 7�' Planning Commission meeting the
developer was advised to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea
project. Little, if any, compromises have been made, instead the developer
has threatened that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the
variances he wants. It appears that he has NO intention to take any less thari
what he has proposed. When city departments are in your back pocket it
would appear that allows you to thumb your nose at and threaten the
community at lazge?
Additionally, this community includes a newly renovated Elementary school
which is going from an enrollment of 300+ to a proposed enrollment for fa11
2006 of 750 children. With this enrollment increase comes (at least} a
doubling of the tr�c which cuts through the community on Shadow
Mountain, Shadow Lake Drive and Mountain View Av. This was a major
problem even at the 300 + student nwnber. It has even caused neighbors to
discuss procedures for closing those streets off to all but residents. Speed
bumps, stop signs or even lights on those streets, Larrea and San Luis Rey are
not the solution to the safety issue of children on foot walking to and from
school.
In addition, the increase in munber of the transient population throughout an
azea so close to an elementary school intensifies the poteniial dangers for
children.
EPROZ has been billed as the "hope" for El Paseo by the Planning Dept and the way by
which we will keep our unique business establishments from moving down county to the
newly developing azeas. El Paseo doesn't need a"hotel row" in it's backyazd to thrive.
It has done quite nicely with the smaller boutique hotels as neighbors and with the lazger
hotels that exist in nearby azeas; in fact, Michael Shimer, of the Paseo Merchants Assn.
has indicated that he "isn't worried about competifion" in his comments to the Desert Sun
Newspaper. These boutique hotels have been acceptable to the community at lazge as
well; so why is it necessary to make such radical changes to include an entire area? As
individual lots are braught up for development, look at plans for each and how it
conforms to the area rather than making sweeping changes in building codes for one
project. We don't need the increase of 1000 cars per day in this general area that has
been projected by the Planning Dept. We don't need an increase m the transient
population this close to a major Elementary School.
The bottam-line is that EFROZ is not compatible with a residential area and this is a
residential area. We are hopeful that as you make your decisions regarding these issues
the overriding questions in your mind will be "wouid I want this in my backyard?" and
"would I want the traffic, noise and increaseci transiern population generated by both
issues to be foisted upon my neighborhood?"
Piease vate to preserve the integrity of our unique neighborhood. A developer who
attempts to call the shots without having concern for the azea azound his proposed
development is no friend to the city or it's residents; and a planning department who
works against the residents (who are the very backbone} of the city has no right to take a
paycheck from that city. Allow development, but do it with conscience. That is all that
we ask.
Sincerely,
� °
U��- �Lc��
Ron Buries Beverly Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
760-346-0472
Richazd S. Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem
�
c� �
� �,
'-� � n-
�- ,<<,'
�i
t,. r i.:J ,r_s
r..; ; 3 ,r.
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Pa1m Desert, CA 92260
Deaz Mayor Fro Tem Keliy,
We will be unable to attend the City Council meeting scheduted for Thursday May 11�';
but wish to register our strong objection to two issues being addressed by the Council at
that time. Those issues aze the Larrea Street project and the EPROZ.
We are residential owners in the area to the south of the proposed projects and are
distressed to consider the significant changes that will be created by these proposals. We
have voiced our oppositions (to the Planning Department) throughout the first steps in
this process, but have found those concerns to fall on deaf ears. Little attention has been
paid to input of residents and their concerns. What (little) public notification and input
has existed, has come about because of community pressure and the one or two people,
from our community, who have diiigendy checked and rechecked the vatidity and
truthfulness of information being provided to the residents. Developers and City
Planners make strange bedfellows, especially when they high-five one another in public
meetings and totally disregard community input and sensitivities.
This effort by the developer (af Larrea} and City Planners ta gain business support for his
personal project by linking it with EPROZ puts unwitting business owners up against the
community that has long supported them. No one in this community is saying NO to
developmeat, we are oniy asksng that it be within the reasonable limits long established
for this area. This developer knew the existing city building codes at the time he
pwchased the Larrea property but apparently bought with the assumption that there
woutd be code changes for his personal project. Now he claims that he can't make it
profitable within the existing codes. Why should the community be burdened with his
inability to make a profit within existing codes? Did he have assurances before the
purchase was made that those codes would be changed for his project? It would seem so.
Our primary concems with the I,arrea project involve:
1. Height regnlations were created for good reason in Palm Desert. Our
community is built on a downhill slope*; this creates an even greater height
variation from one property to the nex� Palm Desert is blessed with awesome
views and although that daesn't bring maney into the city coffers, it is the
o thing that makes us so special. To block that with (the equivalent o� 3+*
� story buildings which border residential areas is a big loss to the community
� and certainly not desirable for anyone's neighborhood.
� Additionally, the Larrea development proposal calls for individual swimming
— pools situated on the rooftop. There is now and has been a long standing issue
�,, (in the city) related to code enforcement for noise issues related to Augusta
� Restaurant (a property within approximately 100yds of the Larrea project.)
C
C_+
C�.
Roaftop poals aad the noise that they will generate will create a noise
nightmare. The promise has been made that "they're going to keep folks off
the roof after 10 P.M. weekdays, and 12 midnight on weekends."(Kaufmann)
Who is going to enforce this when we can't even get the city to enforce the
codes related to Augusta? At present, we have to call the Sherif�s Dept. and
they dispatch an officer to the premise to shut down the music at midnight or
1 A.M. We then have to follow this up with a call to the P.D. Code
Enforcement Dept. and it stiil is not corrected. I have little faith in the follow-
up to noise issues for private citizen's pools. Let the improvement of the
property proceed with center courtyard pools/spas and have the buildings act
as sound buffers to attenuate noise generated by pool activities.
2. The proposed incresse in density of the Larrea pmperty is of great concem.
We strongly object to the requested doubling of the number of keys for the
allotted space. During the Architectural Review Boazd (December, 2005) it
was suggested that the project was "really squished together for a residential
area" (Lambell.) In the March 7th Planning Commission meeting the
developer was advised to compromise on the height and density of the Larrea
project. Little, if any, compromises have been made, instead the developer
has threatened that he could build low-income housing if he doesn't get the
variances he wants. It appears that he has NO intention to take any less than
what he has proposed. When city departments are in your back pocket it
would appear that allows you to thumb your nose at and threaten the
community a� large?
Additionally, this community includes a newly renovated Elementary school
which is going from an enrollment of 300+ to a proposed enrollment for fall
20U6 of 750 children. With this enroliment increa.se cames (at least) a
doubling of the traffic which cuts through the community on Shadow
Mountain, Shadow Lake Drive and Mountain View Av. This was a major
problem even at the 300 + student number. It has even caused neighbors to
discuss procedures for closing those streets off to all but residents. Speed
bumps, stop signs or even lights on those streets, Larrea and San Luis Rey are
not the solution to the safety issue of children on foot walking to and from
school.
In aridition, the increase in number of the transient population throughout an
area so close to an elementary school intensifies the potential dangers for
children.
EPROZ has been billed as the "hope" for El Paseo by the Planning Dept and the way by
which we will keep our unique business establishments from moving down county to the
newly developing azeas. El Paseo doesn't need a"hotel row" in iYs backyazd to thrive.
It has done quite nicely with the smaller boutique hotels as neighbors and with the larger
hotels that exist in neazby areas; in fact, Michael Shimer, of the Paseo Merchants Assn.
has indicated that he "isn't womed about competition" in his comments to the Desert Sun
Newspaper. These boutique hotels have been acceptable to the community at large as
well; so why is it necessary to make such radical changes to include an entire area? As
individual lots are brought up for development, look at plans for each and how it
conforms to the area rather than making sweeping changes in building codes for one
project. We don't need the increase of 1000 cars per da.y in this general azea that has
been projected by the Pianning Dept. We don't need an increase in the transient
population this close to a major Elementary School.
The bottom-tine is that EPROZ is not compatible with a residential azea and this is a
residential area. We are hopeful that as you make your decisions regazding these issues
the overriding questions in your mind wiii be "would I want this in my backyard?" and
`�vould I want the traiic, noise and increased transient poputation generated by both
issues to be foisted upon my neighborhood?"
Please vote to preserve the integrity of our unique neighborhood. A developer who
attempts to calI the shots without having concern for the area around his proposed
development is no friend to the city or it's residents; and a planning departnient who
works against the residents (who are the very backbone} of the city has no right to take a
paycheck from that city. Allow development, but do it with conscience. That is all that
we ask.
Sincerely,
�'I���� r ,'
�� �C���%i�.C��
Ron Buries Be eriy Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
760.346-0472
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gail Basse [gbasse@indio.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:25 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com
r. �rr
�iT `; i�;' �'�r'� 'pS ;'�.�FFlf F
�: :��_�_1 ::wJ�.Y�T LA
?OOb t��Y I I A1� 9= 59
Subject: Palm Desert Zoning and Larrea Street project variances
Importance: High
May 11, 2006
Dear Palm Desert City Council,
My name is Gail Basse. My husband ]ack and myself live at 73298 Joshua Tree Street, on the
corner of Tumbleweed. We moved here three years ago to achieve a better quality of life. We feel
that the EPROZ will jeopardize that quality of life - if it is put through as proposed. We vehemently
oppose EPROZ. Some of the reasons are outlined below.
Literally the only people who support this project are those who have a financial interest. Many of
those people don't live in Palm Desert. The people who live in or near the EPROZ area are generally
opposed.
- There has been minimal community involvement, despite clear direction from the Planning
Commission. Only two residents met with the developer, and only five people were able to attend
the meeting on March 23rd (probably due to the short or NO notice - four opposed, one in favor).
- The developer did not make the compromises requested by the Planning Commission in height or
density, and only agreed under pressure to meet with the community. During the resultant
meeting he threatened to build low-income housing numerous times if he couldn't get the
variances he wants. Phil Drell finally told him (with a wink) to not mention low-income housing
again. The question comes to mind, who does Phil work for - the city of Palm Desert, or the
developer? One of the project's supporters, David Fletcher, said "So they get some letters from
tenants. Who cares about them?" How disrespectful to the residents of Palm Desert. And how sad
that greed might play a part in the decisions made.
- The developer knew the area's zoning and costs when he bought the property. The figures
represented at the Planning Commission meeting were based upon the price of land today (the
owner did not buy the land at today's prices). If he says he can't make it pencil out, that's his
prob(em to solve. The City Council should not allow wide scale and sweeping zoning changes to be
made on his behalf. In all of the meetings we attended regarding the Larrea project, we were made
to feel that the City is on his side due to the revenues his project might generate, and that the
residents issues were just a bother. Zoning does not exist to allow an individual to maximize his
profit, it exists to benefit the entire community.
- Most of the Planning Commission members expressed concern about how the EPROZ will change
Palm Desert negatively. Despite requests, there is no comprehensive plan for the long-term health
of the EI Paseo area. There is no guarantee that these hotels will make a positive difference in the
EI Paseo economy - remember, we as residents in the area are also consumers.
- Michael Shimer, head of the EI Paseo Merchant's Association, says that he isn't worried about
competition from other commercial centers. He was quoted in a March 14th article as saying, "The
more development that goes on in the valley - while it may look like direct competition - it will
make us look better."
- The EPROZ will generate almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain Drive. The City
Transportation Engineer says this is acceptable. That is only one opinion. We say it isn't. Shouldn't
5/11/2006
Page 2 of 2
we look into the possible adverse traffic issues before jumping into sweeping zoning changes that
will have negative effects (some unknown at this time), and which reach far into the future of our
city.
- Right now Shadow Mountain and Larrea are the transitional zones between the business district
and the single-family homes to the south. If the EPROZ is approved, Shadow Mountain could
become all hotels. This would have a major impact on the noise level for the neighborhoods to the
south. The Planning Department put in a noise mitigation condition for the Larrea Street project,
but there is no guarantee that they will do this for future projects. Shouldn't some restrictions be
put into effect now to insure they do this?
- Having multiple hotels and transient residents near the Washington Charter School increases the
potential for dangers to young children. It will increase the traffic on Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree
as more people try to cut through. This will add to the already increased traffic created by
the school.
- Height restrictions are one important criteria that has made and keeps Palm Desert so special.
Weren't the height restrictions put into place to stop this very type of thing from happening and to
insure the quality of life for the existing residents? Paim Desert is a special, unique place and that
character should be preserved and respected.
Sincerely,
Jack and Gail Basse
5/ 11 /2006
Page 1 of 2
Klassen, Rachelie
From: Meliki88@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Meliki88@aol.com
Subject: Re: A letter of thanks and understanding
Hello Rachelle, my name is George Johnson and I would appreciate you taking the time to send this to all of the council
members. As I know your probably busy, as there are always things going on in city govemment as this is a thank you
letter and an information piece as well. Again I do appreciate you taking the time to do so, thanks.
To All City of Palm Desert Council Members:
My name is George Johnson and I live in Palm Desert at 73775 Shadow
Lake Dr. I would like to say thank you for taking a good look at the
Larrea Street project and overlay zone. IYs been a funny project
for the community. The reason I use the word funny is that I do
believe those who proposed it thought it would go without being
noticed. However, we as residents did notice, we did get together,
we did talk and discuss what was happening in our neighborhood as
good neighbors do. We voiced our opinion.
When we showed up at the Planning Commission meeting, I think they
were surprised that anyone cared about the project. We do care and
we wanted to make sure someone heard our concems. Good
communication with those around you is always a key to solutions.
When we described those concerns - i.e., noise at night, higher
street traffic, obstructions from views because of height variances,
and increased crime - we were told by the developer that we didn't
want progress to happen, that we were afraid of change, and that
nothing should or would bother anyone in the neighborhood. I want to
set the record straight. We wouid love to see change and progress if
it's done in a way to benefit all parties and enhance the area's
unique environment. We are in no way close-minded to anything done
within existing city parameters. Our question is that - knowing what
city building codes are and the area impact - why would the
developer, architect, and city planner push the envelope without
getting neighborhood input.
I was also shocked at the way Mr. Drel! handled himself as a city
employee. In meetings he acts very arrogant, and he doesn't take
community involvement seriously. !n other words he did not show any
respect to people who live here and their views. It was pitiful to
see this in a well-paid director who should be representing residents
as well as developers.
However iYs been good to see the integral workings of the City of
Palm Desert, as all of us love living in such a great place. I
personally would like to say thank you for putting in the time and
effort that it takes to make great things happen.
In closing, we have a unique place that is warm and friendly,
especially this time of year. Let's keep working together to find
solutions to keep Palm Dese�t that which makes it so desired. I do
believe you have our best interests at heart and will do the right
thing for our community.
Sincerely,
ry
�
O�
�
--�
v
N
-v
.:�
r�s
N
�
:�
7..
--,.;,�=
f F'a '
:i i -., ....
��� - ..
:�i cr:� s
_ •�L;
;� —
;'' c-
rn
5/22/2006
Page 2 of 2
George Johnson
5/22/2006
Page 1 of 1
Klassen, Rachelle
From: debbi hall [debbihaA99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com
Subject: Re EPROZ
Ms. Klassen,
Please distribute to the City Council members for the ]une 8th City Council meeting.
Thank You
Deborah Hall
;..� -
<� -, - ,
�,
� - '
Zy �..r^;.
� . � �.,
r J -z ;-r� .
C� �' ' `
�,':• , ,
%� f✓ ,�, � .
�P
"... _-i : �
e'� '� ,
.. . � —r;
N :y "
CJ1 �
5/30/2046
May 29, 2006
City Council Members
City of Palm Desert,
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-25678
Dear City Council Members,
I want to thank all of you for your willingness to listen to the perspective of the
community members that spoke in opposition to the EPROZ and the PP/CPU for
the construction on Larrea St.
( have spent the time since the May 11�' meeting walking the neighborhood
discussing the issues with my neighbors. After talking with and e-mailing with
them I have compiled comments they and I have made and written concerning
the effects the EPROZ will have on our community.
- The EPROZ will generate almost 1000 more cars per day on Shadow Mountain.
The City Transportation Engineer says this is acceptable. We say it isn't. lf there
are 1000 more cars per day, what about the tour buses thaf the drivers Iet idle
insfead of shutting fhem down, small delivery frucks, trash frucks, 18 whee/ed
Semi delivery trucks, employee vehicles, landscaper vehic%s and so on.
- Shadow Mounfain and Larrea are the transitiona! zones befween the business
district and fhe single-family homes to the south. If the EPROZ is approved,
Shadow Mountain could become all hotels. This would have a major impact on
fhe noise level for the neighborhoods to the south. Noise travels up hill, as we
know from fhe issues that the residents to the soufh already have
with Augusta. .
- Having multiple hotels and transient residenfs near the Washington Charter
School increases the potenfial for dangers fo young children. !t wi!! increase the
fraffic on Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree as more people try to cut through. The
tra�c on Portola will increase signifrcantly as vehicles from the hotels head
toward the Living Desert and HWY 74 via Haystack.
- Height restricfions are what make Palm Desert special. We are blessed with
awesome views, why spoi! thaf? Palm Desert is a special, unique place and that
character should be preserved. It will increase the building height to 30 feef. Not
only will it block views, it will create invasion of privacy issues and block nafura!
Jight for some residents.
-The only people who supporf this projecf are those who have a financial
interest. Many of fhose people don't live in Palm Desert. People who live in or
near the EPROZ area are generally opposed. The density per lot will double.
Many of us purchased homes here rather than in gated communifies because of
fhe low density and targe lots.
- Most of fhe Planning Commission members expressed concern abouf how the
EPROZ wi!l change Palm Desert. There is no guarantee thaf these hotels wiJl
make a difference in the E/ Paseo economy. Worst case scenario, can you
imagine if it turned into a�asco like the Palm Springs Ma/l, E! Paseo overbuiit
with empty hotels.
- Michae/ Shimer, head of the EI Paseo Merchant's Association, says that he isn't
worried abouf competition from other commercia! centers. He said "The more
development that goes on in the valley - while it may /ook like direct competition -
it will make us look betfer." We have a unique shopping and dining area.
- The issue was brought up that EI Paseo is nof busy in fhe evenings, This is
frue, except around fhe restauranfs, because the majority of the merchants c/ose
by 6:00 PM. On first Thursday during the season when some of the shops and
gal/eries stay open untiJ 9:00 pm the sfreet is busy. This is a conscious decision
by the merchants to keep these hours.
Please consider carefully the damage the EPROZ will do to the neighborhood.
We walk our dogs, ride bikes, and talk to our neighb�rs, which in this day and
age is unusual. Please protect this beautiful neighborhood, the quality of life it
creates for the community and for the future.
I ask you to vote NQ on the EPROZ.
Thank you for the dedicated work you all do for our city and for you consideration
of this matter.
Deborah W Hall
73673 Joshua Tree St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-340-2005
760-$80-1615
. -. r.; , ; � ;. ..
� � . � "�E�f�,�
� . .. , ; . .; , �,
"�^� r rn
- �`''''�i R��i-IfE
May 27, 2006
Jim Ferguson, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mayor Ferguson,
We are so sorry that you were unable to attend the May 11 �' Council meeting
when the City Planners and the developer of the Larrea project presented (for approval)
the plans for EPROZ and for the Larrea project. I am sure that you have had ample time
to reflect on community letters, council meeting minutes and to talk with the members of
your council regarding these items.
We are so appreciative that your Council members took a careful look past a11 of
the hype and we are grateful that the questions asked of the City Planners and the Larrea
developer directly addressed some of the issues that many of us had raised in our letters
to the Council. We felt that we, as citizens, had been listened to and that our input was at
least being considered in your questions and potentially in you final decisions.
Unfortunately, this was a feeling that our Planners had not yet conveyed to oar
communiry. Uur understanding has always been that the Planners work for the
community they represent (Pa1m Desert in this case) and should work to batance growth
with the "standard" of the community That "standard" is set by the current residents and
their awareness and consideration of the community history. ,
The Shadow Lake Estates area and the Shadow Mountain Golf and Tennis Resort
are comerstones of this city. As development within this central azea has come about, it
has been with the historical value of this area in mind. We appreciate that our city
governing body has always prudently guarded that history. We felt a renewed hope (on
May 11�'S that you are giving the same consideration to that important balance that our
city founders had. The impression we had previously been given with the EPROZ and
Larrea was that these two projects were "a go" regardless of "a little community input."
Thank you for separating the two issues and for taking a deeper reflection on how these
developments will impact our neighborhood.
As homeowners (of 2 properties) in Palm Desert, we have received notification
letters (for years) from the city for individual homeowners who were requesting set back
variances of amounts from 5-8' (overall) off code; and yet, with EPROZ and Larrea, we
received NO notifcation. We live within %z mile of both (project) areas arid consider the
potential effect on our lives and property value to be monumental when compared to a
10" setback alteratian on a single family residence. Did someone siip up here? OR
WORSE... Was there intent to slip this past the neighboring community and the Council?
Additionally, the question of why the developer reyuested the continuance for 30 days
seemed quite unclear following the last Council meeting. Was this to work with the
community or was this in hopes that concerned and vocal community members might
leave for the summer season reducing the amount of opposition? No one from the
community has been notified of any input meetings. We have all become a bit skeptical
of our planners and a developer who states publicly that he has made every attempt to
work with the community and that the community just "doesn't want any change." NO
ONE from our community has suggested that there be no development; we only ask that
Larrea be built within reasonable limits to allow the development and surrounding
community to coexist. Good neighbors do that kind of thing when they make changes
that witl affect their neighborhood. We ask that the development respect our quality of
life, our safety and the history of our neighborhood.
We have voiced our many concerns previously in letters or in person to the
Planning Department, the Planning Commission and to the City Council (May 11`") so
we will not discuss each of those issues again. You know that our primary concerns with
Larrea are related to density, height, and noise. Those concerns will multiply hundreds of
times over with the EPROZ. The additional concerns of traffic and transience and the
potential dangers to children attending Washington Charter School are extremely
troubling to the entire community, both business and residential.
Our request is now and has always been that any and all development be done
with a conscience for:
*the historical value of our neighborhood
*the safety of our streets and our children
*the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood that we love, and yes,
maybe even...
* the fantastic views
Existing zoning codes have been set in place with consideration of the ENTIRE
community, both business and residential; and they have worked quite well. Please let us
see decisions that continue to hold that balance instead of favoring developers who are
more interested in the bottom-line than in preserving the community value.
Thank you for the work you do for our community and thank you for your
consideration of these critically important issues. We trust in your judgments and know
that your decisions will be based in what is best for the entire community rather than for
only one segment of this community.
Sincerely,
�����u..l1►,l�G ,
Ron L Buries Beverly A. Buries
45-831 Mountain View
Palm Desert. CA. 92260
760-346-0472
08/07/2002 20:38 760-341-1533
WM R KROONEN RCOE PAGE 01
OFFICE
T,CA
tin: 1 4
Palm Desert City Council
Palm Desert City Hall
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Councilxncxnbcrs:
73575 Juniper St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
June 6, 2006
I write in protest of the adoption of the proposed El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. Within
the past few years, 1, along with many other local residents, had the privilege of serving
on a master Plan Review Committee which made recommendations to the Council with
regard to the adoption of a new comprehensive Master Plan for our fine City.
Considerable attention was paid to the area involving El Paseo and no compelling reason
was found to make major changes in the surrounding area- Now, only two short years
later, a proposal for significant change is before you.
As a resident of a nearby neighborhood, I find fault with this proposal and ask that you
reject it.. Instead, I strongly suggest that you continue the long tradition of the Council
and make a judgment on each proposed new project solely on its own merits. You have a
fine record of making appropriate decisions with regard to zoning variations and I firmly
believe you should continue to abide by the practice of individual project consideration in
the present situation. This, in my view, is how things should be done - in the good old
Palm Desert way! Blanket approval of an overlay zone is simply not m the great tradition
of our City.
With great respect and appreciation for each of you, and for the fine work you do for our
beloved community. I remain
Respectfully yours,
C (b -k -
William R. Kroonen
Received Jun-06-06 11:05am
From-760 341 1533 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01
CITY Of PRA OESEIL
73-510 FREU WARING DRIVL
PALM DFSERf, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346—o6i1
FAX: 760 341-7098
mfo@palm•dcscn org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, CIZ 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESERT / EUGENE BREZNOCK
for approval of:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the
Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing
development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A 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.
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12
unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
(SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE)
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning aII items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming 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 o.m.
I_ J I I I I ';
Emar
C-1, S.P.
C1, S.P.
gala
�mieiiiNow •-
41:e mg, azzi
4104fr!
aitto.
■IIIIIIC+.MIM I
C-1, S.P.
61
Ir. ) " f'■ ■
■
� a
0.S.
A
•
n ■
■
l 1
I Illi •
1I I HHIIV
C•1
0.P.
I I I C4, s.Pl 1 1
STATE NWYfff
.4
4
Jig
i ifl
i1 w al . Pic;
u ! oil maH
n i\
Rillopp,
rinira
L,<.eoltC'' LE.
arn
imilt:Tui mit
Oh 41 MI
m jam
Car of Pals D .at
4ri
QS
MINERAL PLAN AM■NOMOIT
Cap Nas. OVA 05-04
10A 05-05 CIZ 05-00
EXHIBIT C
IIR-
C-
Proposed
OPAIZONCZ
EL PASEO
RESORT
OVERLAY
ZONE
FLAIR MINI COIMUS■ION
RESOLUTION NO. 2389
OMr 04/18/06
CITY Of Pelf DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: March 8, 2006
Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, California 92210
City of Palm Desert
Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of (March 7, 2006:
PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MINUTE MOTION, CONTINUED CASE
NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND PP/CUP 05-20 TO APRIL 18,
2006. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell, S cretary
Palm Desert ' lanning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
CI, rcna w 210010 rwc
CITY of ALffl DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
1 info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: April 19, 2006
Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, California 92210
City of Palm Desert
Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND PP/CUP 05-20
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of April 18, 2006:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 AND
PP/CUP 05-20 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NOS. 2389 AND 2390, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
MOTIONS CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONER FINERTY WAS ABSENT).
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Philip Drell,
Palm Desert
ltm
ecretary 0
lanning Commission
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
L m.noanMuorra
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: March 7, 2006
CASE NO: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A
and 10.B (Exhibit A) to the Residential Goals, Polices and
Programs section of the general plan.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit
B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort
Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A change of zone to add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to
certain R-3 and Planned Residential properties (Exhibit C).
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the
construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium
project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
City of Palm Desert
(Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05)
I. BACKGROUND:
A. General Plan Amendment & Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
For years EI Paseo has been unique in the Coache{la Valley as an outdoor,
pedestrian-oriented, retaillrestaurant boulevard. However, emerging
commercial centers are being developed in other cities throughout the
Coachella Valley challenging EI Paseo's uniqueness. EI Paseo's ability to
successfully compete with other commercial 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 economic market and generate new Transit
Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City.
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
In 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 and Planned Residential (P.R.). Both zones currently allow hotels as a
conditional use. With exception of the proposed application, no new hotels
have been proposed or approved adjacent to EI Paseo. In addition, several
developers have expressed interest in constructing new hotels in this area
that would exceed the maximum densiry.
To encourage hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo, staff is proposing a
general plan 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 and P.R. properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and
Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue
to encourage developers to propose new hotels adjacent to EI Paseo.
Currently, one such application is in process. The proposed EPROZ and
proposed application should be reviewed simultaneously to evaluate the
overlay design standards and the project to determine if it will achieve our
goal of attracting more people to EI Paseo.
On December 15, 2005, the proposed overlay zone and application were
presented to the EI Paseo Improvement District. The Board of Directors was
in favor of creating an overlay zone that will promote hotels within walking
distance to EI Paseo and unanimously recommended approval of the
proposed zone and project (see attached letter).
B. 73-811 Larrea Property Description:
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 half 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 built
and the entitlement has expired.
Adjacent 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
�
STAFF REPORT (
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
I1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ):
The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide
flexible design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking
distance to EI Paseo. Adding the EPROZ to the R-3 and P.R. 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.
Policy 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.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community
Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Program 10.B
The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic
within the EPROZ district.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works,
Community Development; Redevelopment Agency.
The proposed zoning ordinance will add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) to the
zoning ordinance establishing the development standards for the EI Paseo
Resort Overlay Zone. Under the EPROZ, the development standards are a
follows:
• Density: No maximum
• Setbacks: Base zone standards apply
• Height: 30' maximum height
� Parking: Section25.58, Off-street parking standards apply
�..
STAFF REPORT �
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
(�
• Exceptions: standards may be modified by the development plan
approved by Planning Commission and City Council
The proposed change of zone will add the EPROZ to the R-3 and P.R.
properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane,
between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
B. Precise PlanlConditional Use Permit:
The applicant is requesting approval of a precise plan of design and
conditional use permit to allow a 12-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 built above the subterranean parking lots, a
lobby/reception area, multi-purpose room, pavilion with BBQ area, meeting
room, exercise room, and a common pool. 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 finro (2) units are two-stories without roof decks. The first ffoor 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. Main Building:
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).
4
� , �.
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, AND F��/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
2. Architectural Projections:
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 yards.
3. Stairways:
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.
4. Decks:
There are two decks on the rear buildings that are setback 8' from the
rear property 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:
The architecture design is a Mediterranean/Middle Eastern blend that utilizes
cylinder 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.
Height:
The four (4) end buildings are 28'6" tall with tower elements at 33'6". The first
level is designed above of the subterranean parking, which is 3' above grade.
The property is narrow requiring short driveway ramps to the parking lots. The
short ramps prevent the parking lots from being completely underground. The
first and second floor interior space is 9' high with 12-inch floor plates. The
parapets around the roof decks are 5'8" to provide privacy for the adjacent
neighbors.
The front middle building height varies between 25' and 28' with a dome
element at 31'6". The rear middle building height varies between 23' and
25'6.
5
STAFF REPORT (
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
Project Data:
�Hotel Density
IFront Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setbacks
Hei ht
Lot Coverage
Parking
�
�V.
DISCUSSION:
18 units per acre
15'
10'
C
No max 12 units, 36 keys
15'/ 13'
15' (projections)
10' 10'/5' (projections)
20' combined, one 20' combined, one 10'/8'(projections)
side no less than 8' side no less than 8'
24'
50%
40
30'
No max
40
28'6"/33'6" Tower
41%/78%
40
Every hotel that has been approved by the City has required an exception. These
hotels have been built in either the Planned Commercial Resort or Planned
Residential zones. Both zones have an exception process in the development
standards. The R-3 zone does not have an exception process. The design standards
that currently 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).
Modification of development standards requires a variance, which are difficult to
obtain.
The Planned Commercial Resort zone maximum density requirement of 30 units per
acre was removed to maximize hotel development in limited areas of the City.
Similar to the P.C. zone, the goal of the proposed EPORZ is to maximize the number
of high-end hotef rooms adjacent to EI Paseo. Setback to setback building coverage
and semi-subterranean parking are required to achieve this goal. To accommodate
the high fevel of hotel amenities necessary to attract EI Paseo customers, roof decks
are required. The combination of the semi-subterranean parking and raised roof
decks with privacy parapets necessitates the 30' height limit.
The height limit in the Planned Commercial zone is 35', 30' if within a 100' of a
single-family zone. The EPROZ is proposed on R-3 properties that are more than
150' from the R-1 single-family zone to the south. In addition to being more than 150'
away from single-family, these properties are lower than the R-1 properties to the
south. The top of curb on Larrea Street is 9' lower than the to of curb on the south
side of Shadow Mountain Drive.
ANALYSIS:
The EI Paseo Resort Overlay provides flexible design standards to promote new
high-end boutique hotels adjacent to EI Paseo. The proposed project fully utilizes the
�
� �..,
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C!Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
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 3'6n above
proposed 30' height limit.
Concerns from adjacent neighbors:
Staff has received several letters of concerns from adjacent neighbors. The main
concems are:
1. Commercial Traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain
2. Sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo
3. Roof Decks
1. Commercial Traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain:
The Department of Public Works staff agrees that truck traffic has probably
increased over the years due to the Gardens. The City Council can decide to
post a"No Through Commercial Vehicle" sign, however, federal law prohibits
the City from interfering with direct routes of delivery vehicles. If the signs
were posted, they could not be enforced. If the City wants to stop commercial
trucks from using Shadow Mountain to get to EI Paseo, then San Luis Rey,
Larkspur, San Pablo, Lupine and Sage would need to be closed between
Shadow Mountain and EI Paseo. Public Works does not recommend closing
these roads. Shadow Mountain is a collector street that connects may
residents to EI Paseo.
The speeding issue has been noted and as of Friday, February 24, 2006, the
Sheriff's Department has been notified to increase enforcement through the
neighborhood enforcement program.
2. Sidewalks within walking distance to EI Paseo:
Staff agrees that adequate sidewalks are needed if hotels are going to be
promoted within walking distance to EI Paseo. As part of the general plan
amendment, Program 10.6, states "the City shall create a continuous
sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ district." If the general
plan amendment is approved, a sidewalk plan will be developed and included
in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Currently, there is continuous sidewalk that connects the proposed hotel site
to EI Paseo. A new sidewalk wi11 be installed in front of the hotel as a
condition of approval.
7
�
�
STAFFREPORT �
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PPI�UP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006
4. Roof Decks:
The proposed roof decks are a cancern for some of the adjacent neighbors.
The parapets around the roof decks are 5'8" high, which wifl screen the eye
level of a 6' tall person. The roof decks provide important amenities to the
hotel, which will meet the needs of the high-end EI Paseo customers. The
5'8" parapets provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors.
V.
VI.
VII.
CONCLUSION:
New design hotels are needed adjacent to EI Paseo to provide a stronger economic
market to compete with other commercial centers in Coachella Valley. New design
standards need to be implemented to promote high-end boutique hotels. The
proposed EPROZ overlay will provide new standards for hotel development and
encourage redevelopment adjacent to EI Paseo.
The proposed project utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a
village style, high-end boutique hotel on Larrea Street, achieving our goal of
providing hotels within walking distance to EI Paseo.
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 determine
that the proposed precise plan and conditional use permit are a Class 32, Categorical
Exemption, and no further review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05, and;
That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. ,
recommending to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20, subject to attached
conditions.
E:
STAFF REPORT �f
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
MARCH 7, 2006 .
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I .
J.
K.
L.
M.
Prepared by:
�
Draft Resolution for GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05
Exhibit A, Policy 10
Exhibit B, Program 10.A
Exhibit C, Program 10.B
Draft Resolution for PP/CUP 05-20
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
Legal Notice
Comments from other departments
Comments from adjacent residents
ARC Notice of Action
ARC Minutes
Section 25.56, General Provisions
Plans and project Exhibits
Cl �
�« ,
Tony �agato
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip Drell
Director of Community Development
Homer Croy
ACM of Community Development
9
C
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCfL
APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10,
PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.B (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT
OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS
INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C.
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7�' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by the CITY OF PALM DESERT 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. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impaet on the environment and staff has prepared
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to
City Council approvaf of said request:
1. That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment,
and change of zone 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, Califomia, as follows:
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 GPA 05-04
(Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C").
( l'
PLANNING COMMISSIt�N RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
( �
PLANNING COMMISSIGN RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBiT A
RESfDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS:
Policy 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.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community
Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Program 10.B
The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ
district.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works,
Community Development; Redevelopment Agency.
3
�.,
PLANNING COMMISSIUN RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT B
Chapte� 25.112
EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
25.112.010
25.112.020
25.112.030
25.112.040
Purpose
Location
Development Standards
T.O.T.
(�
25.112.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible
design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to EI
Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the ownerlapplicant
may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the
standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted
or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a
conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community
Development/Planning.
25.112.020. Location.
The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential
properties Iocated on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane,
between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street.
25.112.030. Development Standards.
Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development
standards:
A. Density: Density shall be determined by the setbacks, height and parking
requirements.
B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base
zone set forth in this chapter.
C. Height: The maximum bui{ding height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ
district shall be thirty feet.
D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off-Street Parking and
Loading standards set forth in this chapter.
E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required
unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
25.112.050. T.O.T.
The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient
Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the
room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelfing, lodging or sleeping
purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out.
�
�. I I I I I I R- 2� 1, I.� I� I I
, N, S.O. R-1, N,�S.O.
0
=d� �s�?
�_.
�
l^
I R=3, � � �� i� R-r, S1P.
s�o.l j R z s.o. l l s.o'.
ATAUNA WAY � �
_ �( f W�R-2,j---� I I I I I I
_. R-3 W R-� Si0•�'s� S:O. � R� i �
�- i�. �
-_ � ----.� :°� o � o�J .-. �
�1 "a` R-1 � R�1 '�1<R.'� I, �N' O.P. ' -
SAN sAN SAN � �d+-R-� °� R-3
y a � < � Q: S. V
J � �+ �
�A ONIO �►N GORGONIO WAY gE � a u�i � pYi p� O A� \
c� �e N � �,',y 3t� ci �� R-
CIR R"� CIR GR � I R-3
, ALESSANDRO DR
�AL-LEY = O�W R-1 Gi C-i �y� �
; P.f I I'c',�, � P. y�< 11 I r. I.1 c;�! s.P�U c- , s.P �.�, s:P. � I I I I I I
PAUM DESERT DR N
RAUM )ESER�DR S
1
I � I I I I I-� 1' �—P�LM�DESER.i )R.S
V '
C-1,-S.P. --i,-S:P!— C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. �C-1; S:�
I I TT I I i I 1�� � � �111f1
E4QA�E_Q__ �
c-1 / c-� I:��` I,. . I—I ( c-1, s.p � _'. _ c-i �i�._
.
•
:
.1-
�; ! _`
J� J�
?\k�� �' _- ' �.
�dh�� R'Z 31►
R ,�= R.r�� �,' R�
���u�
r� p:P, ci
RV(4) R- (4��� O�R� I
� � � C-i, S.P� � ��4� C-i
STATE HWY 11 '1
-c•i�-s� �
i��i� �
EL PASEO ,.
I �c-1 � � < _`�� ( �
0�0?0(3J� � � a � �— _
- �-q
� P
�-a
— ��
N
- �.
� R-
� 1. OOd
1
� � , � , . ,
,,
City of Palm D�sert
d
�'_
���
Proposed
GPA/ZOA/CZ
�
EL PASEO
RESORT
OVERLAY
—�rw�r-rv�►vt ZONE
, �, i � � � I�� ��, _
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case Nos. GPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO.
ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05
EX H I B f T C Date: 3107106
PLANNING COMMISS (�N RESOLUTION NO. {
EXHIBIT D
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATfON:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.6
(Exhibit A}, a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B)
establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a
change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the
north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea
Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
March 7. 2006
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�
(�
�..
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
NEW 12 UNIT, 36 KEYS, H�TEL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT
73-811 LARREA STREET.
CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did
on the 7�' day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by the EUGENE BREZNOCK 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 Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project is a Class 32, Categorical Exemption and no further environmenta! 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 EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
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 office boutique 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, Califomia, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend approva{ to City Council of Precise
PlanlConditional Use Permit 05-20, subject to conditions attached.
PLANNING COMMISSi�N RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Pianning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP/CUP 05-20
Department of Communiiv 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. Applicant sF�all record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director
of Community Development/Planning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13
acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shaN 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.
5. 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. )t 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 shaN 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.
6. Transient Occupancy Tax {T.O.T.) per Municipa{ Code Section 3.28.030 wilt be
applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling,
lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such
room(s) are rented out.
3
!�
PLANNING COMMISS{ON RESOLUTfON NO. (`
7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into a agreement
with the City regulating non-transient if the condominiums are sold to individuaf
buyers.
E:
�
All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and
Larrea Street shafl be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors.
Deuartment of Public Works:
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 prefiminary 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.
4.
5.
6.
Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Dese�t Municipal
Code and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of grading permits.
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 shali be contingent
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
upon a drainage study
and approved by the
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.
a
10.
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.
Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with
Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
0
PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO. (
11. Landscape install shail be drought to�erant in nature and in accordance with the
City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04).
12. Landscape pians 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 Nefinrork 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 parcef map for condominium purposes.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the cond�tions 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. P�ovide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial structure.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. t��
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 waUs 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 turn-arounds shall 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. Afl 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 fi�e fighting, sprinkler monitoring may be
required.
L•'�
��IjY Of Pfll�l DES��1
73—St0 FRED WARING DR1VE
P� DFSEttr, CALIFORNIA g2260-2578
r�.� �60 346—o6ii
Fnx: 760 ;4i-7o98
info�palm-daert.orE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PPICUP 05-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESERT / EUGENE
BREZNOCK for approval of:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10 and Program 10.A (Exhibit A) to the
Residential Goals, Polices and Programs section of the general plan.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit B) establishing
development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Oveciay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A change of zone to add the E1 Paso Resort Overiay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential properties as indicated in Exhibit C.
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new 12
unit, 36 keys, hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
(SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE)
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm pesert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
Califomia, at which time and place al1 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 conceming 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 PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
February 24, 2006 Palm Desert Planning Commission
r^
�
,r-..
i
,
E I Pase�
�,�,��,
Treasures...Every Step Of The Way.
January 5, 2006
Mr. Philip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
RECEIVED
.:�� ! i 0 2006
,;0!�[KUt�ITY DEYELOP!KEYT DEPARTMEN'f
CITY OF PALJ1 DESEt�'f
The Board of Directors of the El Paseo Business Improvement District took
a quorum vote on December 15, 2005, regarding the plan to add more hotel
rooms to an area immediately behind EI Paseo. A morion was unanimously
passed approving to reoommend the plan presented by Tony Bagato of the
City of Palm Desert's Planning Department.
Res
Board of Directors
El Paseo Business Improvement District
MS: dbf
Copies:
David Fletcher, Sonia Campbell. Heather Sacre, Bob Fliday, Janet Hanson,
Ruth Ann Moore
EI Poseo Business Improvement District
P.O. Box 1371, Palm Desert, CA 92261
Ph. 160.735.7273 � Fax 760.568.9958 • www.elpaseo.com
( �-�.
t
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFfCE MEMORANDUM
C �_
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention:Tony Bagato
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PP 5-20 Breznock Villas on Larrea
DATE: December 14, 2005
The following are conditions of approval for the above-named project.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the
applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the city for
the life of the project, consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ord.
801) and the approved landscaped plan.
2. A complete preliminar�i``soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
BONDS AND FEES
3. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior issuance of a grading permit.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
l� � � � .
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior
to issuance of any permits.
9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of va{id encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with
Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with
the City_s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04}.
12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
13. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards
including 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 this project.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
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. No occupancy permit shall be granted until public
improvements have been completed.
15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Pafm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as wel) as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
.�
�--
F--
�
16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shail submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Pubfic Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must
contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. Subdivision map required to subdivide the two lots.
18. Turnaround spaces shall be provided within garages.
Mark Greenwood, P. E.
�
° `�
� F J��.,�r �.,,,�.
� `�' ,
�����.
�� �wam�ur
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unincorporated
areas of Riverside
County and the
aties of:
Banning
�
Beaumont
�
Calimesa
O
Canyon Lake
0
Coachella
O
Desert Hot Springs
a
Indian Wells
4
Indio
4
Lake Elsinore
4
La G�uinta
0
Moreno Valley
4
Palm Desert
4
Perris
�
Rancho Mirage
�
San Jacinto
O
Temecula
Board or supervisors
Bob euster
oiscrict ,
John 7avaglione
o�st�, z
Jim Venable
Distnct 3
Roy Wilson
Distnct 4
Tom Mullen
Distnct 5
/ �..
�
RIVERSID� t vUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In Gooperation with the
California Uepartment of Forestry and Fire Protecti�n
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 •(9U9) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
Covc Fire Marshal's Officc
73710 Frod Waring Drivc # l02
Palm Dcsert CA 92260
(760) 346-1870
To:-r��,� ��ro
REF:'�7/��� �S -- Zd
if circled, conditions aoalv to nroiect
�
�
3.
�
S
6.
Q
g.
9'
� �.
DATE: ���
�(�
r
C4�s�t� Ccxt -o c� -v 13
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized ('ire Protection
Standards:
Tht Fire Department is required to set a minimum fre f]ow for tl�e
remodel or construction of all buildin�s oer UFC article 87.
A fire flow oP 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
pressure must be avAilable before any combustible material is placed
on the iob site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
gpm tlow of•
1500 gpm for single family dwellings
2500 gpm for multifamily dweUings
3000 ��m for commercial buildin�s
The required fire tlow shalt be available from a wet barrel Super
Nydrant (s) 4"x 2%:" x 2'/:", located not less than 25' nor more than:
200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
165' irom any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
vehicular travelwav
Water P1ans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and inctudc
verification that the water system will nroduce the reauired fire flow.
Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
existin� water mains witl not meet the reauired fire flow.
t � �, , �.
� Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. TI►is applics to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. Tl�e T'ire
Marshai sha11 approved the locations of all post indicator v�ivcs �nd
fire department connections. Al! valves and connections sl�all not be
less than 25' trom the building and within 50' of an approved
hvdrant. Ezem�ted are one and two iamilv dwellin�s.
� All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water-flow switches shal! be monitored and alarme�i per
CBC Chanter 9. 9xr�g�� � � n� hs��
. �
13. install a fire alarm system as reauired bv the UI3C Chaater 3.
14 Install portablc fire eztinguishers per 1�1FPA 10, but not less than one
2A l OBC extinguisher Qer 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A"K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per Nf PA 96
in all public and privatt cooking operations except single-family
residential usage,,
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
oneration that produces airborne narticles.
QAll buitding shalt be accessible by an a1L-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions ot the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway sha11 not be less than 24' of unobstructed width :�nd
13' 6" of vertical ciearance. Where parallel parking is required an
both sides of the street the rnadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide
with parkiag on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' sfiall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around .55' in industrial
develoaments.
� Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers or other means provisions sha11 be made to install 1
"Knox Boz" key over-ride system to allow for emergency veliicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertic�l
clearance �f l3'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary :tccess,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshaf. Under no circumstance shal! a dead end over 1300' be
accented.
, �-� r �
�
20. A second access is required. This can be :tccomplished by two main
access points from a main roadway or an emergency gatc from an
adioining develoument.
21. This project may require ticensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate ptan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occuuancv tvoe.
�1 All buildings shalt have illuminated addresses of a size approved by
the citv.
�,2,'�i All fire�sprinkler systems, fiYed fire suppression systems And alarm
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
pr'ior to constt'Uction.
� Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
[aws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve
months.
25. Alt elevators shal! be minimum �urnev size.
All questions regarding the meaning ot these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Of'fice pt (760) 346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Warin� Drive #222. Palm Desert CA 92260
Other.
�C��C (� f � , "C� \ Jl ` ).tYY'�lVkl �i4�-t� �.R � `Lf � -�T �
ST �_r� c-� �/�'i� .�t%1 � �►�F.sf � ( Tz
� - SI.S��. �r ��..n 1%'.�
,� i7vF -ir� earicx�p,r,,; �s� !�c!�� '�'rr� ��i z.� �-�,�c,(nri�-�
-'`���vvLL.�,^ �NliTUa .��.-Q w�ct �3� l`Lsaa � � � � �
� �
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
i�
�'
��
.`
( �
PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT
Served by the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Bob Doyle, Sheriff-Coroner
73520 Frcd Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 836-1600 Fax (760) 83b-1616
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTN: Tony Bagatp, Assistant Planner
RE: PP/CLTP OS-20
Dear Nir. Bagato,
September 17, 2005
g,ECEIVED
5��' � 9 �
C01[WN1�1TY OF P�ALbI DBSB�t�T
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan to build a 12 unit, 36 keys condominium hotel with
underground pazldng at 73-811 Larrea Street. The recommendations in this report are not intended to
contradict or override any order of the Fire Marshal or Palm Desert Building Codes. The following issues
of concern related to public safety and law enforcement are presented:
1. Addressing:
In addition to the address of the building, each unit should be clearly marked with a building
number or letter along with individual unit numbers.
2. Eaterior Lighting/Security:
The exterior of the complex should be illuminated at night near the all stairways, front entryways,
sides of the complex, and underground garage. Lighting in these areas should reduce the threat of
theft, vandalism, or the potential for individuals to hide in the darlrness. The underground pazking
might be of great concern for theft or vandalism. People on vacation tend to carry expensive
cameras, cash, and other valuable items inside their vehicles; which would be an amactive target
for thieves. In addition to sufficient lighting, the parking gazage should have a monitored/recorded
video security system installed with the base unit located at the &ont desk. The exterior staiiways
should be locked with a pass-key enhy from the exterior and a push-bar opening from the interior.
The two vehicle entryways should be gated with a pass key entry as well to prevent any
unauthorized people from entering the parking area.
3. Condominium Security:
The exterior doors of the each unit should be a solid core door with reinforced locking
mechanisms and doorfraznes to resist burglary. Each unit could also have a security alarm system
installed and monitored by an alarm company or the front desk. In the event of illegal entry into a
unit by thieves, an audible alarm would sound and the alarm monitoring company would contact
the complex manager or renter, as well as the Palm Desert Police.
�
l
Page 2
(.
4. Construction:
Prior to construction of the building, a material storage area should be established along the
perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence with locking gates to
minimi�e theft of materials and/or equipment. "No Trespassing" signs should be clearly mounted
on a11 outward facing fence areas. All expensive appliances should be installed in the units only
after all doors and windows aze installed and locked to prevent theft of these appliances.
Should the Planning Depar�nent, developer, or construction sta�'have any questions regazding the above
law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760) 836-1671,
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
Re lly S mitted,
eputy o ert shop
ID # 2759
Palm Desert Police Department
,
. ,�--
�.
� .--
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: TONY BAGATO
ASSISTANT PLANNER
FROM: DIANE HOLLINGER
LANDSCAPE SPEC{ALIS
DATE: October 6, 2005
SUBJECT: PPICUP 05-20
Tony, I have reviewed the landscape plan that was submitted to Planning Dept. for the
aforementioned project. The landscape plan as shown is acceptable. I do have
questions as to what borders the project as this may or may not change the proposed
landscape. I have made a few comments on the pfan itself but on the whole its fine.
If you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
/kg
G.�PubWorks�Dwne HdlinpeAWad DatalMemcs\Tony-PP-CUP OS-02.doe
l
February 23, 2006
Mr. Tony Bagato
Assistant Ptanner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
�,�,LEI�TED
; _ � L i L�u�
J'd�il,`�iT't �E'�°L,'J+"•1�\T DEPART�SEYT
i 1 f'i uF �'�L�t GESEi�T
MORON60
BAND OF
MISSION
INDIANS
� sov[a�wn r+�noN
Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment 05-04, EI Paseo Resort Overlay District
Dear Mr. Bagato:
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 2006 addressed to Tribal Chairman
Maurice Lyons concerning the above referenced project in relation to
Govemment Code §65352.3 (S618). I have been asked to respond to your
letter.
Because the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (the "Tribe") has no knowledge of
any specific cultural resources on the site and because the deve{oped nature of
the area has precluded the possibility of much if anything being left on the
surFace, there is technically nothing on which to consult.
S618 consultation triggers when a c'ity is processing a general or specific plan
and it must foltow a not�fication procedure and request consu{tation with the
affected tribes. Consultation, however, is based upon cultural resources as
defined in the Pubic Resources Code and those resources must either be sacred
sites (e.g. religious or ceremonial site) or on the Califomia Historical Register
(CHR) or eligible for the Register. Since there are no known Native American
cultural resources on the site, and the Tribe has no knowledge of any sacred
sties on the subject property, there is nothing on which to consult.
That notwithstanding, the Tribe would like to request that the cifiy of Palm Desert
voluntarily consider imposing the following, standard conditions on any
development within the prosect area:
o If human remains are encountered during grading and other
construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cease
and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State
Health and Safety Code §7050.5.
o In the event that Native American cultural resources are
discovered during project development/construction, all work in
the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secsetary of Intesior standards shall be
hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue
during this assessment period.
245 V. MURRAY STREET, SUITE C - BANNING, CA 92�20 - 951-849-8801 - �,�x.951-922�8146
C
February 23, 2006
Mr. Tony Bagato
City of Pa1m Desert
Page 2 of 2
�
If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered,
the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band
of Mission Indians ("Tribe")'. If requested by the Tribe, the
developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult
on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation,
retu m of a rtifacts to tri be, etc. ).
As you know, the first condition is merely a reiteration of State law and the
second condition is consistent with state law which prohibits knowingly
destroying an archaeological site. Therefore, the Tribe does not believe the City
would be averse to imposing these conditions.
The Tribe has no objection if the City has some other wording for these type of
standard conditions but they should have the same salient points as in the above
stated conditions including subsequent consultation with the Tribe if any
inadvertent discoveries are made.
The Tribe thanks the City of Palm Desert for voluntarily considering the
comments of the Tribe. As previously indicated, since there is technically nothing
to consult on, the Tribe deems the consultation process complete.
Thank you for contacting the Tribe. If you have any questions, please contact
me at (951) 755-5206 or Britt wilson@morongo.org
Sincerely,
Britt W. Wilson
Project Manager/Cultural Resources Coordinator
' The Morongo Band of Mission Indians realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming
cultural a�liation to the area; however, Morongo can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no
objection if the archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes and if the city wishes to revise the
candition to recognize other tribes.
t-
r"
�
�-
c�Ty oF���«
73-5�� FRED WARING �RIVE
PALM �ESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
D ecember 13, 2005
rEt: 760 346—o6ii
F�x:76o 34�-7og8
in fo@palm-desert.org
DESERI
ARCH{TECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: PP/ CUP 05-20
pPPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: OCH4A DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73-626 Highway
111, Paim Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PRQJECTIAPPROVAL SOUGHT: Request preliminary approval of
elevations for a 12-unit, 36-key condominium hotel with the building height
varying between 24' to 31'. (Height limit is 24' for this zone.)
LOCATION: 73-811 Larrea Street
ZONE: R-3
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff, the Architectural
Review Commission granted preliminary approval.
Date of Action: December 13, 2005
Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Van Vliet and
Lopez absent.
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approvat.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or
revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days
prior to the next meeting.
���a���
� �._
.._
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMfSSION
DECEMBER 13, 2005
MINUTES
�� �
Commissioner Lambell commented that it's absurd to have houses
along Monterey. Who in the world is going to pay to live on this sireet?
To have residential along this hugely trafficked intersection is absurd.
Are there nine people who could live here and not care? It's going to
be a tough thing. Mr. Greenburg stated that the sound will be mitigated
on the other side of the buildings through the construction of the
building. It meets the requirements. These units will probably be priced
lower than the other units, but I'm sure that we'll find buyers.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell for preliminary approval, subject to (1) Plan 0- Elevations A&
B rafter tails to be thickened to 4" x 4", trellis to made of select
structural lumber and be free of knots, exterior walls to be 2 x 6 with 2 x
3 nailers to inset windows as far as possible, (2} Plan 1 X elevations
shaN have 2 x 3 nailers on exterior walls and inset windows as far as
possible, (3) Elevation B- improve to architectural standard of the other
models and shall be reviewed by staff, and {4) subject to approval by
the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners
Van Vliet and Lopez absent.
5. CASE NO.: PP/ CUP 05-20
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73-
626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request pre{iminary
approval of elevations for a 12-unit, 36-key condominium hotel with the
building height varying between 24' to 31'. (Height limit is 24' for this
zone. )
LOCATION: 73-811 Larrea Street
ZONE: R-3
Mr. Bagato stated that in 2001, a 12-unit apartment complex was
approved on this one-acre site. The project was never buiit. Staff is
considering an EI Paseo Resort Overlay District which would apply to
the lots and would allow more hotels to be closer to EI Paseo. The
applicant is proposing underground parking. The first floor has a deck
with a community pool, the second level has pools that overflow into
the lower pool. There are decks on the third floor with covered trellises
and barbeque areas. This project will exceed the height limit, which is
24'. The buildings will range in height from 26'-31' at the top of the
tower efements. They're.going to be asking for 12 units with 36 rooms.
G:PlanninglDonna GluaiverlwpdocsrAgmin�AR051213.MIN 16
0
� '
� -
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2005
MINUTES
l (
This project wiil be presented as part of a general discussion with the
Planning Commission and the City Council. We want to promote
resort-type of uses close to EI Paseo. As land prices go up, we have to
find ways to make the codes more flexible so we're working on a
possible overlay designation. The properties wilf be delineated for the
Planning Commission and the City Council. It will also be presented to
the EI Paseo merchants as well at their next meeting. We wifl
recommend approval of this project. Juan Carlos Ochoa, designer,
was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Hanson commented that she thought that it was a very
exciting project. It looks really great. Commissioner Vuksic stated that
it's a wonderful project and has so much going on. It's really amazing.
We're really lucky to have this standard being set for this type of
deve{opment. Commissioner Oppenheim asked if the project would be
visible from Shadow Mountain. Mr. Ochoa stated that you won't be
able to see it from Shadow Mountain. There's a two-story building
located right behind this property. Commissioner Lambell asked about
the total number of units. Mr. Bagato stated that there are 12 units,
with 3 rooms in each unit. There are 36 keys. Bedrooms can be
locked out and can be rented individually. Each of the 12 units will be
individually owned by one investor. The developer stated that since the
property is zoned for 12 condominiums, we wanted to build 12
condominiums but we wanted to have a CUP to operate it as a 36-key
hotel. Our studies show that typically, couples would rent a unit for a
week or more at a time on a vacation rental basis. There would be
surplus units and we would like to have the opportunity to rent them on
a nightly basis for the hotef market. We're going to be addressing two
different business markets. Mr. Drell stated that people could rent two
of the bedrooms in a unit or if someone had a big family they could rent
all three bedrooms. Probably at any one time, it would be unlikely that
there would be 3fi keys out because there would be a combination of a
fufly occupied three bedroom, some one bedroom units and two
bedroom units. Most tikely, there would be about 24 rooms being
rented.
Commissioner Lambell stated that it seems rea{ly squished together for
a residential area. It seems squished together for a hotel as well.
Some of the elements are very reminiscent of the Westin Mission Hills.
They have some elbow room to move around. Mr. Drell stated that this
is an urban hotel. Commissioner Lambell stated that she agreed with
Mr. Drell, but it still seemed squished for an urban and condominium
facility. On the opposite side, ! think that the elements are fabulous.
IYs a very exciting look that's going to come to an otherwise dreary
street. Commissioner Oppenheim commented that there's a lot of old
G:PlanninglDonna (�uaiverlwpdocsV�gminV1R051213.MIN 1 %
�, .^
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2005
MINUTES
��
stuff on that street. This is an exciting project and it's in keeping with
The Gardens and with that leve� of sophistication in that area. Mr. Drell
commented that for EI Paseo to go to the next levei, it has to have
resort customers right there. Commissioner Hanson stated that it's the
thing that we're missing in Palm Desert. While there are trade-offs with
density, I think it actually adds to the excitement of the architecture and
a{so the mix of people in our desert. The project is wonderful.
Action: Commissioner Lambe{I moved, seconded by Commissione�
Hanson for preliminary approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with
Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent.
C. Miscellaneous
1. CASE NO.: MISC 05-48
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSj: EUGENE S. VORWALLER, 72-875
Park View Drive, Palm Dese�t, CA 92260
NATURE OF PRO.fECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
an 18' roof height on a single-family residence.
LOCATION: 72-875 Park View Drive
ZONE: R-1
Action; Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell for approval by minute motion. Mvtion carried 5-0-0-2 with
Commissioners Van Vliet and Lopez absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m.
STEVE SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G:PlanninglDonna QuaiverlwpdocslAgminV1R051213.MIN 18
�
CIiY 4� Pfll�l DESERt
73-5io FRen Wnjutac DwvE
P,u.M Deseur, CALFORNIA 922G��LEIVED
� 760 346—o6t�
Fnx: 760 34�-7098 F'�S 2$ 2�
infa?palm-daen.orf
CITY OF PALM DESERT 1�xMtiyi�1'Y OF PALM DESERT��T��
�ca� Nonce
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04� ZOA OS-05� C2 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by CITY OF PALM DESER7 / EUGENE
BREZNOCK for approval of:
A.
B.
C.
A general plan amendmeM adding Policy 10 and Program 10A (Exhibit A) to the
Residentlal Goala, Polioes and Programs section of the general plan.
A zoning or+dinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (E�ibit B) establishing
devebpment standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overiay Zone (EPROZ).
A change of zone to add �+e EI Paso Resort Oveiiay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential properties as indicated in Exhibft C.
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the consUudion of a new 12
unit, 36 keys, hotel cflndominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street
� �,�;�„�- _ ��� .�oo�
;�� �� G,�� � �;C�
. �.�� , ��;'� ��
� , ������ G�
- . � ��e�+y�j,
�
(SEE MAPS ON REVERSE SIDE)
<- � - �:� --�- ��
,�-
����s � 9����
��.� �
oaMn� rartn► '
� G �"�'.�^°�'°� �
,. ,
SAID public hearing wia be held on Tuesday. Mar+ch 7, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambet at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Wa�ing Drive, Palm Desert,
Calffomia, at which tltr�e and place all irtiterested persons are invited b� attend and be
hear+d. Written oomments ooncem(ng all items oovered by this pudic hearing no�ve shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Infortnation concemMg the proposed projed
and/or negative declaration (s avalable for review in the Departrnerrt of Community
Development �at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Frfday. If you challenge the proposed adions in cou�t. you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in writteA correspondenve delivered bo tf�e Planning
Commission (or city coundl) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
February 24, 2006 Palm Desert Pianning Commission
l
Ba�c ato, Tony
From: Susan Myrland [susan@silvergate.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:20 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: public comment meeting on Larrea project
�
Hi Tony, thank you for taking the time to meet with me recently
regarding the hotel that is proposed for Larrea Street. As it turns
out, I will be out of town for part of January, and I'm concerned
that I will miss the announcement about the public meeting. There
are six units in my complex but your mailing list only had my
address, so that means my neighbors won't hear about it either. Wi11
the meeting date be posted on the City's website? Or, can I add one
of my neighbors to your list? His address is:
Brian Blatchley
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Thanks in advance,
Susan Myrland
568-6304
.�...wvraaav�u vaa L.att�,A Jl1GG�
Bagato, Tony
From: FRED GERBER [twoslackerboys@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 9:38 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Cc: Bagato, Tony; susan@silvergate.us
Subject: Development on LaRea Street
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
I am a resident and homeowner on Shadow Mountain Drive in Palm Desert.
Before we approve any large scale development in our area we need to address
the concerns of the residents first to the deteriorating quality of life in
our area.
Since the opening of The Gardens we residents now have to put up with heavy
tzucks using our street for quick access for deliveries to The Gardens.
Besides the constant vibrations, we notice hairline cracks in our ceilings
and wonder if the mulri-ton tiucks are to blame. Shadow Mountain should have
limited access to commercial vehicles like Fairway, Haystack, and Grapevine.
With the continued development along El Paseo more traffic uses Shadow
Mountain as a shortcut, and drive at high speeds. No attempt to control this
speed has been made. A 30 mph speed limits means most people drive 40+mph
which is too fast for a pedestrian area, especially one lacking sidewallcs
and crosswalks.
The children in the area walking to Washington Charter school aze forced to
walk on the street, with heavy traffic, due to lack of sidewalks. Larrea has
no sidewalks or streetlights, so hotel guests will be wallcing on the street
in ihe dark. Trash from the commercial operations blows down our street and
collects on the empty lots, and in the gutters giving the area a worq seedy
look.
Any multi-storied building will have visual access to our private back yards
and take away our privacy.
While I understand the desire for a municipality to increase it's revenue
sources we have to weigh the effects of this development on the quality of
life in our community. We believe before anymore high density development
occurs in our azea the in&astructure must first be improved.
Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings regarding the hoteUcondo
development on I.arrea Street and in the area.
Thank you,
Brian Blatchley
Fredy Gerber
760.776-1679
Page 1 0
2/28/2006
Page 1 0
Bagato, Tony
From: stephbesant�aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:53 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Proposed 3& room Hotel on Lanea
Dear Mr. Bagato,
Since I am not able to attend the meeting on March 7th, I am voicing my disapprovaJ and concern of the
proposed hotel on Lar�ea via this email. I Iive at 73930 Shadow Lake Drive which is just south of the San Luis
Rey/Shadow Mountain intersection.
Unfortuanately, MANY peopte use our street as a short cut to avoid Shadow Mountain and EI Paseo or a as a cut-
th�ough to Fairway. My husband and I are already concerned not only with the amount of traffic that continues
to increase on our street, but also with the fast speeds at which these cars travel. We have a 4 month old so thi
is obviously of great concern to us.
If this hotel is approved, traffic will only increase on our street and our fear is that someone may, at some po[nt,
get hurt due to the high speeds at which cars come down the street and turn the bend. More traf�c will only adc
to the problem.
Please feel free to call us with any questions.
Thank you for your time,
Todd and Stephanie Besant
73930 Shadow Lake Drive
760-340-4504
2/27/2006
�
i
Bagato, Tony
- From: Meliki88@aol.cam
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:29 PM
To: Kiassen, Rachelle
Cc: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Hotel on Shadow Mountain Drive
Page 1 c
I live in south palm desert and would like more information on the citys view of the proposed hotel as neighbors have informed
me of this issue. To increase the hieghts from what is legally on the books at 24 feet is not in the best interest of the neighbor
hood. I'm sure the 24 foot maximum height is a number that was not just pulled out of the sky but a number that would not be
abusive to ttie surrounding neighborhood. Viewing to the hotel or having the hotel users view back into our backyards is not ar
ideal situation. I would like to get the city's idea on this as I can go on and on about the future exposure problem of living next
to or Gose by the proposed hote4. The current hotels and apartments are a mix that is working well in the neighborhood. There
have to be people who are concemed about the mix and not emotionally charged as that is never a good result, designers are
paid to design and neighbor have to live in the p�oposed area, i'm sure that is why there are stipulations in hieghts. Thanks for
your time and please let me know future meetings and information so this dosen't become an ugly situation for the city and
nieghborhood. Sincerely George Johnson
12/28/2005
� - Page 1 of
�
Bagato, Tony
From: debbi hall [debbihall99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:32 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Public Hearing March 7,2006
Legal notice re case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-Q5, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-2
I will be out of the country and not be available to attend the public meeting concerning the above case nos.
Please take into consideration and read at the meeting my comments as follows.
I live on the corner of Joshua Tree St. and San Luis Rey St. directly across San Luis Rey St. from my property i�
Shadow Mountain Country Club. This creates a large amount of pedestrian traffic on San Luis Rey St. There are
no sidewalks so they of course walk in the street. While the speed limit on Joshua Tree St. is 25 mph and on
San Luis Rey St. it is 30 mph it is �arely observed by drivers. The majority of the vehicles go between 40 mph
and 50 mph on both streets. In the last 3 1/2 years I have personally witnessed at least twenty near misses of
pedestrians being struck by speeding vehicles. I believe the increase in traffic in an already unsafe pedestrian
area could be deadly, The c�eation of a"resort zone" from Portola to Ocotillo would most assuredly increase
both noise pollution and traffic creating making an unsafe pedestrian condition go from bad to worse.
I am vehemently opposed to a change in the zoning. This neighborhood is unique. There are very few areas
that one can live in and walk to the shops, restaurants. Fortunately, we do not need to build a artificial mixed
use area, we already have one. The zoning laws are in place to protect and enhance the area. Please let these
laws do there intended job and protect the neighborhood and surrounding area from becoming another Palm
Springs.
Thank You
Deborah W. Hall
73673 Joshua Tree St.
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
3/ 1 /2006
;'� r
,- Page 1 of
�. �
Bagato, Tony
From: BRENDAVIRG0911@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:11 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Legaf Notice / Ref. Shadow Mt. Dr.
Mr. Tony Bagato,
I am writing you regarding Case No's.....
GPA 05-04. ZOA 05-05. C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20
I am a homeowner on Tumbleweed Lane, but will not be able to attend the meeting of March 7, 2006. I
would like to strongly voice my opinion against the project. This is a residential area not a"RESORT
ZONE" and a 3 story complex will be like a GIANT WHITE ELEPHANT in our area.
My husband made the comparison of EI Paseo being our deserts Rodeo Drive, which most if not all
people that live in the desert would agree. They choose, with all the congestion of that area, to keep the
area looking special and welcoming to people. If they would have let such building go on in and around
that area it would have been it's down fall... Look at Palm Springs. It's an eclectic area of mishmash
buildings that has turned into a ghost town.... It's not speciai anymore. There are plenty of RESORT Zones
in the Palm Desert Area... the EI Paseo area does not need to be one of them......
3/2/2006
C
Jim Lopez,Chais
pa� Des4rt plazu�ing Commission
73-� 14 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Mr. Lopez,
�
RECEI�TED
;�;�;;� � a 2UL'6
i'�)MML'ViTY DEVELOPliE!�T DEPART'dENT
CITY OF P.9Lk DESERT
I was very disturbed to see the suggested changes that are being discussed at the public hearing
on Tvcsday, Mar�h 7, 2006. I was a member of the original general planning connmittee and felt
v�ry comfortabl� with our p1an.1 do nat believe that we should rnake the entir� area surrounding
El Pasco into an aroa for commercial hotels. I am aware o� the hotel on Larrera and atn aot
opposed to it as long as it stays within thc ciment height aad density restrictions. I would Iike to
see the a,rca remain a nuxture of homes, smail hotels aad other businesses. I have liveci in the
Shadow 1V�ountain Estates ar� for over 10 ye�s. With increased commcrcial dcvelopment our
traffic it that area has increascd and b�come dangerous. The neighborhood is nsed for a pathway
from EI Paseo ta Portols and back again. My address is 45-950 Mountain. View. T am at the far
end af Mountain View and can still hear the music from Augusta which is vcry disturbing. I arn
not an cxpert on what the total intent of the city is in this regard. I can only express that it does
not sound like these changcs arc in the best intcrest of our n�eighboz�hood. I have becn an active
participaie not onty on the General Plan Committee but most currerctly Art and Public Places.
Unfortwiately I will not bc able to attend the Public Hearing but am available if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sin e� Yours
Donald and Maureen Thampson
45-950 Mvuntain Vicw
Palm Dcsert, Ca. 9226Q
(?60) 346-1676
898-� 200/100�d 1t0-1 9898 111+ 13NNOSa3d-��d Wdt��50 90�Z-1�4-94
c
( �.
DESERT �,�NDS L,'�iIFIED SC[-i00L DISTRICT
.17-950 DUNE P�►LMS R�r'►D
La QUtIvT'�. C� 9?253
FACSIMItE TRANSMI'ITAL SHEE'T ' /
�
T0= � % � J r ��1� 1'RO1M: �r`I�E' � ' if / iV � �
/^`('J
Gc�1ATANY: DATQt �� �� O L �
Q
F U ��/���j� /� j�j TCiAL N(1 GF lAGBi IP1Q{JDLNG COVl�:
f ���l� �
P e Hu�� a�asts ���u r�un�set
RFs
YOt7� �EFBa�Cfi NU�eE�
RGENT L� FOR REVt�1V L7 PI.EAS� COAtMEH7 O PLEAS$ REPLY � Pi.EAS� itECYCL$
NO?FS/COMAl1Ql'i'�
�,��.� !''.�/! ��'J/'%dy' �
�' . .�
rn.e�'��' � ~ ��°
858-� Z00/ZOO�d 110-1 9699 l!!+
13NNOSa3d—�o�a u�d7r:cn ann�—��-a�
, - l,-
Page 1 0
i ,
Bagato, Tony
From: Gail Basse [gbasse@indio.org]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:09 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Cc: jlopez@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Subject: Larrea SUEI Paseo Resort�Overlay opposition
Mr. Bagato,
I am among a large group of South Palm Desert residents who vehemently oppose the changing or amending of cuRent
zoning ordinances and/or subsequent designation of a Resort Overlay Zone that would adversely affect the trafflc, nolse,
views� and characteristic architectural styte of our South Palm Desert neighborhood. The current zaning of this area was
undoubtedy put into place to inhibit just such over blown developments as the one proposed in the "EI Paseo Resort Overlay
area and specifically the project on Larrea Street. If exceptions are allowed, the future of the area and exact types of
developments approved to be built in the area in the future are unknown, but the welcome mat for large developments and
special zoning waivers will be open.
As a city employee myself, I know the responsibility of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission and City Council is to
represent the best interest of the residents first and foremost, not the monetary gain of deve{opers. It certainty is not for the
good of the residents of this area to have zoning changed to allow for higher sVuctures with more "keys" than current zoning
allows. Each "key" potential{y represents at least two automobiles and two or more residents, and higher stn�ctures block vieH
and jeopardize privacy of the surrounding residents.
We are proud of the uniqueness of our neighborhood and the "small town feel" when you walk down EI Paseo and the
surrounding streets. We came to live he�e precisely for the way this neighborhood area is right now and urge the Planning
Commission and City Council to use sound judgment that supports our way of life. We can support reasonable development
that fits within the current zoning constraints but let the big developments continue to over populate Orange County and Los
Angeles and allow our neighborhood to prosper under the current zoning limitations.
Sincerely,
Gail A. and Jack L. Basse
73298 JOSHUA TREE STREET
PALM DESERT, CA 92ZS0
(760) 340-9454
3/?/2006
(
Bagato, Tony
From: Thompson, Maureen (Maureen.Thompson@dsusd.us]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone
Page 1 o
I am a resident in Shadow Mountain Estates. I live at 45-950 Mountain View in Plam Desert. My husband and I are very much
opposed to the change in zoning to a resort zoning changes. I was a member of the general plan committee and have always
been very proud of our city and the great planning that is done with both commercial and neighborhood planning. I was aware th
of the Larrea St. Hotel and felt that it was a needed feature. I do not want to see it increased above the current restriction of 24
feet. I do not want to see the general plan amended and certainly do not want this to become a corridor of hotels. Our
neighborhood community already become a dangerous Vaffic pattem as people cut through from EI Paseo to Portola. We need t
protect our enviornment not add more commerical hotels. As I state one fine but do not change a11 of the zoning. Thank-You fo�
your attention to this matter.
Maureen Thompson
Director of Certificated Personnel
Desert Sands Unified School District
(760) 771-8787
3/7/2006
raL�� Lesen neignt and l�ensity Waivers ( Page 1 0:
� �
Bagato, Tony
From: �mey, Russ [Russ.Omey@experian.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:36 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Palm Desert Height and Density Waivers
Dear Mr. Bagato,
Since f am currently traveling on business and will miss tomorrow's meeting, I decided to email you to register my NO on the
proposed zoning changes. I see no benefit for our great city. l live two b{ocks from the proposed resort overlay, and i see only
bad effects from this, and the precedent that coufd be set, with proceeding with such an approval. Again, I strongly urge a NO
vote.
Sincerely,
Russ 8 Colette Omey
73-510 Juniper St.
Palm Desert 92260
3/7/2006
�. t - Page 1 c
Bagato, Tony
From: Fred Gerber [fred.gerber@verizon.net]
Sent:
To:
Monday, March 06, 2006 4:47 PM
Bagato, Tony
Subject: zoning change, EI Paseo Resort Overtay Zone (EPROZ)
From: Fred Gerber
Sent: Monday, Mazch 06, 2006
To: Tony Bagato
Subject: Development on Larrea Street, proposed zoning change
Dear City Counsel and Planning Commission,
I am unable to attend tomorrows meeting regarding new development / zoning change.
My main concern in regards to the proposed zoning change is the ever-increasing traffic on Shadow Mountain Drive.
During the last few years several factors have contributed to a great increase in private as well as commercial traf�`ic o
our street:
. The Gardens, with all it's employees, deliveries as well as customers
. The raising of the speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph
. Installation of traffic signal at Shadow Mountain and Portola
I would expect that with additional development traffic will continue to increase and I ask that you consider taking
mitigating action.
One of the reasons so many drivers use Shadow Mountain is that there are few stop signs, speed limit is rarely enforced
and that it saves time versus driving on Hwy 111 or El Paseo.
I would like to propose the following:
� Shadow Mountain be closed to commercial through traffic
• Every intersection have all-way stop signs
• Speed limit reduced to 25 mph
• Continuous sidewallc from Portola to Tumbleweed before any new construction
I have read the note about the "no commercial through traffic" rule not being enforceable, but I do remember that the
city of San Francisco has been doing so for many years on selected streets.
Thank you for your time,
Fred Gerber
73860 Shadow Mountain Drive #5
Palm Desert
764.861.4844
fred. gerber@verizon.net
3/7/2006
� , ...
Bac�ato, Tony
From: Ken Seals [kensealsQmsn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 8:39 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone
<
I am a resident of Palm Desert and also a resident of Shadow Mountain Dr.
strongly feel this would be a big mistake for the citizens of Palm Desert.
There is already an enormous amount of traffic that frequents Shadow
Mountain Dr. and flow off of El Paseo. Please stop the Planning Commission
on voting for the "resort zone" for this area.
Thank you
Linda Buchanan
73820 Shadow Mountain Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(!
,..
�
Susan and Doug Myrland
73860 Shadow Mountain Dr #6
Palm Desert CA 92260
760 . 568 . 6304
R�CEI�T�ED
March 6, 2006
]im Lopez, Chair
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
��; ��:�� � 6 1006
:01�iMl;ViTY UEVELOP.`.fEVT DEPARTSiEVT
!'ITY OF P.4��1 DESEdT
Dear Mr. Lopez,
We are urging you to vote NQ on any height and density waivers for the proposed
hotel on Larrea Street. This neighborhood is a{ready dense, with row after row of
multi-family housing units along Shadow Mountain Drive. Shadow Mountain, Shadow
Lake, Mountain View and Joshua Tree are all used as shortcuts for people racing
through the neighborhood, trying to avoid the Paseo and Highway 111. We do not
want "traffic calming" devices that inconvenience residents — we want to avoid
building big hotels that will bring in more cars!
The current boutique inns are good neighbors. Their architecture is consistent with the
character of nearby homes, so they biend in. They increase the appeal of this area,
rr�aking it attractive for visitors and residents alike. We cannot see how a 36-unit hotel
crammed onto the Larrea lot, and topped by a 5' 8" block wall, will be anything but an
eyesore. The Architectural Review Commission called it "really squished together."
This hotel will exceed even the relaxed standards proposed under the EPROZ. With the
grade buildup for the parking garage, it will be over 36', destroying our mountain
views and sense of space.
There is also the issue of the noise this project will generate, particularfy with so many
rooftop pools and spas. I'm sure you know that the Augusta restaurant and nightclub
is a nuisance. The noise moves up the hillside, disturbing people blocks away, The
Larrea Street project will simply increase that problem.
We support reasonable development that preserves the character of this
neighborhood. Palm Desert is unique and distinctive, and that is what attracts people
to visit, shop, work and live here. The area is valuable because, the current zoning is
logical and has been enforced. Our neighborhood is a great example of equitable
mixed use, and we are depending on you to keep it that way.
Sincerely,
�� / / / i �
,� �
/
,•��� , i
i
�• � �
�
City Planning DepartrnentlPlanning Commission
City of Palm Dese�t
73-510 Fred Waring Drive,
Palm Desert, CA
Dear Commissioners,
� ��CEIVED
:��h��f � % 2��6
'OMML'Y[TY DEVELOPNEYT DEPARTME;tT
�ITY OF P�LN DESERT
Having bcen Palm D�ert homeowners for over 20 years we are extremety distressed at the 3 story
development currently being negotiated for the property at 73-811 Lanea St. and the proposed rezoning
amendment to establish an E) Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
The City Charter of Paim Desert was developed for and has always held as a primary tenet of it's existence
the cuno�rt flf the residents of the citv. This proposal and the variance being sought is not in the best interest of
the residents in the surrounding azea for the following reasons:
* The increased traffic resulting from the rebuilt Washington Charter School (to house 700 + students,)
coupled with that which could result from development in the proposed redesignation zone and the
Larrea project, will significantly impact the areas on and around Portola Av., Shadow Moucrtain Av.,
San Luis Rey, Shadow Lake Dr. and Larrea St. This increase in traffic could potentially endanger the
walking student population and residents of those streets.
* The impact on the privacy of r�sidents in properties adjacent to the Larrea St. project will be negative.
The residents of the projected developmeflt will have an activity area two full stories (20+ feet) above
their neighbors aliowing the invasion of the privacy of those in spaces below.
'� lncreased noise factas will disrupt the peace of the surrounding homeowne�rs. There are already
coestwtt noise code violations being perpetratad on azea homeowners by the Augusta Restaurant. The
Larrea project sits immediately south of the Augusta facility and would add one more layer of noise
pollution to our environment.
* Local residents have a sense of who is familiar and who is not in our give�n areas. The possible
increase in transience generated by the variance of the cunent zoning designations will make it more
difficult to iderrtify those who are justified in being in an area and those who are not.
* Home property values will be negatively affe�ted by noise and traffic issues. The beauty of Palm Desert
has always been found in it's gorgeo�u views and peaceful styfe of Gving. We certainly don't want to
see our spectacular views blocked or our peace lost. Both of these proposais lead us down those paths.
As residents of Palm D�sert, we care about our community and consider it important that reasonable
growth and developrnent be allowed in the appropriate areas. The singie family homes were in this area long before
the first shops and/or hotel complexes existed. The introduction of retail shops and hotels were ailowed within the
guidelines of the "neighborhood community" and those in charge were good stewards of those guidelines.
We are not suggesting that developme�t be disallowed in the south Palm DeseitlEl Paseo area, but that
those developers who wish to work within a residential community (of long teaure) eanbrace the esse�►ce of that
community rather than attempt to detract from it. We ask that our Planning Commissioners and City Council
members continue the stewardship of the original founders of our community. We thank you for your consideration
in this matter and expect that you will work to preserve the "essence" of this wonderful community.
Sincerely, � �
._ �':�„ � �;�.,�,,,�, Q
Ron L. Buries and Beverly A. Buries
45-831 Mt. View Av., Palm Desert, CA 92260
� - Page l o
( �
Bagato, Tony
From: Robe�t Rosteck [RRosteck(d�collegeofthedesert.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March O7, 2006 8:37 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Resort Zone Designation
I am writing with rega�ds ta the "resort zone" designation for Shadow M�untain Drive between Portola and Ocotillo. I would also
like to express my opinion on height and density waivers for construction on LaRea Street.
I have been a resident of the Coachella Valtey for the past nine years and in that amount of time l have seen numerous changes
sometimes for the better and sometimes �ot for the better. One thing that attracted me to this area, especially the city of Palm
Desert, was its charm. Being from the Southeast, many cities base their entire appeal on the charm they offer visitors and Palm
Desert has much to offer in that category. However, changing zoning designations to allow for resorts — especially on the edge c
residential prope�ties — will detract from these neighborhoods and allow the commercial to encroach into the residential. Southei
Califomia is changing as it grows, but that doesn't mean that a city like Palm Desert has to give up its character while there are
areas that have yet to be developed (Cook Street) or commercial areas that could be redeveloped to accommodate resorts.
For the past three years, I have lived at 73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive in an apartment complex that spans between Shadow
Mountain Drive and Larrea Street. The properties adjacent to the apa�tment complex on Lanea Street are in need of
development due to the homeless people who have presented themsetves as a threat at times to the community, the unsightly
appearance of the unkempt lots, and the danger the dilapidated buildings present. I am all for development of these properties
within the zoning regulations, however, I don't see the need to approve special height and density waivers. Again, this would
deVact from the charm and the appearance of the valley. IYs nice to be able to stand and look at the mountains from almost any
point in the city without actually having to drive to the mountains ta see them.
Thank you for allowing me to express my opinions on this matter. I know urban development is a problem in trying to balance thE
needs of development with the character of any area. Hopefully, Palm Desert will continue to grow in a ma�ner that doesn't
sacrifice its charm for short term gain.
Sincerely,
Robert Rosteck
73-880 Shadow Mountain Drive #106
3/7/2006
, � � �.-
Bac�ato, Tony
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill D Etherton [pdwiliy@juno.com]
Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:37 PM
Bagato, Tony
gbasseQindio.org
larrea StJEI Paseo Resort Overlay.
Palm Desert is
the fine work our city
past. I implore you no
accommodate developers
Hotels belong on Hwy.
Let's keep Palm Desert
Etherton
the best city in the desert. Due in large part to
council & planning department has done in the
t to change the zoning South of E1 Paseo to
. Do what is best for the residents of this area.
lll.especially those asking for height variances.
the best city in the Coachella Valley.
Thanks, Bill
,- /
Page 1 c
. � �, l
- Bagato, Tony
From: Eva DeRosier {ederosier@dc.rr.comJ
Sent: Tuesday, March O7, 2006 1:05 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Tonight's public hearing
To: City Planning Department
Attn: Tony Bagato
This is to voice my strong opposition to the proposal outlined in the City of Palm Desert Legal Notice regarding Case
Nos. GPA OS-04, ZOA OS-05, C/Z OS-O5, and PP/CUP OS-20.
Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the public hearing today on this subject so I request you accept this email as
my input.
I live on Mountain View Avenue which is a neighborhood that would be directly affected, I believe to its great
detriment, by the approval of the proposal. The benefits of living in our quiet, safe, low-traffic community would
be lost forever.
Please do not approve this proposal! I pray the Planning Commission shows consideration for the existing year-roun�
residents by not making these changes.
Eva DeRosier
73940 Mounta.in View Avenue
3/7/2006
MINUTES
PALiV) DESERT PLANNING COMMISION _ _ APRIL„18. 2000,
The public hearing was left own and Chairperson Lopez asked for
Commission action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tschopp, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 06-01, C/Z 06-01 and
TT 31676 to a date uncertain. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty
absent).
B. 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
Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding
Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies
and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance
amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development
standards for an El Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to
add the El Paseo Overlay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional
use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys,
hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report. He also reported on information
provided by the City's Business Support Manager relative to the benefit that
the proposed project could have on sales tax dollars for the city. Mr. Bagato
noted that with the staff report he attached five additional letters in favor and
one in opposition, and then today two more letters of opposition from
neighbors who had written before and were still opposed to the project, but
they could not attend the meeting. Mr. Bagato said staff analyzed the
proposals, determined there would not be a negative impact and
recommended that Planning Commission recommend to City Council
approval of Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-
20.
Chairperson Lopez asked how many years this property has been vacant.
Mr. Drell said the motel portion has been abandoned for approximately 10
to 15. There were also many lots that have never been developed.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that the overlay zone area had been cut down
considerably since the last time they looked at it and asked if there were any
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIPN _ _ AP12IL 18. 200
plans to increase it in the future. Mr. Bagato replied that over time plans
change. Mr. Drell said it depended on the success of this area. it contained
the obvious areas for redevelopment; the easy ones. Depending on the
success of these projects, that would influence whether there would be
demand for more of the same product. Depending on how lucrative the
business proposition is, that would determine if it warrants in essence tearing
down existing multifamily projects which exist to the west. Again, the
economics today probably didn't warrant that, but he didn't know about ten
years from now. If it turns out to be a great idea, he was sure the future
Planning Commission/Council could decide to expand the area.
Commissioner Tschopp understood how supply and demand worked, but
asked for confirmation that at this time there were no plans to move forward
on additional properties. Mr. Drell said staff didn't anticipate any interest in
redeveloping substantial, well -maintained properties to the west. Again, they
could be surprised, but that was staffs feeling for the near future within the
next five years.
Commissioner Tanner noted that this originally came before Planning
Commission on March 7 and there were a couple of Commissioners who
were concerned about precedent setting. He asked if that had anything to do
with the reduction of the overlay zone area since a substantial amount was
eliminated. Mr. Drell said it wasn't precedent setting. Precedents could be
either good or bad. Their goal was to encourage a certain sort of
redevelopment. It didn't appear to be that productive to encourage it in an
area where there weren't that many opportunities. It was generating a lot
more anxiety and concern by folks who live in those areas when in fact the
likelihood of these sorts of things going on in those neighborhoods was
remote given the existing quality of development. Changes in the city happen
incrementally. The good news with that was that they wouldn't bite off too big
of a piece before they know exactly how it's going to taste and then they
have the opportunity to change, modify and adjust as they go forward into
the future.
Commissioner Tschopp asked for and received confirmation that the traffic
report they were given was for full development of 152 units. He asked if staff
was assuming for this 36-key development that it would be proportionately
less. Mr. Bagato confirmed that the 36 units would be part of the 152
analyzed. He said it would be less than 948; it would be around 100. Mr.
Drell said it was around a quarter. Commissioner Tschopp said that all in all
with this development the traffic trips generated would be fairly insignificant
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION_ ._ _ _._. _ _ _APRIL 18, 2006
and would also keep the streets at a very acceptable level. Mr. Bagato said
that was correct. They were assuming the high side even though the hotel
would be walking distance to the area.
Commissioner Tschopp asked how calculations were done to determine
number of trips for Shadow Mountain Drive, because it seemed that most
people would reach this property by coming down Portola, taking Larrea or
using San Luis Rey and going down Larrea. He asked how they calculated
how many would use Shadow Mountain. Mr. Bagato said they looked at the
blanket number of how much traffic 152 hotel units would produce and
applied that to the current traffic volume on both streets. This was projected
to be the worst case scenario because there was more potential to develop
on Larrea and these numbers would be split up on different streets.
Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked
the applicant to address the Commission.
MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers,
concurred with the staff report. He said he worked closely with staff
to make these amendments to the plan and worked on some of the
conditions for approval. He also had the architect at the meeting with
him to answer any questions. He didn't have more to add that hadn't
already been said at the previous hearing and asked if there were any
questions.
Chairperson Lopez asked for his address for the record.
Mr. DeLeeuw said it was 75656 Via Serena in Indian Wells.
Chairperson Lopez asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a condition regarding noise and
asked how Mr. DeLeeuw would control noise from the deck.
Mr. DeLeeuw said that because it was going to be operated as a
hotel, they had more concern for noise then even the neighbors
because where the neighbors might be irritated, it would affect their
bottom line if they had a noisy guest and they had to make a refund
from the revenue of a room. They would generally have their own
security and a night time security guard and thought they could police
their own noise. It was for their own benefit and they also wanted to
be a good neighbor.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING„ COMMIS 19N _^ APRIL 18, 2006
Chairperson Lopez asked if the tower element locations and the dome on top
could be pointed out on the map. Mr. Bagato did so.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Lopez asked for Commission comments or action.
Commissioner Tanner said he was fortunate to attend the neighborhood
meeting and he thought both sides presented themselves in the first 15-30
minutes. There were several questions asked and he thought the applicant
not only presented a beautiful start to this overlay zone, but that the residents
also would hopefully see as this moved into fruition that this would help the
neighborhood as opposed to hindering it. There were concerns about the
northerly side and he understood that, but this particular project going in
there would be a beautiful start and if they could end up with these kinds of
projects along that overlay zone, everyone would benefit. With that, he was
definitely moving in favor of granting the variance. He congratulated them on
a job well done.
Commissioner Campbell concurred. She has been on El Paseo 18 years and
many of the lots have been empty for all those years. She thought this was
a great project for the area. From looking at the new map, from Portola to
Larkspur, for the time being that was perfect. There were many empty lots
there and they didn't need to tear anything else down for the time being. She
was also happy to see so many letters of approval for the project. She
agreed it was a project well done and she wished them luck.
Commissioner Tschopp liked the idea of cutting the overlay zone down to a
much more manageable area so they could see how it develops out and
what happens. He didn't see this project as generating significant traffic that
would impact the surrounding neighborhoods given the type of roads that
lead to it. Height wise, given the dimensions shown and the way the area
slopes down toward El Paseo and Highway 111 and staffs comment that
there would be no view impact to the homes to the north any more than a 24-
foot home, he didn't have a problem with the height elements. The noise,
crime, and lighting weren't too much of an issue given the architectural
elements, the conditions placed on the project, and the police department
enforcing the laws. So he thought overall it was a very good project. The
architecture would be a great boon to the area and he hoped it would be a
great start for that whole area right there. He was very much in favor of the
project and congratulated them.
0
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING„ Yll „ �,_ _ _ ._ ._. PRIL 18, 200�
Chairperson Lopez concurred. He thought the current overlay zone was a
good location. He believed that area along Larrea needed to be kick started
again and hoped this development would initiate that. He was also happy to
see that the overlay zone had been reduced. He also concurred that this
project should be a nice addition to that location and asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Finerty was absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2389, recommending
to City Council approval of GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05 and C/Z 05-05. Motion
carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0
(Commissioner Finerty was absent).
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2390, recommending
to City Council approval of PP/CUP 05-20, subject to conditions. Motion
carried 4-0 (Commissioner Finerty was absent).
C. Case No. TPM 34211 - WILSON JOHNSON CRE, INC., Applicant
(Continued from March 21 and April 4, 2006)
Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide
83.2 acres into 22 parcels for property located between Portola
Avenue and Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, more
particularly described as APN's 653-280-035, 653-390-091
and 653-390-071.
Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of the
project.
Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked
the applicant to address the Commission.
FA
� CITY OF PALM DESERT �
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 18, 2006
CASE NO: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council for approval of:
A. A general plan amendment adding Policy 10, Program 10.A
and 10.B (Exhibit A) to the Residential Goals, Polices and
Programs section of the general plan.
B. A zoning ordinance amendment adding Section 25.112 (Exhibit
B) establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort
Overlay Zone (EPROZ).
C. A change of zone to add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone to
certain R-3 and Planned Residential properties (Exhibit C).
D. A precise plan and conditional use permit to allow the
construction of a new 12 unit, 36 keys, boutique hotel
condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
APPLICANT: Eugene Breznock
75-656 Via Serona
Indian Wells, CA 92210
City of Palm Desert
(Re: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, and C/Z 05-05)
I. BACKGROUND:
After the March 7, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the properties adjacent to EI
Paseo were restudied to identify the existing land uses and impacts from new
development. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 23, 2006. The meeting
included the applicant's representative and architect, Commissioner Finerty,
Commissioner Tanner, City staff, EI Paseo merchants, and adjacent residents.
During both meetings concerns regarding density, traffic, height, noise and lighting
were discussed.
Existing Land Uses:
Historically the R-3 properties south of EI Paseo, between Highway 74 and Deep
Canyon, has been a transitional land use area between the City's commercial core
(Highway 111 and EI Paseo) and south Palm Desert's single-family neighborhoods.
These properties consist of hotels, apartments, condominiums, medical and general
�.. (
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
APRIL 18, 2006
office uses. Many of the existing hotels exceed the current R-3 density standard of
18 units per acre. The Mojave and Casa Larrea Inn are 26 units per acre and the Inn
at Deep Canyon is 41 units per acre. These hotels were built before the City
incorporated. Since the City incorporated, no new hotels have been developed
adjacent to EI Paseo.
The goal of the EPROZ is to provide development standards to encourage
development of new hotels, a traditional land use in the R-3 zone.
New Development Impacts:
Development under the EPROZ will initially occur on vacant or under developed
properties. All properties west of Larkspur Lane a�e deveioped 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 LaRea
Street, one (1) on Shadow Mountain Drive and one (1) on Larkspur Lane. Based on
current development opportunities, the proposed EPROZ should be applied to the R-
3 properties on north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street, east of
Larkspur to Portola Avenue.
Based on development of the 4.32 acres, different uses were studied to compare
density, traffic, and height:
A. Density:
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 is the maximum number of units that can be developed on
one-acre. The proposed EPROZ density standard would be 36 units per acre.
The following table identifies the possible densities for condominiums,
apartments and hotel development under the current development standards
and hotel development under the proposed EPROZ standards.
R-3 (4) 2.02 acres
R-3 (3) 2.30 acres
TOTAL
22
30
22 36 72
�:�i7
52
30 40
52 76
152
Based on the proposed EPROZ, the maximum number of hotel units is 152.
2
�� /
�, �
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C1Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
APRIL 18, 2006
B. Traffic:
The current traffic volume is 3,564 trips per day on Shadow Mountain Drive,
east of San Pablo Avenue, and is 1,217 trips per day on Larrea Street. These
streets are designated for two-lane commercial traffic in the general plan and
this area t�as a mix of uses. The current traffic vo�ume rs based on local
residents and business owners who live or work in the area.
The goal of the EPROZ is to provide hotels within walking distance to EI
Paseo limiting the need for vehicle use around EI Paseo and Shadow
Mountain Drive.
For analyticaf purposes tt�e Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual was used to identify project traffic impacts for new
development.
Hotels 76/152 6.24 � 474 trips / 948 trips
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 could increase traffic from 3,564 trips per day to 4,512 on Shadow
Mountain Drive and from 1,217 to 2,165 on Larrea Street. 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 generat plan for these streets is 8,OQQ trips per day. With the new hotel
development, Shadow Mountain Drive would be at 32% capacity and Larrea
Street would be at 15% capacity.
Given that new hotels will be within walking distance to many to EI Paseo, it
can be expected that the traffic increase will 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. ihe proposed EPROZ wiit not significant(y increase traffic on
Shadow Mountain Drive and Larrea Street.
C. Height:
The goal of the EPROZ is to promote new hotel devetopment, making them
economically feasible to provide EI Paseo with a stronger economic market.
Regardiess of how compatibfe or desirabfe a fand may be it wi(( not be built if
it does not generate a profit.
Apartments 52 6.59 � 343 trips
C�� �
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
APRIL 18, 2006
�
E.
Currently, a one-acre vacant parcel on Larrea Street or Shadow Mountain
Drive costs approximately $1 to $2 million. With increased land costs,
developers cannot afford to use half of a one-acre parcel for parking spaces
and recreational amenities whether or not the project is for condominiums,
apartments or hotels. Developers need to utilize as much land possible to
make economic sense while providing for on-site parking and recreation
amenities. Any new development in this area will require subterranean
parking structures and roof decks to attract consumers. Due to the narrow lot
depth of these properties, subterranean parking lots will extend above the
ground by 2'6" to 3'. To design an attractive and successful project, the
interior space for each floor needs to be at least 9' high with 1-foot floor
plates. To provide privacy for the hotel guests and adjacent neighbors, the
parapets around the roof decks needs to be a minimum of �'8" to screen the
eye level of a 6' tall person.
The current 24-foot height limit does not allow for new development with
subterranean parking and roof decks. If vacant or under developed properties
in this area are going to be redeveloped, then the height limit needs to be
increased with minimal impact on the adjacent residents. Larrea Street is 13'
lower than the single-family homes on Shadow Lake Drive. The north side of
Shadow Mountain Drive is 6' lower than Shadow Lake Drive. These
properties are at least 150' away from Shadow Lake Drive.
Increasing the current height limit by 6 feet, totaling 30 feet will not impact the
view of the single-family homes to the south. The north side of Shadow
Mountain Drive consists of one-story and two-story developments. The
single-story development adjacent to vacant properties will be impacted from
two-story development whether the height is 24 feet or 30 feet (see section
drawing}. All of these properties are zoned for two-story development and
may be redeveloped over time.
Noise:
Adjacent neighbors are concerned that there will be lou
guests on the roof decks. A condition of approval has bee
hotel guests from using the roof decks after 10:00 pm
Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays.
implement a quiet time to reduce noise impacts to the
owners.
Lighting:
d noise from hotel
n added restricting
Sundays through
This condition will
adjacent property
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 subterranean parking lots are underground any
�
( �
STAFF REPORT
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
APRIL 18, 2006
lighting will seen by the adjacent properties. A 6' high wall surrounding the
project will provide adding screening Lighting will not impact the adjacent
neighbors.
II, SUMMARYICONCLUSION:
Last year EI Paseo generated $210 million in taxable income, which provides the
City with $2.1 million to the City's general fund. The general fund pays for police and
fire protection, parks and recreation, street improvements, general government and
many other services that the City provides. New commercial centers are being
developed throughout the Coachella Valley that will challenge EI Paseo's market
base.
There are vacant or under developed properties adjacent to EI Paseo that need to
be redeveloped. Land uses that do not generate a profit will not be developed
whether or not it is compatible or desirable. Based on land costs, new development
standards are needed to encourage any type of development. The EI Paseo Resort
Ove�tay was created to promote new hotel development, a traditional land use in the
R-3 zone while providing a stronger economic market for EI Paseo. The proposed
EPROZ standards will increase the current density requirement of 18 units per acre
to 36 and increase the building height from 24' to 30'. The proposed overlay zone
will encourage new hotels with minimal impact to the surrounding properties.
The proposed hotel utilizes superior architecture and site planning to create a village
style resort within walking distance to EI Paseo, meeting the goals and objective of
the EPROZ. The precise plan complies with all the proposed development
standards, except for the 31-foot tall tower elements. The City Council may approve
architectural tower elements above the height limit. Since the last Planning
Commission meeting, five (5) letters of support and one (1) letter opposed to the
overlay zone and precise plan have been received.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has deteRnined
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 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 GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05, and;
5
STAFF REPORT ( (
GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C1Z 05-05, AND PP/CUP 05-20
APRIL 18, 2006
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution for GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C/Z 05-05
B. Exhibit A, Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.8
C. Exhibit B, Chapter 25.112 EPROZ Development Standards
D. Exhibit C, EPROZ Locaiion Map
E. Draft Resolution for PP/CUP 05-20
F. Minutes from March 7, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting
G. Traffic Counts and Trip Generation
H. Comments from adjacent residents
I. Exhibits
Prepared by:
�� �
i
Ton Bag
Assistant Planner
Reviewed and Approved by:
' , /��)
P ilip Drell Homer Croy ��
Director of Community Development ACM of Comriltfnity Development
�
C
�.-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY CDUNCIL
APPROVAL A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD POLICY 10,
PROGRAMS 10.A AND 10.6 (EXHIBIT A), A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTION 25.112 (EXHIBIT B) ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE (EPROZ), A CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD THE EL PASO RESORT
OVERLAY ZONE TO R-3 AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS
INDICATED IN EXHIBIT C.
CASE NOS. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 7�' day of March, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
April 18,2006 to consider the request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the
above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to
City Council approval of said request:
1. That the proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance
amendment, and change of zone are consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed general plan amendment, zoning ordinance amendment,
and change of zone 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:
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 GPA 05-04
(Exhibit "A"), ZOA 05-05 (Exhibit "B"), and C/Z 05-05 (Exhibit "C").
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. �
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7�h day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
J�M LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHlLIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS:
Policy 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.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Planning Commission, Community
Development; Redevelopment Agency.
Program 10.B
The City shall create a continuous sidewalk plan for pedestrian traffic within the EPROZ
district.
Responsible Agency: City Council, Pfanning Commission, Public Works,
Community Development; Redevelopment Agency.
3
PLANNING COMMISSI�N RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 25.112
EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
25.112.010
25.112.020
2�.112.030
25.112.040
Purpose
Location
Development Standards
T.O.T.
C
25.112.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexibie
design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to EI
Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant
may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the
standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted
or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a
conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community
DevelopmenUPlanning.
25.112.020. Location.
The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential
properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane,
befinreen Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street.
25.112.030. Development Standards.
Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development
standards:
A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel
development.
B. Setbacks: Setbacks shali be subject to setback standards of the base
zone set forth in this chapter.
C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ
district shall be thirty feet.
D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off-Street Parking and
Loading standards set forth in this chapter. .
E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required
unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
25.112.050. T.O.T.
The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, Transient
Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be applied to the
room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling, lodging or sleeping
purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such room(s) are rented out.
4
;� �E}I�ItI I I I I
� �
=
�...
5, N �
�� �� �
I I� ELLCO/�T
r
' `� � ALESSANDRO D R 4 4� � ~ �- � ( ���j . �
-� ' � fG��l G1� �-( ) 1 I O.P. �R-3(4 R�3(4 �(4J� ��•�R'
� ALESSi4ND1�0 DR— - 4 i
� �C-,1�, S.P.� �,� � � � � 1,1�•P.11 � � � C-1, S.P: I r i.
C-1, S.P.
��
4SE.0 �
i C-1, S.P. Q
,z a
W�_m
:Q
� R-3(4) Z
J �
PALN� DESERT DR� Ni '
STATE HWY 111 �
� P1L-M�DESER� )R ,-�
� �
C-1, S.P. '� C-1,-�S:P. C 1�S�P. !
�� i����
��, EL PASEO J
�3 �, C-1 ,�/ \_.��-=C:�� � � ��ZC.1 �,i
t SI JWn
�IIII R
� i JU
°°°° �l 1 �l �� ' R.
� I PII
�I I I l/ I R,
�T I 1 I I i lo�
_ 11R-2 800_0(4) Z �R-2 �
� 8000,�
�
- --.L S.P.-<
;�"W� o
_ o.s. ��� �
��,�N
- n �
e��
� r,--�.
Clty of Palm Desert
d�
���
.Pi
.c
�
� � , ,�.; . , , ��—.
=�EPPERGRASS<•—
oi ,���� 'ti I I ST I I ��,�
Proposed
GPA/ZOA/CZ
� �����
EL PASEO
RESORT
OVERLAY
0. S. I O.,S. 11 �
ZONE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT P�NNING COMM/SS/ON
Case Nos. GPA 05-04 RESOLUTION NO.
ZOA 05-05 C/Z 05-05
EX H I B I T C °ate:
�
'S� "' P'AL-M� IESIEI I
: �
PLANNING COMMISS GN RESOLUTION NO. \
EXHIBIT D
NEGATIVE DECLARATlON
CASE NOS: GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, AND C/Z 05-05
APPLICANTlPROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B
(Exhibit A), a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112 (Exhibit B)
establishing development standards for an EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ), a
change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential properties on the
north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between Ocotillo Drive, Larrea
Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
April 18, 2006
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
0
C
�_.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN(NG COMMISSION 4F THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL 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 Planning Commission of the City of Pafm Desert, California, did
on the 7m day of March 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to
April 18, 2006, to consider the request by the EUGENE BREZNOCK for approval of the
above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 05-52, 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 EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
2. The proposed location of the boutique hotel, as conditioned, is in accord
with the objectives and policies of the generai plan and zoning ordinance
and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
3. The proposed location of the office boutique 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, Califomia, as follows:
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, subject to conditions attached.
PLANNING COMMISSI�iV RESOLUTION NO. ('
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISS UN RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITI�NS 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. Constn�ction 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. Applicant shall record a conservation easement to the satisfaction of the Director
of Community DevelopmenUPlanning and City Attorney for the undisturbed 4.13
acres of the 4.84-acre site that is being annexed into the City.
4. 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.
5. 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. Ali to be consistent with the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan.
6. 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.
3
PLANNING COMMISSIUN RESOLUTION NO. �
7. Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Section 3.28.030 will be
applied to the room rent for every night a room(s) are rented out for dwelling,
lodging or sleeping purposes regardless of the actual purpose for which such
room{s) are rented out.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City regulating non-transient if the condominiums are sold to individual
buyers.
9. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public
works prior to architectural review commission submittal.
10. The parapets around the exterior elevations facing adjacent neighbors and
Larrea Street shall be 5'8" tall to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbors.
11. 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.
12. Use of the roof decks shall be prohibited after 10:00 pm Sundays through
Thursdays and after 12:00 am on Fridays and Saturdays.
Department of Public Works:
1. Ail 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, shal! 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 Dese�t Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
�
PLANNING COMMISS ON RESOLUTiON NO. �
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.
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 insta(led in accordance with applicable City
standards and the City's Circulation Nefiuork 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:
��
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
�
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 capab(e of providing a potential
gallon per minute flow of:
a) 3000 for commercial structure.
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 ihan 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. Ali 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,
extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75'
fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens
but not less than 2A10BC
walking distance. A "K" type
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 industriai developments). �Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
9. Whenever access into private property is controlied 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".
C:
. � �,
� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTtON NO.
10. All buildings shail 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.
7
C
. „ � : :►. . �,,,, �
:-: ■ it:
Cornmissioner Tschopp stated that he still believed the best use of this
property was commercial. Given that, the project implemented the residenbal
goals identified in the General Plan and moved this forward. He thought the
proposed proje�t would be a togical transition and was in favor.
Chairperson Lopez also thought it was a great projed. He said it was a very
attractive project that woukf add to the stabil'rty at that comer in the future. He
thought it was outstanding. Before going forward, he wanted to make sure
the recc�ni showed they have incorporated the revisions to the resolutions as
noted in the Public Works Condition Nos. 20, 26 and 27, and Community
Development Condition Nos. 11 and 12.
Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to discuss or mention at all the remaining
issue of the construction access on Via Scena. The letter from the
Association basically took issue with it. He asked if they wanted to talk about
it any further.
Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that it was a public street. Mr.
Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez said it is signallzed and that there was
a recommendation to the resolutions and conditions of approval that the
street will be repaired prior to completion of the project. Mr. Drell concurred.
It was noted that there was a motion and second for approval incorporating
the conditions of approval as amended and Chairperson Lopez called for the
vote.
�1411�
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty. seconded by Commissioner
Campbell. adopting Ptanning Commission Resolution No. 2380� approving
Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended.
Motion camed 5-0.
.�.�.�� D. Case Nos. GPA 05-04, ZOA 05-05, C2 05-05 and PP/CUP 05-20,
EUGENE BREZNOCK AND CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicants
Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding
Policy 10 and Program 10.A ta the Residential Goals, Policies
0
r'
'� �, � : :..► . •���� •
(
�_.: ■ ��:
and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance
amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development
standards for an El Paseo Ove�iay Zone; a change of zone to
add the EI Paseo Overtay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residentlal to certain properties; and a precise planlconditional
use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit� 36 keys�
hotel condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, explaining the proposals. He said they
were looking at both simultaneously to detemnine if this is the policy that the
City is loowng to go in the future and if the proposed project met the goals
and policies. He informed the Commission that the proposed EI Paseo
Overlay Zone and proje�t were both presen�ed to the EI Paseo Merchant
{mprovement Distrid and a letter from them was received in support. He
noted that staff received letters from neighbors and some of the concems
were addressed in the staff report.
Concems induded commercial traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain.
He talked with Public Works Department stafF and they agreed that
commercial traiflc has probably increased with deliveries to The Garciens
and the delivery routes coming from other locatlons off of Portola. One
suggestion by a neighbor was to post a"No Thru Commercial Traffic" sign;
however, according to Mark Greenwood, federal and state law prohibit cities
from stopping delivery vehicles from using the most direct route. He said it
would basically be unenforceable because they would have to take truck
drivers to court and prove that this isn't the best and most direct route. It also
wouldn't stop trucks from making necessary deliveries on Larrea and
Shadow Mountain themselves. There were some offices located on Larrea
and Prickly Pear and those trucks couldn't be stopped.
Mr. Bagato said the other option was dosing the streets in that area.
However, that wasn't a good idea because Shadow Mountain is a collector
street, not a local street, and there is more traffic on a collector street. It also
provided aa�ess to EI Paseo for the residents. That wasn't supported by the
Public Works Department. He stated that the speeding issue has been
addressed and the Police Department has been informed. He said there
should be increased enforcement throughout the neighborhood; they were
notified on February 24.
Another neighbor concem had to do with sidewalks within walking distance
to EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that was also something the City wanted to
7
r"'
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANN{NG COMMISSION
��
�j�:; , � � :
promote. One of the policies in the general plan amendment stated that the
City shall design a unifoRn, continuous sidewalk plan if this general pian
amendment is approved. The City could adopt a strategic sidewalk plan into
a capital improvement plan. For the proposed project there would be a
continuous sidewalk to EI Paseo and a new sidewalk would be constructed
with the project.
Mr. Bagato said another issue had to do with roof decks and he indicated
that parapets addressed those privacy concems. He said that after writing
the staff report 16 letters in opposition were received citing oo�cems with
traffic. height, and density. He said there was a{so a letter in favor in addition
to the one received from the EI Paseo Merchants.
In conclusion� staff tooked at the need to provide a stronger economic
market for EI Paseo �o compete with other oommercial centers in the valley
and the new design centers implemented would hopefuily promote high end
bou�que hotels. The hotel overlay zone would provide the standarcis for hotel
development and encourage redevelopment around EI Paseo. He felt the
proposed project met those goats and objedives. He reoommended approval
of the EI Paseo Overiay Zone and the proposed project. He asked foc any
questions.
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Bagato spoke to the EI Paseo
Merchants Association and received a unanimous vote of approval. He
asked if staff held any studies with residents in the area regarding the
overlay or this project in particular. Mr. Bagato said no, just the legal noticing
for this meeting.
Chairperson Lopez oQened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW. President of Villa Property Developers, the
applicant in this matter, came forward. He said the archi#ect was also
present to answer questions about the project architecture. Mr.
DeLeeuw also said he would be happy to address anything that staff
hadn't covered with the economics of the project or the plans for the
project. He thought the staff report addressed many of the issues,
was very complete, and they worked with staff over the best part of
the last year to get the project where it is today. It wasn't the first
rendering or first shot at it. He said they worked very closely with staff
to address many of the issues of the neighbors in the area.
10
�
,, � : :►► ► ���„ •�
�,:: , ��:
He thought something that was very important and the reason for the
overlay zone and what this hearing was realiy about� because this
project could be built without the overlay zone, it just wouldn't be as
good a project. The project, iike staff indicated� was approved once
before at 12 units. This was basically a 12-unit condominium project
that could be built under the exis�ng zoning. The height and
everything else could be built. It wouldn't be as good as the one
proposed and he thought the overlay zone addressed some major
issues in the area.
Anybody in the area� and he read the letters from people in the area�
he thought their issues and concems were very valid, but they didn't
really effect this projec:t. If they walk up and down the street at Larrea,
what they would see is an abandoned building, one warehouse, and
a bunch of vacant lots. No development whatsoever in the area in the
last 15 years. Why? Because it was not economically feasible under
exis�ng zoning and exis�ng regulatbns. How long would that be? He
didn't know. He didn't know what the neighbors really wanted to
happen. They talked about the status quo and how great it is, but he
thoughi they haven't looked down that street.
They also talked about the disco at Augusta and that was valid, but
he didn't think that affected this project or the overiay zone. If
anything, the overlay zone would help with that. With the traffic, he
didn't see anything in this project that really effected the traffic. He
thought the biggest fear in the letters he read was change. This
wasn't a major change and was a change he thought was needed for
the Palm Desert area.
Mr. DeLeeuw said there is a threat to the economic viability of the
area by other cities. He said Indian Wells was trying to attract projects
fike this to their c'ity and trying to get the merchants on EI Paseo to
move down to Indian Wells. Two major developments were for lease
right now. They haven't broken ground yet, but they've contacted
most of the upscale merchant�s. The merchants want to stay in Palm
Desert and he thought the City wanted to keep them.
The overlay zone would bring people in. Hotels increase the tax base
for the City and secondly it hopefully brought affluent people into the
area to spend money and not drive to resiaurants in other outlaying
areas. They will eat at restaurants and shop right in the EI Paseo
11
�
MINUTES
vsi M eFSFRT pu►NNING COMMISSION
�.:. : . � i :
area. In addition. he said the hotels would generate signficant
Vansient occupancy tax for the city. So the City would win in a lot of
ways. He a{so thought the neighbors in the area, ff they thought about
their concems, other than the fact that it wou{d change some things,
it really was the best thing for the area. It is economic development
and it gets vibrancy into an area that is dormant
Mr. DeLeeuw said right now there are homeless people living there.
The subject property has had about frve notices over the tast five
years for vagrants inhabiting the property. There was a motel that
would be demolished for this project.
He said he woutd like the archited to address svme of the
architectural features regarding the height, but basically didn't
considec the hea�ing so much about this project as it was about the
overlay zone and about the economic viability of what would happen
to the EI Paseo area. He thanked them and said he was present to
answer any questions from the Commission or the opposition.
There were no Commission questions.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA. 73-626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert�
stated that he was the project archited and would be happy to answer
any questions.
There were no questions for the architect. Chairperson Lopez said he would
ask for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matters before the
Comrnission. Starting with testimony in favor and referring to the Request to
Speak carcis submitted, he invited Mr. Fletcher to address the Commission.
MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 73-061 EI Paseo� Suite 200, in Palm Desert,
came forwar�d. He stated that he manages a number of buildings on
EI Paseo� seven different properties. He has been managing the
buildings since 1987.
He stated that he was present for two reasons. First, to comment on
the project itself. He thought it was a great project architecturally and
on its own. He was present more to speak on the overlay zone and
impart on them his feeling that this overlay zone is very important to
the ongoing success of EI Paseo. They are getting more and more
oompetition in the valley for their retail stores and the more customers
12
MINUTES
�si iu eE�FRT p�A_N_NING COMMISSI4N
/
,:: . ��:
they can bring to EI Paseo that are close by. the better it would be for
those stores and their economic viability.
One of the things they see with their stores is the challenge to bring
people from the hotels the City has put in place. They are great
hotels, but they are a distance from EI Paseo and it is a challenge to
get people into their cars when they are on vacation and get them to
EI Paseo. He noted the difference in current foot traffic on EI Paseo
versus downtown Palm Springs or Union Square. A coupie of years
ago he was in San Franasco and was standing at Union Square and
wondered where all the people were coming from in the middle of the
day. Didn't they have to go to work? He looked around and realized
that eoonomic base was surrounded by a millan hotets 20-30 stories
tall. They were missing that from EI Paseo. And he wasn't sugges�ng
they have 20-story tall buildings in the middle of Palm Desert, but
thought if they could put in some upscale boutiques near El Paseo
that would be a big benefit to the street. He thanked them.
Referring to the next card, Chairperson Lopez invited Ms. Messenger to
come forward. He said the card didn't indicate whether the testimony would
be in favor or opposition.
MS. FAtTH MESSGENGER, 73-860 Shadow Mountain in Palm
Desert� said she is a resident of Palm Desert living on Shadow
Mountain. She was present to voice her approval of the proposed
project on Larrea and the proposed general plan amendment that
would add the EI Paseo Resort Overtay Zone.
She informed the Commission that she has lived and wo�lced in the
valley for well over 25 years. She has been witness to the growth of
Palm Desert and the building of the original Hahn shopping center,
which is now Weslfield. When that project was first proposed to the
City of Palm Springs and that City declined Mr. Hahn's invitation to
bring value to the city by constructing a regional shopping mall with an
ice skating rink that would attract revenue and growth. The City of
Palm Springs had no future vision and was soon to discover what a
dramatic impact that would have on their business. Mr. Hahn went to
the City of Palm Desert and built his Town Center. From that point an
the city of Palm Springs has never recovered from the loss to
business to Palm Desert.
13
C
i� � : �►► ► ���i, �
1
� � � 1 1 :
Within a short time after the development and success of the Town
Center, EI Paseo was developed. In its original conception it was
designed to appeal to more luxurious shoppers that wou{d enjoy the
intimacy of a small street setting to walk and enjoy outside window
shopping and buying.
Ms. Messenger said the proposed EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
would enable the City of Palm Desert to enhance the special and
unique qual'�ies of EI Paseo by allowing upgrading of existing zoning.
The proposed boutique hotel with its quality design would speak to
visitors who wish a higher standard of accommodations that are within
walking distance to all of our shopping. This would translate to more
dollars spent here in Palm Desert.
Ms. Messenger thought it was important today to keep pace with
Indian We{Is and their proposed developmen� They needed to hold
onto and capture revenue for our businesses here and this overlay
zone was the Frst step. They have a unique opportunity to enable
someone with a vision who is willing to take the risk with the City to
provide a new direction. She thanked them.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. There was
no response. Rsferring to the Request to Speak Cards expressing
opposition, he invited Ms. Cynthia Bliss to come forward.
MS. CYNTHIA BLISS� 73-780 Shadow Lake Drive� came forward.
She stated that she opposed the zoning change. She moved here
about five years ago and chose Palm Desert because it is quiet, she
can see the beautiful starry nights, and the traffic. Those were the
reasons she moved there. Now she sees the change of zoning and
she was worried about her property value, the increased traffic
already on her street with people driving through to go through to
Portola, and she was concemed about that She was also concemed
about the increase in noise, increase in crime, and the loss of her
view. She said she has a view going out, which would be toward the
hotel, oi the mountains.
She grew up in Corona many years ago and watched the changes
there. She watched what they did tv that city. When she retums there,
there is nothing left of what she grew up with. She was concemed
because this is her home, her only home, and she was concemed
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
,�:; . ��:
about the value. She hoped the Commission wouid consider her
comments. She was against changing the zone.
MR. GEORGE JOHNSON� 73-775 Shadow Lake Drive� addressed
the Commission. He said he lived two or three blocks just above the
area. He met with Mr. Bagato, who showed him the plans for the new
building. He said he had no problem with any new projects going in.
He understood that money was usually what happened and that was
why a lot of those places in that type of area can't be developed the
way developers warrt to do them.
There were parameters that City Council and all the members have
put up, for instance the variance they are asking for is to go higher.
He was doing something for himself, but also was speaking for people
who might not want to go out or voice their opinion until it's too late.
If they don't get out and voice their opinion or concems, things won't
happen. With this� he had no problems with any of the things going on
architecturally� it was a good looking design.
The problem he had is when they are going above a 24-foot level
already, they are adding a 5'8" wall onto a sun deck or what was
going to be the jacuzzi area for people to go up and orrto. They would
love to have great people who would not come in, have a few drinks,
get loud and obnoxious and then they would have to call the police
and the rest of the people who would have to get involved. It was
hard enough for them to take care of the disco or whatever it was that
plays music down further. He currently lives three and a half to four
blocks from that area and it carries through there like it's at the next
door neighbor's house. He called the police several different times
and they say they will go and take care of it. So that is a problem he
has with the noise level that will be impacting the neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson said the next thing that was going to happen, in the
police report that they reported badc to Commission, they were
concemed about a crime rate that was maybe going to start to
happen because of the parking structure undemeath the building. And
that would take more lighting that would go into adjacent houses and
single apartment buildings. He didn't know if they got to see any of the
pictures, but a neighbor took a picture out toward the mountains. Not
only would that picture be erased� they wouldn't be able to see the
mountains any more because of the structure going up. His neighbor
15
�
':, �� � : =►► ► •���� •
:: ■ ��:
woutd also have I'�ghting impeding into her place and he thought Palm
Desert had a low light situation and thaYs why there weren't a bunch
of street lights all over the place. Other than that. the noise was a
concem.
He was all for the architecture and related stuff. He would fove to see
the city get better and better and love to see the whole community
and EI Paseo get better. He thought it was doing a great job aiready
with the renova�ons the City has commissioned so the face prints of
all the o{der buildings got redone. Everything was looking really good,
so he had no problem with the actual development of the area.
Mr. Johnson did have a problem with the height and the privacy issue
because he thought people were usually above 5'8" with the
exception of some women and being able to look over into a woman's
unit� maybe when she was changing and forgot to close her drapes,
and that would be pretty devastating to a person. So those were the
issues he had.
MS. NANCY LEPPERT, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive� addressed
the Commission. She said her property is on the south and east
comer of where this project is going. So she had concems, mostly
having to do with height, noise and lighting. She wasn't against having
a proje�t go through, the height was her basic problem. And the other
thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned regar�ding the police report and the
anticipated vandalism in the garage area and having additional
lighting and that sort of thing. That was going to be right in her back
yard.
In add'+tion to that, her view would be changed as well because she
can Iook out her I'nring room and see San Jacinto. IYs a nice view. The
project was pretty with nice cobrs, but it would block her view and that
was something she was very concemed with. She embraced the
change that was anticipated with this project and throughout the
whoie EI Paseo and hotel district and whaYs going on. She thought it
was a very good idea, but didn't like the height, the noise or the light.
Even though there wasn't a lot of single residential homes right in that
Shadow Mountain area, there were numerous families that live there.
She thanked them.
16
�"
�
�� � : �►► ► •���� �ti
�
i�y�:.: •, i� :
MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6,
addressed the Commission. She said that was the same one-story
co-op as Nancy and Faith. She walked around Larrea and around the
neighborhood and was very familiar with i� The first thing she wanted
to do was commend Mr. Bagato because she has been working with
him since she heard about this project in December and even though
he knows she is against it, he has never failed to be responsive.
professionaf and friendly. She thanked him for that.
She stated that she was most definitely against this project, as was
he� husband and several of their neighbors. What drew them to this
part of the valley is that it is an ideal maed use neighbofiood. They
can walk to EI Paseo, they can shop� have dinner and yes, contrary
to conventional wisdom, residents spend money on EI Paseo. She
has dropped her fair share of cash in those stores and restaurants. It
wasn't just tourists. Yet they can still hea� the birds and see the stars
at night. It is a very unique� special place. They can still feel safe
walking around the neighbofiood. She hadn't seen any homeiess in
two years.
Ms. Myrland said the hotel kept growing and growing. It started out at
24 feet and then it became 28 and 31 and now it is 33 with the towers
and another three feet with the increased grade, so they are looking
at 3fi. Having that in her backyard would just destroy that Right nvw
like Nancy she has a lovely view of the mountains and instead she
would be looking at a five foot eight inch stucco wall. The wall was not
the solution. The developer didn't want it, they don't want it, the
customers weren't going to like it. The high end customer wasn't
going to want to have their pool sumounded by a wall. The v�orst thing
was it wasn't going to solve the problem because noise travels up that
hillside. She didn't even realize until she started tatking to her
neighbors how much of an issue the noise from Augusta and the night
clubs are along there. That noise funnels right up the hil{side and they
would be able to hear it very clearly.
So the solution wasn't to keep going higher. The solution was to stay
within the existing zoning which was developed for a reason. All she
could say is don't kill the goose that has been tuming out the golden
eggs by squishing in an overly dense project into an area where it
doesn't belong. What makes this area attractive to visitors and to
residents is it isn't like anywhere else. Indian Wells can build
17
l
�
MINUTES
as� �u eESERT PLANNING COMMISSInN
�
:.: . i�;
something, it wouldn't be like the EI Paseo neighborhood because the
EI Paseo neighbofiood is very distinc�'rve. It has g�wn over the years
and has different styles of architecture. It wasn't cookie cutter.
She stated that the existing hotels are very good neighbors. They
have functioning attractive good boutique hotels in the area that
increase the appeal for visitors and for residents and they are busy,
so they are making money. When she sees that they want to aliow
unlimited density and high waivers red flags went up for her because
this particular project, although lovely, aiready exceeded the height
limit they would have under the resort zone. So that told her that this
was the first of many and they were all going to keep going up and up
and up. As Mr. Bagato said, several of them have expressed their
concems to the Commission in writing and they are concemed about
the increase in traftic and the potential for crime. They are concemed
about the comment that the Palm Desert Police Department made
about the underground parking garage being a great concem for theR
and vandalism. so now they are going to light up the building at night
She would be looking �ight at that building. The Architec�tural Review
Boa�d totd them it looked too squished even for an urban
environment, so putting a 36-key project in a spaoe zoned for 18 keys
was not the way to go.
Ms. Myriand was concemed that they have been working on this
project for a year and this is really the flrst �me that the community
has been involved and leamed about it. As Mr. Bagato said� they
have lots of mul�family units down Shadow Mountain Drive, so each
of those units received only one notice and it was up to the landlord
to circulate it around to everybody. So there are lots of people who
are completely unaware of how this project in particular and the
overlay zone might effect them. She was asking the Planning
Commission to take into account what the resort zone in this
par�cular project will do to the residents because they are the people
who will be looking at it, listening to it, dealing with the trash and the
traffic day in and day out. They were saying they can five with
reasonab{e cliange. She thought the existing zoning was the reason
why the area is valuable and attractive. They were not supporting
height waivers and special exemptions. What has been working is
worlcing and is what has made this area beautiful and valuable. She
thanked them.
18
;
MINUTES
PAI.M DESERT PLANNING COMM{SSION
�
[�'�T;..��: i'lF��I�I�
MS. GAIL BASSIE, 73-298 Joshua Tree Street, addressed the
Commission. She stated that Joshua Tree is one street south of
Shadow Mountain. She said they started coming to EI Paseo about
10 years ago and about three years ago they bought a house to be
within walWng distance of EI Paseo. She knew that EI Paseo was not
wanting for business or people. They have special places they go to
and they can't get in right now because it's really busy.
One big red flag that werrt up for her is seeing that studies were done
without the knowiedge of the residents. It sounded like it was on
purpose� that the reason is so they can slip it through and they
weren't contacted. She noted that Mr. Bagato stated that iYs not a
large change in the height for this particular one, but she asked what
happens in five years when the next guy wants to come in and maybe
add another six feet or eight feet. Then they were talking about four
stories. ThaYs the problem with the changes. In a sweeping motion of
the change of the overiay like that, they don't know what the effec�t will
be in three years or next year because they don't know what might
come in. Traffic was already being divetted up her street Her property
backs up to Shadow Mountain one group of houses past, so she
expected this would change that.
Someone spoke comparing this to Palm Springs and foot traffic in
Pa{m Springs. The main difference she saw to foot traf�ic on EI Paseo
and the Palm Springs people is that the people on EI Paseo are all
carrying bags full of inerchandise that the�ve purchased. She
thanked them.
There was no one else wishing to speak regarding the project. Chairperson
Lopez offered the applicant the opportunity to respond.
Mr. DeLeeuw indicated that the architect oould address the issue of
height. He was present if the Commission had any questions
regarding the density or other issues.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA said he knew he probably wouldn't
change the minds of the people in opposition, but wanted to provide
clarification. They have a two-story building behind this property on
the south side. That pad is about four feet higher then their pad. The
elevation of that building which is already two-stories and the
elevation of their building was basically the same. Whoever had the
19
�
' � �� � : _►. ► •,�u •
(
�:: . ��:
view on that side certainty wouldn't have any view blocked because
their building would be the same height. That's one of the things.
He also indicated that someone mentioned how nice it was to walk to
EI Paseo and he said why not share that experience w'ith visitors if it
was something we like and would fike to promote.
He said the buitding was not 36 feet high. The parapets were about
28.5 feet on the end buildings and about 27 feet on the center
building. There were certain elements raised three or four %et higher
than that, but the buildings were not 3G feet high.
Regarding the parking ooncem, they saw the oomments and were
oonsidering putting in a gate for the residents of the projed so they
would have a gate at the parking. So that issue they could also
address.
He said that pefiaps people were not aware of this project because
up to this point they have been working with the City trying to address
any concems or oomments. I# did take them about a year to get to this
point. They weren't trying to shove this or hide this, or have it at the
last moment, it was just that it had taken this long to get to this point.
They weren't trying to put anything behind anyone or b�ing it in at the
last minute.
Mr. Ochoa said if they saw the rendering, especially the 3-D exhibit.
they would see that this isn't a fow end type of project. This is very
high end and they were trying to make it the best as possible. They
were certainly not going to attract those not affluent enough to shop
on EI Paseo. ThaYs what they were trying to do.
Another comment he heard is that E! Paseo gets a lot of people
during the wintertime. He stated that his office used to be on Highway
111 on the south side for about six or seven years, so he has driven
EI Paseo at night and during the summertime and it is absolutely
deserted. There was no one there. He didn't think it was onfy this
project, but also the other elements needed to be addressed along
side the whole length of EI Paseo to really attract more people. EI
Paseo operates futl year, not just during the wintertime. He wasn't
trying to change anyone's point of view, he was just trying to clarify
some of the comments he heard. He thanked thern.
20
i
MINU7ES
os� iu nFSFRT Pu►NNING COMMISSION
/�
, _.: . 'I'Z��
Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for comments or
action from the Commission.
Commissioner Campbeti said after living in Palm Desert for 20 years. being
on EI Paseo in business for 18 years, and seeing how many changes have
taken place just on the street itseif� when she opened her business 18 years
ago, there were many empty lots. The Gardens wasn't there and now they
see it and it's ali fiiled up. There are tw�o-story buildings there. She noted that
there were many people who were against The Gardens at the time because
it was going to bring in more traffic on Shadow Mountain and now it just
seemed like everyone was living in a great environment.
Also, people have moved recen�y to Palm Desert bo be close to EI Paseo.
They want to have that feeling of walking to a street� shopping and having all
those conveniences dose to home. She didn't think they shouldn't be able
to share this with other people who want to go ahead and come to the desert
to have these big larger hotels. This hotel wouldn't be any different then
Shadow Ridge. lt was lower in height and they could see from the rendering
that there weren't that many windows that people would be peeking out of to
see what was on the other side. _
Commissioner Campbell also noted that people are saying there are so
many people on EI Paseo now and they can't get into the restaurants� but
when someone is in business, the three months from January through Mar�ch
are their peak months. Then they struggle through those summer months
and it was the other people they want to bring into the city. If they have little
intimate hotels iike this, and there are little hotels right there on Larrea and
Shadow Mountain which they really appreciate having� but to bring this
higher scaie hotei to be near EI Paseo and have other people share in the
shopping and the convenience.
She was all in favor of this hotei and the zone change. They would see more
and more of those smailer homes there or even motels there that are in time
going to be replaced, but if not by little hotels like this, then other larger
devefapments. She was in favor of the change of zone and the hotel. She
thought it was a fabulous project.
Commissioner Tanner acknowledged that it was a beautiful project, there
was no question about that, but he shared the concem with one of the
speakers that this opened the door for future establishments with a greater
impact then 30 feet or 35 feet to those that are maybe on an equal level from
21
�
„ � : _►. . •,��� �
��
:; . ��:
a pad standpoint. There was going to be disruption of the beauty of the
Coachella Valley, but that he thought was going to be mitigated by the pad
feve{. He was concemed about doing the overiay zone and doing the entire
rezoning to establish that as a precedent for areas further down and away
from this particula� spot. Again, he thought this was a potentiatly beautifui
boutique hotel, something that EI Paseo and Palm Desert needs. but it would
open that door. That was his concem.
Commissioner Tschopp said there were two issues here. One was the
concept of the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone that wouid put small boutique,
upscale hotels in the vicinity of Et Paseo. He was generaily in favor of that
because he believed the more people they could have living next to a very
nice oommencial center like they have on EI Paseo� the more shopping they
would do and the better off it ia for everyone in the city.
He was a little disappointed that they didn't study the issue a litde bit further
and incorporate maybe members of the residential community around there
that w�ould alsa be impacted by the changes of the zoning. He would like to
see it studled a I'ittie bit more� also given Commissioner Tanner's comments
that if they grant exceptions here, what is going to happen down the road
and how much will that density become as it spreads down toward El Paseo.
So overall he was in favor of the concept� but thought they needed to study
it a little bit more.
On the proposed devetopment� Commissioner Tschopp thought it was
absolutety beautiful and was a great upscale ooncept. He wasn't concemed
so much about the traffic and crime really wasn't an issue because he
thought our Police Departrnent would address it The height wasn't really a
problern for him because the building behind it to the south is two-stories and
wouldn't be any taller than it except for some architectural elements. So he
didn't have a problem with the height. The only issue he had was the density.
They have an 18-unit maximum.
Five years ago they actually approved a two-story 12 unit place and it was
not built. He didn't believe there was very much, if any, opposition to that
going in. So to him it had to be an issue of density and how it effects this
projed and future projects down the road. So at this time he would like to see
the area studied a little bit more and this project studied a little bit more as
to how it fits into the whole general scheme.
22
;
MINUTES
PALM DESEBT PLAMNING COMMISSfON
�
�:: . ���
Commissioner Finerty said she aiways has concem about height and she
aiso had concem about losing Palm Desert as we know it. She was also
warried that Palm Desert was going to tum into Orange County and one of
the reasons she left Orange County was because of how fast it was growing.
She believed that Palm Desert was growing way too fast now and she
wanted to see it siow down and would like to see them take a breath. While
this was a lovely project, she thought it belonged in a different part of the city.
It didn't belong in one of our neighbofioods. The reason she was opposed
to it in the neighborhood was because of the density and because of the
height it was just not the ptace for it. For that reason she was opposed.
Chairperson Lopez looked at it the same way that Commissioner Tschopp
was looking at it. There are two distinct items here, although staff opted to
put them together. The first was the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone. He
thought the concept was one that merited an awful lot of review. Personaliy
he didn't know if it made much sense to have an overlay zone. He has spent
25-26 years here in the community. From San Pablo west there is a large
residential area that was fairiy nice. It's the area that goes east of San Luis
Rey and Larkspur where there are vacar�t lots and abandoned buildings. To
him as a resident it was a terrible eyesore and one that has a tremendous
amount of potentiai. Unfortunately, no one has opted to do this in that area,
at least not from the standpoint of building homes and developing residenfial
areas there on that particuiar stretch. They had one come before them
before and unfortunately it never got off the ground. He drove around there
several times durfng the course of the weekend and said you just shake your
head and ask why isn't this taking off?
He thought they needed to take a look at the EI Paseo Overiay Zone and
take some more time to review it. He thought the concept was a very good
ooncept IYs been said before that EI Paseo is considered the Rodeo Drive
of the desert. He has been in the resort business for a long time and EI
Paseo is one of the major selting factors when selling this desfination. There
are great restaurants and great shops and they can feel proud when driving
down that road, any time of the year. For 4th of July when all the flags are
out, at Christmas with all the lights and it is an absolutely gorgeous place.
As much as he would like to make sure all of those shops are very very busy
and stay busy ali year round, and the restaurants stay busy on a year round
basis, thaYs really a task that our leadership and the community had to take
to consider how to create more demand in this area during off season.
During prime season a person can wait a little while to get into restaurants.
23
' :. i, � i �.► ► ► • t� �i •
C
iyj�,T:��:�f'��I��
On weekends the wait is a long time. But he thought the concept of the
overlay zone was a very good concept that needed more time for review.
Specific areas, one being where this particular project is tocated. is one they
needed to look at a little bit Ionger and take a good vievir of to welcome a
projed such as this.
Chairperson Lopez said the second item was the project before them tonight
He thought it was something that was reatly needed in that area and hoped
that a project like this would help just to bring in additional projects of a
similar quality. From a standpoint that this would be a boutique hotel
probably demanding relatively good sized rates, but obviously people would
have access to Ei Paseo within walking distance to those areas. He was
concemed about the density and he was particularly ooncemed about the
height Although there were architectural elements� he thought the
developer and architect could come up with some ideas that would help to
atleviate some of the concems in the community regarding the height. He
hoped they would work together on it.
At this point in time, he was not particularly in favor of the application before
them this evening, although he was not in opposition to the concept. He
thought they needed to review this a little bit more and perhaps have a study
group or at least have the oommunity involved in it. They did a lot of work
with the General Plan and this was maybe a little different and smalter
concept in scope� but he thought it required more study. He was in
oppositbn to the project this evening.
Canmissioner Finerty didn't know if the right thing was to continue this and
ask the applicant�and architect if they were interested in scaling back the
project and reducing the density, the height, obtaining neighbofiood input.
or to ask staff to prepare a resolution of denial. She asked if they could go
a little out of order and ask the applicant if this was something they would like
to look at.
Mr. DeLeeuw said there were certain things regarding the density.
Once again, this was proposed as a 12-unit condominium project with
strictly a condi4onal use permit allowing it to be operated conditionally
according to the terms staff would put out as a 36-unit hotel project.
He said they could build the 12 units right now, no prob{em. They
were providing 41 parking places for the 12 units now. The conditional
use permit probably wouldn't require that, it would onty require 29 or
30 if it was strictty condominiums.
24
�
„ � : _.► . ► • �� �� •
, : . ��
W ith all due respect, Commissioner Finerty said she wasn't asking Mr.
DeLeeuw to promote his project again, she was asking if he was willing to
talk with the neighbors and willing to go back to the drawing board and look
at scaling this back and reducing the height. Whether they wanted to say it
was 12 units, it had the potential for 36, so i�s semantics and was stilt going
to bring in the increased density. She asked if he was willing or not to work
with them because that would determine the way the Planning Commission
decided to vote.
Mr. DeLeeuw thought they have worked well witF� staff and were
happy to work again with staff. There had been a lot of compromises
already regarding height and everything. Some of the height factors
were as a result of neighbofiood input There was neighborhood
input at every level. This was the first time it had been before the
Planning Commission, but it has been in the paper and in public.
hearings before as recently as a month and a haff ago. Yes, they
were willing to work with somebody. They didn't want to have the
project tumed down by Ptanning Commission for something they
didn't do. A lot of the stuff they were proposing he thought had been
done already because there has been a lot of worlc on this project and
a lot of work done with the overlay zone.
Commissioner Finerty noted that at the beginning Commissioner Tschopp
asked if there had been any meetings with the neighborhood and she
believed Mr, Bagato said that other than the legal noticing. there had not
been. (Mr. Bagato concurred.) So there really hadn't been any input from the
neighborfiood. GeneraNy developers wil{ go and have meetings and explain
their project while working with staff. This isn't generaiiy the first opportunity
when trying to get a project approved that is out of the ordinary for a
residential neighbofiood. This isn't the first opportunity they should be
meeting with the homeowners and the neighbors.
She noted that there was great concern here from a lot of the neighbors
because it was going to change the character of their neighbofiood.
Therefore� since they were there first, they needed to be incorporated into
some of the initial conversations so that hopefully an agreement could be
reached. But at this point with the density and the height, she believed three
Commissioners were ready to give it the hands down unfess there was some
compromise. She understood that he has already worked with staff and that
he has already made compromises, but what she was saying to him is that
this will require further work and further compromise.
25
i
MtNUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSInN
:: ■ ��:
Mr. Deleeuw thought a compromise was possibie.
Mr. Drell said that what the appiicant was trying to say is that he would like
a continuance to see this studied more. Commissioner Tanner asked ff there
should be a point of orcler to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Drell said yes.
Chairperson LopeZ said that this was a question to the applicant.
�Il�
Cammissioner Finerty moved to con�nue this matter for six weeks to give the
applicant time to relook at the projed, meet with the neighborhood and to
see how he and his architect might go about reducing the density and the
height so that a projed like this could fit better into the neighbofiood.
Chairperson Lopez seconded the motion. He asked for further discussion.
Commissioner Tanner requested darification. They were talking about the
overlay zone and to actuatly have a new zone. He asked if they were talking
about this right here today, because if that was the case he was not in favor.
Mr. Drell said they were talking about two things. In order to build projects
like this� they have to change the standards in the R-3 zone. They could
change the standards wholesale in the R-3 �one which woutd then apply in
every zone in the city. Or through this overlay they could apply these
standaMs very selectivvely and in only one location within the R-3 zone. So
they were saying that these height standards would not apply in every R-3
zone in the city. onty within this confined area close to EI Paseo.
Mr. Drell exp{ained that staff had a dilemma, as explained by Mr. Bagato� in
that in all our other planned zones there is an exceptions provision that says
if they have a unique project that they really iike that has some differences
with standards, they can approve them on a case by case basis. That was
still an option wrth this application. Instead of having this overlay zone, they
oould put that little exceptions section into the R-3 zone.
He also said they weren't really creating a new zone in that respect. They
were applying some different standards very selectively in a particuiar area
to an existing zone. He said it would appfy to the area identified on the
overlay zone map.
He indicated there were two types of applications. They could separate them
if they wanted, but staff thought it would be good to talk about them together
because they could see the standards and see the project that would be
�
26
(
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
:.: ■ � � :
developed according to those standards. But in theory and in practice they
were separate.
One is an application by the City to create a special set of standards in
proximity of EI Paseo for hotels and then to look at a specific project that
needs those standards for the Commission to approve i� If they felt
uncomfortable about designating this whole area or part of the area, they
coufd either make the area smaller if they feit it reatly only made sense east
of San Pabto, not west. Or if the�d rather, they could selectivety put in an
exceptions section within the R-3 zone for hotels.
Commissioner Tanner said that would help witfi their discussions during the
next slx weeks. He asked if these altematives would be made available to
them. Mr. Drell said that was the other suggestion. To study it, he thought
they needed more speciflc direction and if they wanted to create a{ittle
subcommittee to work with staff to talk about these issues. Unfortunately, on
stage isn't aiways the best place to delve into afl these things. Again, they
have residents here and anyone here who wanted to participate, he
suggested that they submit their name and phone number to staff. He said
that with homeowner's associatwns it was a lot easier to contact people.
Here they were talking about whole disparate areas and thaYs what they
have public hearings for. They notify everyone and they are having the input
here. But now if there are those in the audience who waM to participate and
talk about this in a more intimate setting with some members of commission
and staf�, anyone interested oould submit their name and staff would set up
meetings.
Commissioner Finerty asked when they did the Freeway Overlay Zone if it
went to the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) and if that
committee was sti11 around. Mr. Dre11 said it was not around. Commissioner
Finerty asked about creating something like that because this is something
unusual and she knew that if they changed it in this area, there was no
question that it would move up and down east and west EI Paseo. This was
opening the door. There was no question. Her thought was they needed to
realfy think this through about what direction they want it bo go. how high they
warrt it to go, what the density would be and the full impa�t. She didn't know
if it would be advantageous to look at this as a project by project basis. Then
they woufd have a hotel here, a boutique there, and residential, and it woufd
be mumbo jumbo. They needed to have some well thoughi out plan for EI
Paseo to stay oompebtive with The River and with lndian Wells, rather than
to just piecemeal i� That was how she saw the direction they were heading
27
��
�i � : �.► ► ► � << �� •
cr
'��_.: . ��:
right now. Piecemeal. And they needed to have a more weli thought out
ptanning process.
Mr. Drefl didn't think it was piecemeal. He said they were comprehensively
designa�ng an area and setting the standards. He thought they were doing
the exact opposite. He said one could argue about the appropriateness of
the whole policy and if they want to actually attract hotels or not, tf the
condusion is they don't want to attract hotels� then surely they wouldn't want
to do this. That was the goal. But it was to do it comprehensivety with what
staff thought was the minimum standards that would be required ta attrad
the money. As they knew, hotels were a very difficult business proposition
any where. They just had to talk to the City's Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Fnerty clarified her point by saying that this is for the overiay
on propertles on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane
between Ocotillo� Larrea and Portola. They have one area. But what about
east and west of this? Mr. Drell replied that the main retail sec4on of EI
Paseo was pretty much defined by Portola to Highway 74. That's why staff
felt that was the appropriate area to promote it. But she was right. There
might come a time in the future when the retail portion of EI Paseo would
wrap ali the way back to Highway 111. He said we are always reexamining
our policies� adjusting as they see projects occurring, correcting mistakes
when they are made. What they do is try to cxeate the environment for the
private market to do what we want it to do. As he has observed over the last
25 years, our standards have not been especially effec�ve in these areas if
they want to attract hotels. In fact, west of San Pablo they haven't attracted
anything. So the first question is if they want to attract hoteis. The second
question is what it would take to do that.
Comrnissioner Tschopp thought those questions should have been
answered before coming before the Planning Commission. Staff prior to
coming to them should have had those answers and enlisted the residents
and the busir�ess people of the area before this general plan amendment
overlay for a very extensive area was even looked at. He thaught the big
concem tonight was what the overai{ impact on the area would be if this was
approved. They were uncertain about that� so they were asking staff for more
study with the people involved and to come back.
The second issue was that he thought there was a really nice project here.
They didn't know how it frt into the general plan amendment submitted to
them tonight. This plan runs from Portola all the way to Ocotillo. That was a
28
(,.
„ � : _.►► ► •���� •
�
�,:: ■ ��:
big area they were requesting for boufique hotels that could have extensive
amounts of density� height variations and so forth. What he was saying is
they need to study this to make sure this is what they want and then go
forwarcl. Mr. Drell asked what specific issues he wanted studied.
Cornmissioner Tschopp thought he heani them tonight in this meeting. Mr.
Drell asked about density. Is it good or bad? The density is the density. He
wasn't sure how they study it. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this was built
out, how the density would effect the entire area and the living conditions of
the people there.
Commissioner Finerty noted that when the general plan was updated, they
spent months trying to look at all the impacts for changing the general plan
and changes of zones and everything that was contained within the general
plan. This was something they got all in one fell swoop tonight trying to move
forvvard a�d she thought they needed to slow down.
Chairperson Lopez agreed that they did a lot of work on the general plan and
this was something that merited additional revie�w from the standpoint of the
residents. He reiterated that he supported the ooncept, but he thought it
needed some additional thought as bo exact locations of the zone area, and
good or bad� this project was attached �o this particular application and they
both had to be judged as one at this particular point in time.
Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a motion on the floor for
continuance and a second and asked if there were additional comments or
discussion. He called for the vote. Mofion carried 5-0. Chairperson Lopez
indicated that it was oontinued foc six weeks (to April 18, 2006} and reiterated
to the residents that the applicant for the hotel project was present and the
other applicant was the City of Palm Desert and they could direct their
questions and wish for involvemer�t to them.
Mr. Drell asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wanted to participate
with staff in the discussions. They could have up to two.
Chairperson Lopez stated that the public hearing would remain �g� for the
continuance.
Commissioner Tanner said he would like to participate. Commissioner
Finerty also volunteered.
29
�
� � li � ► � \ 1 1 � ll 11 � �
!�.
� ►. ■ 1 1 :
Mr. Juan Carios Ochoa came forvvard and stated that as the architect,
they are accustomed to finely tuned projects� so he weicomed the
opportunity to do as much as they could to hopefully arrive at a point
where everyone was happy. There was always room for improvement
with every project.
Chairperson Lopez thanked him and thanked everyone for attending.
Mr. DeLeeuw said he wanted �o clarify one item. He didn't answer the
question they asked previousfy about whether or not they met with
people in the community. For their project they met with ali the
residents directly around them. At least two of them appeared here;
one in favor and one against their project. But they did not go out to
anyone outside the zone because as indicated, there were two
appiicants here. Him for one simple project and the City of Patm
Desert for the other. He thought they did their homework and met with
people in the area, but didn't feel it was their job fio go out to everyone
e{se in the whole area for the rest of it
IX. MiSCELLANEOUS
Chairperson Lopez noted there were no Misceilaneous items, but pointed out
in the previous meeting minutes there was reference to the communication
with the City of Rancho Mirage about the Lowe's project. He thought
Commissioner Finerty asked that they perhaps get some feedback frvm Mr.
Drell regarding any discussions regarding that issue. Mr. Drell said that as
explained at the hearing, R had to do with why landscaping hadn't gone in on
the residentiai side. They were being delayed by the undergrounding of the
{ines which had a guideline going over to their side that had to be
undergrounded. That was now undergrounded. So right now there was no
obstacle to Mr. Solomon to install his landscaping. His understanding was
that Lowe's was in discussions with the developer to donate some trees to
enhance that landscaping. A resident stili appealed that decision� so it would
be going to Council. He thought that answered the question.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Campbe(1 indicated the meeting would be next
Wednesday.
���
All Suites Hotel
(311)
Average Vehicie Tr(p Ends vs: Occupied Rooms
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 3
Average Number of Occupied Rooms: 167
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Occupied Room
I Average Rate
6.24
Data Plot and Equation
w
'C
H'
�
�
�
�
�
>
Q
II
F-
,,soo
Range of Rates
5.61 - 6.85
Standard Devia�on
2.55
Caut/on - llae CarofuAy - Sn►all Samp/s S/sis
�200_ ..........:...........:...........:..........:....................... �--....
; ; � : X : � :
�,�oo .. ..........: ......... : ......... :......... : .... .. : ......... :.......x..
�'� _,.......... ......... , ..•-•••• •�'•-•...... ......... ......... ..........
900-, ..........: .. ..'�... :.......... ;..........:...........'...........:.........,
X : : : : :
800 • � • � • � • � • � • f •
130 140 150 180 170 180 190
X= Number of Occupied Rooms
x nctw� nasa Pams ------ Av.ra�. R.n
Fltted Curve Equatlon: Not givsn
Tdp Generation, 7th Edition
571
R2 ='""
r;� �7
Ins�tute of Transportation Engineers
F�
(
Low-Rise Apartment
(221)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 22
r Avg. Num. of Occupied Dweliing Units: 264
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
r`
Generation per Occupled DweNing Untt
.-• ,. Ave�age Rate Range of Rates
. 6.59 5.10 - 924
� Plot and Equatlon
� o00
, - : : : : : : : : : .
. . . . . . . ,-
� e�_ ..................:.....�....., .... ,.................� ......._...
: : : : : : : � .x
. . . . . . ;-' .
5.000-...... ................••- ...... ••-• . •••••. • •-....• .-.... ......
� � � • � �: : .' : : :
� : : : . � . .. :. .. � .. . � ..............�.......,.. ..
� 4�000 _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . � : - • - : - - : : :
� � : : . : ' . : : :
� . . . . . . . .
� 3,000- ......:.......:.......:...... .x .�'. , .... ;......; ......:..••-•:.......:......
> . . . :'�x : . . . . .
� . . . . . . .
II : . . X.'�' . . . .
� . . . . . . . . .
2 � _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X. . . .'�' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .x ^ : � : : : :
' X : �4C . : . . . .
: ,' X X : : : : : : :
1000_...... � ... '.x..... . ..... ..... ...... . ..... ..... ..... .............
. x, � . . .
. x, : : : ' : : ' :
o• , � � � i � i � i � i � , � i � i � i
0 100 200 300 400 500 800 700 B00 900 1000 1100
X= Number of Occupied Dwelling Units
X Actu�l Qata PoirKs FltEed Curv�
Fltted Curve Equatbn: T= 5.12(ln + 387.53
Standard Deviation
2.84
- - - - - - Averay� Rab
R� = 0.93
�
0
Tiip Generaiion, 7th Edition
Kk.L�
Institute of Transportation Engineers
( (
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
(230}
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dweliing Units
On s: Weekdey
.:
�
r� �
�':
' �
�
>
.. &
�
>
Q
II
F-
rc
. .�-
Number of Studies: 54
;' Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 183
_. Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Generation per Dwelling Unk
�' �. Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
r--
, 5.86 1.83 - 11.79 3.09
� Plot and Equation
� - e,000 .
�000� . .... : ... . ....:..... . �-�- . .... . .... . .... , .... . -��- . -... . .. .,��..--
s000_......;.....' ..................................................,,... ._...,.....
5�_ ......:.....:.....:.••••:••.'-• ••-... ; .....' ..........: ;.... :.. .._. : ....
: : : : x: . : : :
� : : : : : : : : . : x
4000_........... ... .... .... ...-. �- . .... .. .... .... .... ...
3� _............ ...............X...�,... ......... .........................,.....
. . . x � . . . . . . .
2 000 __ . . . . . . . . . . . : . . X. . : . X . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . ; . . . . ; . . . .
. x X ���' : ' X . : : :
x >C �X x.
. .......•......�............•.. ...:. ..
.. ..............•_........••
1'�yy\ _. . . . .Y . .
NN
,��1 x
K
� ' I '
�;. � ��
`:,. x Actwl Dah Polntt
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I '
200 300 400 500 600 700
X= Number oi Dwelling Units
Fnced c,�,►.
Fftted Curve Equatton: Ln(n = 0.85 Ln(X) + 2.55
Trlp Generation, 7th Edition
367
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' �
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
- - - - - - Averape Rats
R� = 0.83
�
Institute of Transportation Engineers
�- s}aays
� b
�
o �o
� Z
�
� ;aa4S
0 owu�n�Noa
� •�
F
�
�
�
r
�
N
V
T
m
0
N
0
�
�
>
0
0
�
c
g
�
�
�
N
O
€s
�
b
0
�
�
0
01
�
b
�
Nl a33M319W(L1011S OOOMN02lI 90QZ/q7 atvn OI J w�� U��I�E (GaO� �1
.r wrwo
�IQ Nfb�1Nf10W MOO�dHS „ �', �' �',� �,,,a„ �r w� •w�a0°�� v�Oo�i�,c
�w+�s �rv�l a� �� ,� _ � � 1►�w�nr�o sx�o� �'�eir�d
3� Wed io � :,� ��, 90oZ l�rW �vn�wrua �3�3�'T Ztlit���� ���
�J J
3NV1 0331M3'18Mf11 Ol tL A�MH'JIH 1'IQ2l.i (Xri6) 033dS TrJLLli1� 3�Y213AY 3H1 NO 035Y8 SI I1N111 033dS 030N314N0�3ti 3H1
d/N s�us�.�vavN� xv�va0 �n�r�wo�
03M011`d �NI�2i`dd 133a1S—NO / b�un� / ean� SNOl110N0� 21301f10HS
M/2i ,09 t1 NIH11M .lVM4b02! ,Oq 1N31�93S N9I530 AYMOVOt!
S301S H108 Nl`dM301S ON ��tival Nvta�a3a
d/N sNowallo� ��oad
d/N Nouvn�a3dns
3n08tr 33S �o�o� Nou�3sa�Ni
�����/��/���������/ // NOt1�3S2f31N1 I JulO1SIH NO S�IllO�
3lIW 8Z'0 ►+� �3s
1332i1S 2i01�3110� NOLL1/JI�ISSVI� AVMOVOM
t+/N 3wmon �val �iNo 3�va3nv
��8� bi-SZf �z8� �i-SZ 8S/8N-(3�Vd NI Y) 3J'Vd HdIU Ol
i 6Z�8�0� BS/8N-a33dS 3JrlIIAY
��/S� es/eN—(x wse) a�as iv�wa�
0� t�nn m�ds �Nus�x3 �
0� �Mn amds mar�w�3a
E ��f1J �S
�i
! ��
i
l�
i
�\
�
�
Wwn a33ds aaa�wno�aa) (xx)
Lwn a�ds a�sod tx+ilsx� 'i xx
NOLLYJO� A3A�lf1S 3NOZ O33dS a
NJIS dO1S ONLlSIX3 T
dQ1S.lVM-IlVONLLSIX3 �
IVNOtS �lii1R11 ONLLSIX3 $O
V3W AOf11S �
:PtwO��
.- -,
•� \
( �
�
� O
� �� -�
�
� �� �
�
��� ��,
� � 1
�
� �
M
�
�
�
�� ��
i���
� �
O I � i
� �
� �
�
�
r��.
p �
\ y
s,s
� ��
o�!�
�
�
u tdi �
v
T
� � N
�2 �
� O
- - . . . . . � ��
o "'
o �
o`� m� c o r'� �' o' ��� �
z 6 � � � �° � N � m � � � � ; �� �
� � �s 8 Z � .� � �, � � � �
� � O Z p � � ►Id 2 n � � � �/f �Z � O
�o� �z��_���^o�$$ _
� �o � 2 � A � m C �
> 2 � f� IA � > � Z � � � �
� � � G o - � � � � " ;
i �
� �
� o O�
� � �
i z � >t
G) p Q D
� � � �
�
c � S�e
� �
y � � � � � SEE SHEET 2
�� �� � �
�
��
�
\
� ��
� �
� \
m l
\ \
� � �
�
� � � �
, � D D n I
r W
�
O D p (!� O O �. n�
( Z � rn m �A c� 0D �
I Z�� D Z Z m` V O Z� �''' G+ W
� D�_� D D W �� D N n\i t.\.+ ��
i m Z m�� � u c o r a
� '� D � � L, Q'
i D � 2 \ � N
. � � N � �
. � \ �
; � � p ....
� D �
� r \
�' � \.
N � m �
�_ � � o
�v ` \
� o .� \
m C \
o C \
o p � �
� C � �
Z A
v D �
Z
� �
�
0
0
(/1 (!S = ■
� A a W � �■ \.
.. ,-. � .
tn 2
0
i:\POATA\tOt04289\CAOU\TRANSFM^OLV\SFEEO ZONE\SNADOW MOUNIAIN ORiVE-3 OWG JDORA00 S/16/06 11:50 om
�
: ' �
I
-� -
1 O
.. i -r�
� �
-� —
- I �
_f —
_I _
�_
� I -�
% `
��
�
� i
�
�
» i
z� .
�=
�
i
�
L
�
SEE SHEET 4
�
-1 �
� �� �
�
� � �
� �
��� m �
� � �
� �
� �
�
�
�
�
�����p
3 �
O � � �
� �
� �
�
��
r��.
� �
� 4�
R
v�
�
�
� _
�v
No
��
��
oo�
���
o D
D Z �
� �
�
m
�
s�
�3
p = mQ � c o �C�C�]]s o � 0 �j � �N�{ n
� = C � '+J � � N y � � � � � � _ ;
�•+ S � � mA g _Q � � � �'� � ;
A € � O � p � p N = n � � y N � �
; o g� z� z Q � r 8
�,, �����
O � � � � � _ � Y � � N ' m C �
m �5 v�i � � i � � �
8y -�( u�i � � L c� v�
m n � � � � � � � v a
g � � � � �
� ,�
�
a
� �
� �
z �
� � �
m C �
' � \
�\ `
� O �
n C � �
� � V
� � D r \ � ►v
�
O O�
� O D p N\ O fr*1 v N
ti z � m �' .�.� �'' N
,� f m c'' Z� N.i
k D,i�j 2 7rC D D �\`� A D O� ONO O O
� � Z o m�m � � �
; D � � �*t
'D Q� _ \ � r-•
� D � �
� � cn O
� �
� � .
� � �
D \-
r \
� O \ --�
o r�T{ �
� � , \ \
�
0
S
�
�
�
C
a
C
N � 2■
� � ■
A C�
A � � � �
:°. r- _ .
N Q
M:\POATA\t0104i89\CADO\TRANSFMnP�V\SPEEO ZONE\SHAOOW MOUNTAIN ORIVE-�DWG JOOR�DO J/16/06 11:51 om
vx �
T
� � ti
�Q I5��
�l m�p
Oy� C
m� �
o �
��
�
�
�
�
Q
�
�
0 0�
�
� � �
<
Q � �
� �<
� �
�
SEE SHEET3
i 1�4��
� —
I �i
I —
\
i—.
��
— I
—�
.- �
�
�^
0
0
r" �
Investment Property Advisors
REAL ESTATE VALUATION AND ADVLSORY SERV[CFS
March 20, 2006
1�� 1. wr�
stok�t
RECEIV�D
�-: `.,7 21 2006
Mr. Philip Drell
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Proposed El Paseo Overlay Zone
Dear Mr. Drell,
'4JSMUN]TY DEVELOP:IE\? DEPARTI�EYT
CITY OF PALM DESEBT
I represent Mr. Steve Topol, the owner of the property located at 45300 Portola Avenue, Palm
Desert, CA. This propert.y is currently leased to the United States Postal Service.
After discussing the implications of the proposed El Pasea Overlay Zone with my client, I would
like to express our interest in approving not only the proposed Overlay Zone, but in extending the
zone to include R-3 zoned parcels located to the east of Portola Avenue along the south side of
Larrea Street.
We feel that the establishment of the Overlay Zone would be a meaningfu[ step in helping to
preserve El Paseo's place as the pre-eminent shopping destination in the Coachella Valley. Clearly,
the addition of "boutique" hotels will enhance the district's appeal and further its reputation as a
pedestrian-&iendly environment.
We urge the Community Development staff and the members of the Planning Commission to
approve the El Paseo Overlay Zone and to include wit}un its boundaries all of those R-3 zoned
parcels that are situated along the south side of Larrea Street.
Please feel free to contact my office with any questions or commenis.
Thank you,
�i'/�7��`
V
Jeffrey J. Wysazd
(� ��
77-Sli.� C'ouncry C.'lub Urivc, Suitc 232,1'alm Desert, C:ilifomia (760) 772-7�100 Cax: 17ti0) 772-7h77 c-mail: jwysard�msn.com
Mar 22 2006 1:02PM J� �"Y COEUR 9� �'1 8670 p,2
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 2006
R�chard G. Bente�, ��� COMMUN[TYDEVEiAP�dBN?DBPA3iTMBI'R
8���. �! $��rage ���� CITY OF PALM DESERT
5100 Cacmpw Driw, 9utt� 204, ]N�ewport Beach, C,A 9�660
Z1el: (949ja61-1440 l�ax.• (949j.a62-8670 li�ob�lt: j7I4J747'-2000
Lhnai �•rbenter�bentert� fe. con�t
Lic. #�4S93Z7
March 22, 2006
Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert
SENT VIA FAX
Dear Mr. Sagato,
I am a homwvmer in the Vista Paseo community in Palm Desert. My main
resideace a,nd business is located in N�wpari Beach but I spend every weekend and most
holidays at my Palm Desert home. I use ttus home to entertain clie�ts and friends on a
regular basis. They enjoy the close proxunity to the main shopping area of El Peseo.
The only negative to this situation is that thtre arc no high-end hotels in the
imm�iatc area for my guests and they end up having ta atay in Indian Wells. On busy
weekends this ends up being very inconvenient
It would be ideal if a high-�rui hotel is built in the immediste area. My guests
would dafinitely span�d more time in the El Paseo shopping district if they didn't have to
drive back and forth from a hot,el in Indian V�iells. I would like to encourage and would
completely agi�ee with any plans to build a new hotel of ti�is caliber in the Palm Desert
area.
I trust you will take this into consideration with your fut�ue plans for the area.
Sincere
�
Richard G. Benter
Mar. 21 06 02:17p MIKE�M9�R 760-3y`��32 p.l
� , �. �
MR. TONY BAGATO
CiTY OF PAi.M nFSFRT
3-21-2006
This letter is in rega�d to the proposed hotel on Lan�ea srt. As an owner of an adjacent
business-Palm Desert Mobil this proposaI is very good idea for all businesses on El Paseo
It will for sure increase thc traffic on Lark spur which needs it badly and in t,erm that it
self will increase the shoppers to the whole area. .We all know that El Paso needs more
visitors 8t shoppecs for businesses to survive in the lang summer months. Beirig in the
same spot for 18 years I for sure like to see a project l�ce this completed .Good luck with
your decision and hope it will be for the benefit of all the busines.ses in the area ,after aU
this is commercial zone area is not ?
Sincerely
� i�• ,-'/l�ti/ •
Paim D�t MoW!
73-d11 iiw�l 111
Palm D�Nr� CA t22i0
(7Q0� �4d-�22
! 760 774 0613 RUTHERFORD RE�L E�
Ruthcrford Rca! Estntc, Inc �' 15 03 57 03 27 2006 1/1
RECEIVED
Mt. Tony Bagato
Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert
Fax number: 341-7098
DeBT IVI�'. B8gSt0,
MAR 2 $ 2Q06
COMML'NITY DEVEIAP�{EVT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PAL11 DESERT
I have attended the last 2 meetings that were held regarding the proposed El
Paseo Hotel and V'�Ilas and the proposed hot�el overlay for tb.e subject area. I
think it's too bad that both of these issues are on the same agenda. I support
both proposais but specially tb.e Hotei,
I live at 74-224 Chicory Street and my office is at 74-040 El Paseo. I have
lived withiu walldng distance of El Paseo for 17 years. I have watched many
retail stores and restauran#s fail ovez t�e years. El Paseo is no# paved with
gold. The Iocal business operatots struggle because of the seasonal nature of
the foot traffic an,d customers that shop El Paseo.
My frieads owned aad operated My Mother's Garden for IO years. They did
a great business during the peak 5 months but for the rest of �tie year they
couldn't make ends meet They finally gave up and walked away. A.nather
good friend owned Napa's Tapas.l�e did very well but the summers put him
out of the business and he had to sell.
My point is the pr�posed El Paseo Hotel will provid�e high-ead customers for
El Paseo year rouad. This is especi�ally unportant for the Fast en+d of EI
Paseo because that area is cut off from the generat foot traffic along the
street by the 3 bank build'uigs.
I listened to complaints at the meetings from a lady whose view will be
affected by the hotel. It would be affected by aay building thai was
construct�ed there. She should hP►ve takea tbat into cvnsideraiion before she
purchased her unit Also i heard complaints reg�arding car traffic aiong
Shadow Mountain. The propos�ed hotel would add no addition�l car traffic
because any patrons would access the premises from the North.
Greg Gill
: � Pagelc
.( � .
Bagato, Tony
From: Ron 8� Bev Buries [uncndunc@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1o:04 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Cc: Susan Myrland
Subject: Neighbort�ood Input Committee
March 23, 2006
Tony Bagato,
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive,
Palm Desert, CA 92260.
Deaz Tony,
This letter is to follow-up concerns expressed to the Planning Commission (3-7-06) in our eazlier letter. Due to
rnedical issues we aze unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Neighborhood Input Committee regarding the Larrea
and El Paseo Rezoning projects, but we do wish that our thoughts on these issues be addressed again and entered into
the record for the meeting tonight.
We are in strong opposition to the "Larrea"project, not for the development itself, but for the exceptions being
proposed to current zoning to accommodate the development and the initial (apparent) attempt to push it through
without public norification/comment.
The property, as it stands now, looks shabby and does detract from the neighborhood, so the concept of improvement
great, but the exceptions are NOT.
Our primary concerns with the current proposals aze:
• Noise- Rooftop pools and the noise that they will generate will create a noise nighhnare. We continue
to fight the noise problems generated by Augusta Restaurant (which sits almost 75 yards due North of
this project) and their outside music on the weekend. The P.D. Code Enforcement Dept. and the City
Manager have done an abysmal job in altering that situation; so why should we think that they could d�
a better job controlling the noise generated by rooftop pool parties (on a daily/nightly
basis.) Build, but put the pooUspa
area within the development buildings. The buildings will act as sound buffers to attenuate noise and
keep it &om disturbing residential neighbors uphill.
• Increased density of property- The proposed increase in the number of keys/units in the existing code
concerns us. We grant that the increase generated by o� this one development will not significantly
impact the neighborhood traffic; but once the door is opened, the almighty dollar will win out and more
and more property owners will increase potential usage to a maximum level. This will create a traffic
nightmare on Larrea, on 5hadow Mountain and San Luis Rey, and will add to the already dreadful
Washington School "bypass freeway" of Shadow Lake Dr. and Mountain View Av. We don't want to
see lights, stop signs and speed bumps to tame tra�c, but rather, a good sense approach to planning anc
controlled development to mediate the situation.
Page 2 of 2
In addition, the issue of an Elementary School (Washington Charter} soon to house 700 + students
sitting in such close proximity to an area expanding the number of transient guests increases the
3/23/2006
' r- Page 2 0
• �' � �^ (
potential for dangers �� ?_ ang children who may walk in the azca:
• Height of Structures- The height of buildings has always been a big issue in Palm Desert. In our first
development experience with P.D. (20 years ago) single story development was the on� option
available to a builder.
After living with that limitation for two decades we recognize the wisdom of our city founders. Pa
Desert is blessed with awesome views, why spoil that? When two-story units started to alter our skyli
in the business areas, we started losing our uniqueness. Palm Desert is a special place and we need
preserve that. I think that the primary question here is, how many of us (or you) would want (t
equivalent o� a three-story (36'6") building in our backyard or next door? We all live on a down-r
slope and that inherently creates even greater height variation from one property to the next. We need
have a"community think" mindset here to protect all.
El Paseo is unique and will remain that way whether there are 18 keys or 36 keys in this project. The old adage "less
more" really is the issue here. We are exclusive because we aze unique. That will not be improved on by putting mo�
and bigger housing complexes (hotels or condos) along the proposed El Paseo rezone area; in fact, it will make us les:
exclusive. The proposed exceptions and zoning change will just make Shadow Mountain/El Paseo into another "hote
row" or sorts.
In summary, develop, but do it with conscience. Put vourself as the nei�hbor. Think of the effect this would have o
you personally and then expand that effect to the community as a whole. Do the current proposals benefit the
community, as a whole? No, they do not! Apparently, there has been argument that "Shadow Lake and Joshua Tree
(reference to those of us on the committee who live away from the immediately affected area) wouldn't be affected b}
a 2-story building", that is correct, we will not personally have the view &om our home distorted, but we walk and
drive on the city streets and we currently are very personally affected by the noise emanating from the immediate are;
in question (Augusta). For those reasons we personally fight what it will do to "our community" not just us.
Sincerely,
Ron and Beverly Buries
45-831 Mountain View Av.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
1-760-346-0472
3/23/2006
�
MINUTES
PALM DESER.T PLrANNI,NC COMIVJISSInN
, . „ I�AARCH 7!, 20�(�,fi
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he still believed the best use of this
property was commercial. Given that, the project implemented the residential
goals identified in the General Plan and moved this forward. He thought the
proposed project would be a logical transition and was in favor.
Chairperson Lopez also thought it was a great project. He said it was a very
attractive project that would add to the stability at that comer in the future. He
thought it was outstanding. Before going forward, he wanted to make sure
the record showed they have incorporated the revisions to the resolutions as
noted in the Public Works Condition Nos. 20, 26 and 27, and Community
Development Condition Nos. 11 and 12.
Mr. Drell asked if they wanted to discuss or mention at all the remaining
issue of the construction access on Via Scena. The letter from the
Association basically took issue with it. He asked if they wanted to talk about
it any further.
Commissioner Finerty asked for confirmation that it was a public street. Mr.
Drell concurred. Chairperson Lopez said it is signalized and that there was
a recommendation to the resolutions and conditions of approval that the
street will be repaired prior to completion of the project. Mr. Drell concurred.
It was noted that there was a motion and second for approval incorporating
the conditions of approval as amended and Chairperson Lopez called for the
vote.
Action
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner
Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2380, approving
Case Nos. PP 05-28 and TT 33120, subject to conditions as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
a...� D. 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
Request for approval of a general plan amendment adding
Policy 10 and Program 10.A to the Residential Goals, Policies
E:3
/
�
MINUTES
PAL,M DESEjtT PL AN,N�,NG C(lMMISSIA� _ ,, ,. _ _ . _ . . . .. , . ., . . _ MARf;H 7 � 2��R
and Programs section of the General Plan; a zoning ordinance
amendment adding Section 25.112 establishing development
standards for an EI Paseo Overlay Zone; a change of zone to
add the EI Paseo Ove�lay Zone to R-3 and Planned
Residential to certain properties; and a precise plan/conditional
use permit to allow the construction of a new 12-unit, 36 keys,
hotei condominium project located at 73-811 Larrea Street.
Mr. Bagato reviewed the staff report, explaining the proposals. He said they
were looking at both simultaneously to determine if this is the policy that the
City is looking to go in the future and if the proposed project met the goals
and policies. He informed the Commission that the proposed Ef Paseo
Overtay Zone and project were both presented to the EI Paseo Merchant
Improvement District and a letter from them was received in support. He
noted that staff received letters from neighbors and some of the concerns
were addressed in the staff report.
Concems included commercial traffic and speeding on Shadow Mountain.
He talked with Public Works Department staff and they agreed that
commercial traffic has probably increased with deliveries to The Gardens
and the delivery routes coming from other locations off of Portola. One
suggestion by a neighbor was to post a"No Thru Commercial Traffic" sign;
however, according to Mark Greenwood, federal and state law prohibit cities
from stopping delivery vehicles from using the most direct route. He said it
would basically be unenforceable because they would have to take truck
drivers to court and prove that this isn't the best and most direct route. It also
wouldn't stop trucks from making necessary deliveries on Larrea and
Shadow Mountain themselves. There were some offices located on Larrea
and Prickly Pear and those trucks couldn't be stopped.
Mr. Bagato said the other option was closing the streets in that area.
However, that wasn't a good idea because Shadow Mountain is a collector
street, not a local street, and there is more traffic on a collector street. It also
provided access to EI Paseo for the residents. That wasn't supported by the
Public Works Department. He stated that the speeding issue has been
addressed and the Police Department has been informed. He said there
should be increased enforcement throughout the neighborhood; they were
notified on February 24.
Another neighbor concern had to do with sidewalks within walking distance
to EI Paseo. Mr. Bagato said that was also something the City wanted to
�7
(..
MINUTES
PAt.M,DESF,RT PLANNIN , . „ ,,_,. , . . . ,. . H 7„ 200R
. . M I. . ION, . MARC„ „ . , ., „ , ,
promote. One of the policies in the general pfan amendment stated that the
City shall design a uniform, continuous sidewalk plan if this general plan
amendment is approved. The City could adopt a strategic sidewalk plan into
a capital improvement plan. For the proposed project there would be a
continuous sidewalk to Ef Paseo and a new sidewalk would be constructed
with the project.
Mr. Bagato said another issue had to do with roof decks and he indicated
that parapets addressed those privacy concems. He said that after writing
the staff report 16 letters in opposition were received citing concems with
traffic, height, and density. He said there was also a letter in favor in addition
to the one received from the EI Paseo Merchants.
In conclusion, staff looked at the need to provide a stronger economic
market for EI Paseo to compete with other commercial centers in the valley
and the new design centers implemented woufd hopefully promote high end
boutique hotels. The hotel overiay zone would provide the standards for hotel
development and encourage redevelopment around EI Paseo. He felt the
proposed project met those goals and objectives. He recommended approval
of the EI Paseo Ove�iay Zone and the proposed project. He asked for any
questions.
Commissioner Tschopp indicated that Mr. Bagato spoke to the EI Paseo
Merchants Association and received a unanimous vote of approval. He
asked if staff he{d any studies with residents in the area regarding the
ove�lay or this project in particular. Mr. Bagato said no, just the fegal noticing
for this meeting.
Chairperson Lopez o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. WILLIAM DeLEEUW, President of Villa Property Developers, the
applicant in this matter, came forward. He said the architect was also
present to answer questions about the project architecture. Mr.
DeLeeuw afso said he would be happy to address anything that staff
hadn't covered with the economics of the project or the plans for the
project. He thought the staff report addressed many of the issues,
was very complete, and they worked with staff over the best part of
the last year to get the project where it is today. It wasn't the first
rendering or first shot at it. He said they worked very closely with staff
to address many of the issues of the neighbo�s in the area.
�
MINUTES
Pl�LM DFSERT P,LANI�INC C(I,MMtSS�QH . , _.. . .,,,_ . . . .,, „ ,, ,_MARCH„7���0�16
He thought something that was very important and the reason for the
overlay zone and what this hearing was really about, because this
project could be built without the overlay zone, it just wouldn't be as
good a project. The project, fike staff indicated, was approved once
before at 12 units. This was basically a 12-unit condominium project
that could be built under the existing zoning. The height and
everything else could be buift. It wouldn't be as good as the one
proposed and he thought the overfay zone addressed some major
issues in the area.
Anybody in the area, and he read the letters from peopfe in the area,
he thought their issues and concerns were very valid, but they didn't
reafly effect this project. If they walk up and down the street at Larrea,
what they would see is an abandoned building, one warehouse, and
a bunch of vacant lots. No development whatsoever in the area in the
last 15 years. Why? Because it was not economically feasible under
existing zoning and existing regulations. How long would that be? He
didn't know. He didn't know what the neighbors really wanted to
happen. They talked about the status quo and how great it is, but he
thought they haven't looked down that street.
They also talked about the disco at Augusta and that was valid, but
he didn't think that affected this project or the overlay zone. If
anything, the overlay zone would help with that. With the traffic, he
didn't see anything in this project that really effected the traffic. He
thought the biggest fear in the fetters he read was change. This
wasn't a major change and was a change he thought was needed for
the Palm Desert area.
Mr. DeLeeuw said there is a tl�seat to the economic viability of the
area by other cities. He said Indian Wells was trying to attract projects
fike this to their city and trying to get the merchants on EI Paseo to
move down to Indian Wells. Two major developments were for fease
right now. They haven't broken ground yet, but they've contacted
most of the upscale merchants. The merchants want to stay in Palm
Desert and he thought the City wanted to keep them.
The ove�iay zone would bring people in. Hotels increase the tax base
for the City and secondly it hopefulfy brought affluent people into the
area to spend money and not d�+ve to restaurants in other outlaying
areas. They will eat at restaurants and shop right in the EI Paseo
11
�
MINUTES
PA�M DF�E,RT PIpANNING f:(�I'AI�AISS�ON , , . .. .. ,. „ . „ _ .MAI�(;H 7, 200R
area. in addition, he said the hotels would generate significant
transient occupancy tax for the city. So the City would win in a lot of
ways. He also thought the neighbors in the area, if they thought about
their concerns, other than the fact that it would change some things,
it really was the best thing for the area. It is economic development
and it gets vibrancy into an area that is dormant.
Mr. DeLeeuw said right now there are homeless people living there.
The subject property has had about five notices over the last five
years for vagrants inhabiting the property. There was a motel that
would be demolished for this pcoject.
He said he would like the architect to address some of the
architectural features regarding the height, but basicafly didn't
consider the hearing so much about this project as it was about the
overlay zone and about the economic viability of what would happen
to the EI Paseo area. He thanked them and said he was present to
answer any questions from the Commission or the opposition.
There were no Commission questions.
MR. JUAN CARLOS OCHOA, 73-626 Highway 111 in Palm Desert,
stated that he was the project architect and would be happy to answer
any questions.
There were no questions for the architect. Chairperson Lopez said he would
ask for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the matters before the
Commission. Starting with testimony in favor and referring to the Request to
Speak cards submitted, he invited Mr. Fletcher to address the Commission.
MR. DAVID FLETCHER, 73-061 EI Paseo, Suite 200, in Palm Desert,
came forward. He stated that he manages a number of buildings on
EI Paseo, seven different properties. He has been managing the
buildings since 1987.
He stated that he was present for finro reasons. First, to comment on
the project itself. He thought it was a great project architecturally and
on its own. He was p�esent more to speak on the overtay zone and
impart on them his feeling that this overlay zone is very important to
the ongoing success of EI Paseo. They are getting more and more
competition in the valley for their retail stores and the more customers
12
MINUTES
PALM, DESERT �'IrANNI . - . e , . �, • �, , N. . .. _ ., . _ . .. . .
, MAsRC H 7,_ 20(1R
they can bring to EI Paseo that are close by, the better it would be for
those stores and their economic viability.
One of the things they see with their stores is the challenge to bring
people from the hotels the City has put in place. They are great
hotels, but they are a distance from EI Paseo and it is a challenge to
get people into their cars when they are on vacation and get them to
EI Paseo. He noted the difference in current foot traffic on EI Paseo
versus downtown Palm Springs or Union Square. A couple of years
ago he was in San Francisco and was standing at Union Square and
wondered where all the people were coming from in the middle of the
day. Didn't they have to go to work? He fooked around and realized
that economic base was surrounded by a million hotels 20-30 stories
tall. They were missing that from EI Paseo. And he wasn't suggesting
they have 20-story tall buildings in the middle oi Palm Desert, but
thought if they could put in some upscale boutiques near EI Paseo
that would be a big benefit to the street. He thanked them.
Referring to the next card, Chairperson Lopez invited Ms. Messenger to
come forward. He said the card didn't indicate whether the testimony would
be in favor or opposition.
MS. FAITH MESSGENGER, 73-860 Shadow Mountain in Palm
Desert, said she is a resident of Palm Desert living on Shadow
Mountain. She was present to voice her approval of the proposed
project on Larrea and the proposed general plan amendment that
would add the EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone.
She informed the Commission that she has lived and worked in the
valley for weN over 25 years. She has been witness to the growth of
Palm Desert and the building of the original Hahn shopping center,
which is now Westfield. When that project was first proposed to the
City of Palm Springs and that City declined Mr. Hahn's invitation to
bring value to the city by constructing a regional shopping mall with an
ice skating rink that would attract revenue and growth. The City of
Palm Springs had no future vision and was soon to discover what a
dramatic impact that would have on their business. Mr. Hahn went to
the City of Palm Desert and buift his Town Center. From that point on
the city of Palm Springs has never recovered from the loss to
business to Palm Desert.
13
f,.
MINUTES
�A�.M DF,SERT PL,.AN�11N,G COMMISSinN , ._ , . „ _ . . . . ... _ , �!°►RCI� 7, 2AO,fi
Within a short time after the development and success of the Town
Center, EI Paseo was developed. In its original conception it was
designed to appeal to more luxurious shoppers that would enjoy the
intimacy of a smafl street setting to walk and enjoy outside window
shopping and buying.
Ms. Messenger said the proposed EI Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
would enable the City of Palm Desert to enhance the speciaf and
unique qualities of EI Paseo by allowing upgrading of existing zoning.
The proposed boutique hotel with its quality design would speak to
visitors who wish a higher standard of accommodations that are within
walking distance to all of our shopping. This would translate to more
dollars spent here in Palm Desert.
Ms. Messenger thought it was important today to keep pace with
Indian Wells and their proposed development. They needed to hold
onto and capture revenue for our businesses here and this overlay
zone was the first step. They have a unique opportunity to enable
someone with a vision who is willing to take the risk with the City to
provide a new direction. She thanked them.
Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. There was
no response. Referring to the Request to Speak Cards expressing
opposition, he invited Ms. Cynthia Bliss to come forward.
MS. CYNTHIA BLISS, 73-780 Shadow Lake Drive, came forward.
She stated that she opposed the zoning change. She moved here
about five years ago and chose Palm Desert because it is quiet, she
can see the beautiful starry nights, and the traffic. Those were the
reasons she moved there. Now she sees the change of zoning and
she was worried about her property value, the increased traffic
already on her street with people driving through to go through to
Portola, and she was concemed about that. She was also concerned
about the increase in noise, increase in crime, and the loss of her
view. She said she has a view going out, which would be toward the
hotel, of the mountains.
She grew up in Corona many years ago and watched the changes
there. She watched what they did to that city. When she returns there,
there is nothing !eft of whai she grew up with. She was concerned
because this is her home, he� only home, and she was concemed
14
�
MfNUTES
PAL III� nFSERT PL, I� .. N
M�RCH 7, 2�O,fi
_, �. e , , � , „ � , �� . . ... .. .. .. .. .,. . _ .
about the value. She hoped the Commission would consider her
comments. She was against changing the zone.
MR. GEORGE JOHNSON, 73-775 Shadow Lake Drive, addressed
the Commission. He said he lived two or three blocks just above the
area. He met with Mr. Bagato, who showed him the plans for the new
building. He said he had no problem with any new projects going in.
He understood that money was usually what happened and that was
why a lot of those places in that type of area can't be developed the
way developers want to do them.
There were parameters that City Council and alf the members have
put up, for instance the variance they are asking for is to go higher.
He was doing something for himself, but also was speaking for people
who might not want to go out or voice their opinion until iYs too late.
If they don't get out and voice their opinion or concems, things won't
happen. With this, he had no problems with any of the things going on
architecturally, it was a good looking design.
The problem he had is when they are going above a 24-foot levei
already, they are adding a 5'8" wall onto a sun deck or what was
going to be the jacu�i area for people to go up and onto. They would
love to have great people who would not come in, have a few drinks,
get loud and obnoxious and then they would have to call the police
and the rest of the people who woufd have to get involved. It was
hard enough for them to take care of the disco or whatever it was that
plays music down further. He currently lives three and a half to four
blocks from that area and it carries through there like iYs at the next
door neighbor's house. He called the police several different times
and they say they will go and take care of it. So that is a problem he
has with the noise level that will be impacting the neighborhood.
Mr. Johnson said the next thing that was going to happen, in the
pofice report that they reported back to Commission, they were
concemed about a crime rate that was maybe going to start to
happen because of the parking structure undemeath the building. And
that would take more lighting that woufd go into adjacent houses and
single apartment buildings. He didn't know if they got to see any of the
pictures, but a neighbor took a picture out toward the mountains. Not
only would that picture be erased, they wouldn't be able to see the
mountains any more because of the structure going up. His neighbor
15
(
%
MINUTES
PAI.�,M DE,SFRT P�.,AN�#�;NG CnMMiSSin,�l _ . . .._ .. , . ., . ,. MARCH 7; 200Fi,
would also have lighting impeding into her place and he thought Paim
Desert had a low light situation and that's why there weren't a bunch
of street lights all over the place. Other than that, the noise was a
concem.
He was al) for the architecture and related stuff. He would love to see
the city get better and better and love to see the whole community
and EI Paseo get better. He thought it was doing a great job already
with the renovations the City has commissioned so the face prints of
all the older buildings got redone. Everything was looking really good,
so he had no problem with the actual development of the area.
Mr. Johnson did have a problem with the height and the privacy issue
because he thought people were usually above 5'8" with the
exception of some women and being able to look over into a woman's
unit, maybe when she was ehanging and forgot to close her drapes,
and that would be pretty devastating to a person. So those were the
issues he had.
MS. NANCY LEPPERT, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, addressed
the Commission. She said her property is on the south and east
corner of where this project is going. So she had concems, mostly
having to do with height, noise and lighting. She wasn't against having
a project go through, the height was her basic problem. And the other
thing that Mr. Johnson mentioned regarding the police report and the
anticipated vandalism in the garage area and having additional
lighting and that sort of thing. That was going to be right in her back
yard.
!n addition to that, her view would be changed as well because she
can look out her living room and see San Jacinto. It's a nice view. The
project was pretty with nice colors, but it wou{d block her view and that
was something she was very concerned with. She embraced the
change that was anticipated with this project and throughout the
whole Ef Paseo and hotel district and what's going on. She thought it
was a very good idea, but didn't like the height, the noise or the light.
Even though there wasn't a lot of single residential homes right in that
Shadow Mountain area, there were numerous families that live there.
She thanked them,
�
(
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLA�ININC ,C,OMM,ISSi�N , . _ , , . . , . . „ . „ , „ MARCH ,7� 2RA6
MS. SUSAN MYRLAND, 73-860 Shadow Mountain Drive, Unit 6,
addressed the Commission. She said that was the same one-story
co-op as Nancy and Faith. She walked around Larrea and around the
neighborhood and was very familiar with it. The first thing she wanted
to do was commend Mr. Bagato because she has been woricing with
him since she heard about this project in December and even though
he knows she is against it, he has never failed to be responsive,
professional and friendly. She thanked him for that.
She stated that she was most definitely against this project, as was
her husband and severat of their neighbors. What drew them to this
part of the valley is that it is an ideal mixed use neighborhood. They
can walk to EI Paseo, they can shop, have dinner and yes, contrary
to conventional wisdom, residents spend money on EI Paseo. She
has dropped her fair share of cash in those stores and restaurants. It
wasn't just tourists. Yet they can still hear the birds and see the stars
at night. It is a very unique, special place. They can still feel safe
walking around the neighborhood. She hadn't seen any homefess in
two years.
Ms. Myriand said the hotel kept growing and growing. It started out at
24 feet and then it became 28 and 31 and now it is 33 with the towers
and another three feet with the increased grade, so they are looking
at 36. Having that in her backyard would just destroy that. Right now
like Nancy she has a lovely view of the mountains and instead she
would be looking at a five foot eight inch stucco wall. The wall was not
the solution. The developer didn't want it, they don't want it, the
customers weren't going to like it. The high end customer wasn't
going to want to have their pool surrounded by a wall. The worst thing
was it wasn't going to solve the problem because noise travels up that
hillside. She didn't even realize until she started talking to her
neighbors how much of an issue the noise from Augusta and the night
clubs are along there. That noise funnels right up the hillside and they
would be able to hear it very clearly.
So the solution wasn't to keep going higher. The solution was to stay
within the existing zoning which was developed for a reason. A{I she
could say is don't kill the goose that has been turning out the golden
eggs by squishing in an overly dense project into an area where it
doesn't belong. What makes this area attractive to visitors and to
residents is it isn't like anywhere else. Indian Wells can build
17
�Ul
21M JUN -7 file 10: 06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER . 25.112 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY
ZONE, EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-05
AGENDA PACKET
SET10f1 r\ T'7-) - -
ORDINANCE NO. 1118 MEETING DATE 40'
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the City Council does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment, as provided in the attached Exhibit "A" to create Municipal Code Chapter
25.112 et. al. The El Paseo Resort Commercial Overlay Zone.
SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby
certified as shown on the attached Exhibit "B".
SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JIM FERGUSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
ORDINANCE NO. 1118
Chapter 25.112
EXHIBIT "A"
EL PASEO RESORT OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT
Sections:
25.112.010
25.112.020
25.112.030
25.112.040
Purpose
Location
Development Standards
T.O.T.
25.112.010. Purpose.
The purpose of the El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone (EPROZ) is to provide flexible
design standards and incentives for hotel development within walking distance to El
Paseo. Whenever the EPROZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant
may choose whether to use the flexible EPROZ standards for hotel development or the
standards of the base zone for other development that the zone allows as a permitted
or conditional use. In order to obtain approval of a hotel under the EPROZ standards, a
conditional use permit application must be filled with the Department of Community
Development/Planning.
25.112.020. Location.
The EPROZ will be added to the base zone of the R-3 and Planned Residential
properties located on the north side of Shadow Mountain Drive and Tumbleweed Lane,
between Ocotillo Drive and Portola Avenue, including Larrea Street.
25.112.030. Development Standards.
Hotels proposed under the EPROZ will be held to the following development
standards:
A. Density: Maximum density shall be 36 units per acre for hotel
development.
B. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be subject to setback standards of the base
zone set forth in this chapter.
C. Height: The maximum building height for hotels in the proposed EPROZ
district shall be thirty feet.
D. Parking: Parking shall comply with Section 25.58 Off -Street Parking and
Loading standards set forth in this chapter.
E. Exceptions: The standards of Sections 25.112.030 shall be required
unless modified by the development plan approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
25.112.050. T.O.T.
The EPROZ standards will apply to hotel development only, therefore, transient
occupancy tax (T.O.T.) per Municipal Code Chapter 3.28 will be applied for every night
a room or rooms are occupied.
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1118
EXHIBIT "B"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NOS: ZOA 05-05 as it relates to GPA05-04, C/Z 05-05, and PP/CUP 05-20
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval a general plan amendment to add Policy 10 and Programs 10.A and 10.B
(Exhibit A), as it relates to a zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 25.112
(Exhibit B) establishing development standards for an El Paseo Resort Overlay Zone
(EPROZ), a change of zone to add the EPROZ to R-3 and Planned Residential
properties on the north side of Shadow Mountain and Tumbleweed Lane, between
Ocotillo Drive, Larrea Street and Portola Avenue (Exhibit C).
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert,
California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in
support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid
potentially significant effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3