HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03 & DA 07-04 Amnd #1 (Davis Street Lnd Co.) Resolution No. 09-41
Ordinance No. 1186
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of Amendment #1 to a Precise Plan of
Design, including Conditional Use Permit and First Amendments to
Development Agreements, to allow construction of a new 42,539
square foot single-story retail and restaurant development, with the
adoption of an addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration as it relates to the project thereto. Subject properties are
located at 73-545 EI Paseo (Gardens on EI Paseo, APN: 627-261-
006) and 73-425 EI Paseo (EI Paseo Village, APN: 627-252-004,
005)
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell
Senior Management Analyst
APPLICANT: Davis Street Land Company
622 Davis Street, Suite 200
Evanston, IL 60201
CASE NO: PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03 and DA 07-04 Amendment's#1
DATE: June 11, 2009
I. RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and, subject to all the attached conditions: 1)Adopt
Resolution No. 09-4i , approving Case Nos. PP 07-10 and CUP 07-18; 2) pass
Ordinance No. lis6 to second reading, approving Amendments #1 to DA 07-
03 and 07-04.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of the staff recommendation would amend the previously approved EI
Paseo Village project and approve the revised 42,539 square foot LEED Certified
retail and restaurant development and associated on-grade parking area. This
approval also includes a roof mounted photovoltaic system that will help power
the common landlord controlled spaces. The Project has gone back through the
Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission, receiving
unanimous approval from both bodies.
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's #1
June 11, 2009
Page 2 of 8
III. BACKGROUND:
A. PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, and Associated Development Agreements:
At its regular meeting of June 12, 2008 the City Council approved a
project consisting of a 27,000 square foot expansion to the existing Saks
5th Avenue at the existing Gardens on EI Paseo. The project also included
the demolition of the existing EI Paseo Village and construction of a new
finro-story retail, office, and restaurant project totaling 72,474 square feet,
and an associated two story parking garage. The project included two
development agreements that provided public parking and enhanced
sustainability features in exchange for a height exception, relief from the
daylight triangle requirements, and adjustments to the ratio of parking per
square foot of net leasable space.
B. Property Description:
Proposed EI Paseo Village Site:
The property is currently zoned General Commercial (C-1) and has a
Scenic Preservation overlay. To the south of the property is an existing
condominium complex. Two of the condominiums are oriented along the
common property line and have at least one window looking directly down
on the existing site. Between the two units are the existing tennis courts
for the condominium project.
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: General Commercial / Existing Retail Buildings
South: R-3 (4) Multi Family Residential/ Existing Condominiums
East: General Commercial / Existing Gardens on EI Paseo
West: General Commercial / Existing Retail Buildings
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
EI Paseo Village:
The proposal is to construct a LEED Certified 42,539 square foot retail and
restaurant space. The plan also includes on-grade parking to the rear with 182
spaces. The proposed buildings have been oriented towards the EI Paseo side
of the property leaving the same streetscape and feeling that the existing
Gardens on EI Paseo has. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for the proposed restaurant use.
G:�Planning�Ryan Strndell\Word Data\PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-1.DOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's#1
June 11, 2009
Page 3 of 8
A. Site Plan:
EI Paseo Village:
The original EI Paseo Village had a grade change of approximately four
feet between the parking lot and the retail spaces. The applicants
proposed in the original entitlements to excavate that grade change to
create a flat ground surFace, as is more desirable to today's shoppers.
The site plan and building footprints remain very similar to the original
approval. The main access points are from San Pablo and Lupine Lane.
The ground level parking provides for 182 parking stalls, with 60 spaces
covered by a carport structure. It has a densely planted landscape buffer
on the south property line, which will provide additional shade, and a
screening buffer to the condominiums to the south.
Parking:
The municipal code does not define parking requirements for a mixed use
project. The EI Paseo area is fairly unique in that a shopper will visit
several different locations on EI Paseo and only utilize one parking space.
In this instance with very high—end retail, four spaces per thousand has
proven to be more parking than is necessary. Using the parking data
provided from the managers of the existing Gardens on EI Paseo, staff
believes that 3.25 spaces per thousand square feet of floor space is
sufficient. The intent is to have adequate parking for periods of high
demand, but also allow for the pedestrian style shopping experience that
EI Paseo provides. The applicants have provided 182 parking spaces, of
which 133 can be allocated to the proposed EI Paseo Village based on the
net square footage, with the balance going to offset the loss of spaces due
to the Saks expansion. Based on the recommendation of the supplied
parking study and the additional provided spaces, staff believes that there
is more than enough parking supply to handle the new proposal, including
the Saks expansion across the street.
B. Building Description:
EI Paseo Village:
The proposal is for a single-story building (made up of three separate
buildings) measuring 30 feet to the highest architectural feature. The
applicants have placed a solar system on the roof of the building which will
help power the common landlord operated spaces. At the time of this staff
report the developers were working out how big of a system they could
achieve, and staff will report on the system size at the public hearing.
G:\PlanningUtyanStendell\WordData�PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-1.DOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's #1
June 11, 2009
Page 4 of 8
The building is set back twelve feet from the curb along the EI Paseo
frontage and fourteen feet along the east and west sides of the property.
Along the street frontage, the building steps in and out to create interest
and movement on the ground floor. There are two paseos that lead
shoppers from the rear parking area to the front of the buildings. A great
deal of consideration was given to these paseos during the original
entitlement as they will really serve as the gateway to the project. The
applicants have introduced a water feature/art piece at the EI Paseo entry
to the paseos, as well as decorative pavers to make them more visually
attractive.
The two development agreements that were approved with the original
project allowed for the height exceptions, daylight triangle encroachment
and parking requirements. Staff is proposing amendments to the originally
approved development agreements (amendments attached), leaving all of
the originally approved requirements in place with exception the proposed
modifications. Because this project now meets the height limit of the C-1
zone, a height exception is no longer needed. The developer is still
looking for the same amount of financial assistance from the City, and in
return will provide a 150 space public parking easement, commitment to
LEED Certification, and photovoltaic panels on the roof of the building.
C. Architecture:
The applicant's new design is a single-story multi-tenant retail and
restaurant environment that will serve as a blank canvas for the
prospective end users. The buildings are a contemporary design utilizing
steel awnings and trellises to accent the architecture. The EI Paseo
storefronts are proposed to allow the tenants flexibility in design. As
spaces are leased, the owner will allow each tenant storefront to take on
its own unique identity. This same concept was used at the existing
Gardens and has been very successful.
At its meeting of May 12, 2009 the Architectural Review Commission
reviewed the proposed amendment. The Commission supported the
design and felt that the architect had responded well to the single-story
design including the interest created at both corners. The project was
granted preliminary approval by a unanimous vote.
G:\Planning�Ryan Stendell\Word Data\PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-1.DOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's#1
June 11, 2009
Page 5 of 8
D. Fiscal Analysis:
Staff has come to the conclusion with information provided by the
developer that this project could generate anywhere from $400,000 to
$500,000 per fiscal year to the General Fund. This estimate is based on
both sales tax and property tax revenues.
V. ANALYSIS:
A. Project Data:
The following is a table comparing the proposed project with the standards of the
General Commercial Zone.
GEAt��iAL
CO�Et�G�AL
STANDARD ZONE PROJECT
Front Setback 5' 12'
Rear Yard Setback 5' 11'10" min.
Side Yard Setbacks 5' 14'
Hei ht 30' 30'
Parkin 178* 182*
* The parking ordinance does not specifically list requirements for
mixed use projects such as this. The parking ordinance has
language that allows projects flexibility through the entitlement
process.
B. Financial Participation/Project Enhancements:
As of the date of this staff report, the developer has not provided
information to the City to substantiate the requested $750,000 contribution
from the City. The developer indicates that they will be prepared to report
their findings to the City Council on June 11, 2009. Staff has analyzed the
project enhancements and is prepared to offer the following estimates:
G:\Planning�RyanStendell\WordData\PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-1.DOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's #1
June 11, 2009
Page 6 of 8
Pro'ect Enhancement: Staff Pro'ected Cost
Public Parkin Easement 150 spaces $150,000*
Sustainabilit Features:
A. LEED Certification $550,000
B. Solar S stem $50,000
Total Pro'ect Enhancement Costs $750,000
* Based on 10% of actual cost per space ($10,000 per space * 10%)
The Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy is conditioned upon the
recordation of the parking easement and the installation and performance
of the solar and LEED sustainability features. The funding for the parking
easement would occur at the recordation of the easement. Funding for
the $600,000 in sustainability features would occur at the issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy and be subject to verification of expense related
to both solar and LEED plus submittal of a LEED certification package to
the United States Green Building Council.
C. Findings for Approval:
Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit:
1. The proposed location of the project is in accordance with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in
which the site is located.
The proposed project is /ocated in a C-1, General Commercia/zone
and is covered by the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Speci�c
Plan which encourages the retail/restaurant mixed use spaces in
the EI Paseo Corridor. The proposed retail and restaurant project
is in accordance with the district in which it is located and helps fulfil
objective 25.02.02081 by producing sa/es tax and property revenue
to the City over time.
2. The proposed location of the project and the conditions under
which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or generaf welfare, or be materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The development will improve the aesthetics and overall quality of
the area and wil/ be constructed in accordance with all safety
G�\Planning\Ryan Stendell\Word Data\PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-LDOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's #1
June 11, 2009
Page 7 of 8
standards and regulations so as to not be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity or be detrimental to public
health, safety or general welfare of the City. Conditional Use
Permits will be required for the restaurant uses to assure that they
are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding
uses.
3. The proposed project will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this title.
The project complies with all standards of the C-1, General
Commercial zone, with exception to the allowances granted
through the Deve/opment Agreements as amended. The project as
conditioned complies with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed project complies with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the City's adopted General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the General P/an
designation of Community Commercial and a/so the goa/s outlined
in the Palm Desert Commercia/ Core Area Specific P/an of keeping
the EI Paseo area as a unique, pedestrian-oriented high-end retail
shopping area.
V. CONCLUSION:
The shopping experience is an important component for the continued success
of EI Paseo. The EI Paseo area has identified itself as a unique pedestrian
oriented shopping district. The continued success depends on creative design
and architecture of the buildings being approved. The Saks expansion and the
development of the LEED Certified EI Paseo Village will contribute to the overall
streetscape of EI Paseo, providing more pedestrian oriented shopping and street
level dining experiences.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For the original project staff prepared Environmental Assessment that resulted in
a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project site. The site was analyzed
based on the attributes and requirements of an infill project. Therefore,
mitigations in the original document are those regularly associated with
development of this type. Staff has prepared an addendum to the originally
approved Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the lesser impact of the
amended project.
G:�PlanningUtyanStendell\WordData\PP-07-]0 CC RPT-Amd-I.DOC
Staff Report
PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, DA 07-03, DA 07-04 Amendment's#1
June 11, 2009
Page 8 of 8
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Addendum to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (including visuai
simulations &traffic study)
D. Plans and Exhibits
E. First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-03 and 07-04
Submitted By: Department Head:
Ryan Stendell Lauri Aylaian
Senior Management Analyst Director, Community Development
Approv : .
CITY COUNCILAC,-TION
APPROVED � DFNTED,,�, �
RECEIVED OTHER "� �'-�f'�a�
Homer Croy _D�-y/ar����2ssec ��'�`'-�1/0. //�L�fo s�'rori���i��_''�
ACM, Devel p ent Services MEETING DATE '��'n
AYES: �i�� � 2� � r�'< ./
A� NOES:
� /_ �•�� ■■ I ■ �I������
ABSENT: ��'n� �
n M. Wohlmuth ABSTAIN: ��'n
VERIFIED BY:..�� m`''y'� .�. .. . -
ity Manager Original on Fite with City Clerk's Office
* Adopted Resolution No. 09-41 and passed Ordinance
No. 1186 to second reading with amended/added conditions
to include: 1) oalet parking spaces to be designated to
the rear of the lot/building; 2) Photovoltaic (PV)
system to cover all of the co�on areas and the landord-
controlled areas to thP greatest egtent possible. 5-0
G:�PlanningUtyan Stendell\Word Data�PP-07-10 CC RPT-Amd-1.DOC
CITY Of Pflllli DESERt
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESER7',CALIPORNIA 92260-2578
Tsc:76o ;46-06��
Fnx:760 ;4i-7og8
i nfo@palm-deserc.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 07-10,CUP 07-18,DA 07-03,DA OT-04 Amendment's#1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider amendments to a previously approved Precise Plan of Design,
Conditional Use Permit, and two relating Development Agreements by Davis Stmet Land
Company.The subject amendments include:
A. Amendment to a previously approved Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and
Development Agreement for a two-story 72,000 square foot retail, restaurant, and
office complex with an associated twastory parking garage. The amendment will
reduce the overall project from a two-story 72,000 square foot mixed use center to
a 41,000 square foot retail/restaurant complex with an associated parking lot on
grade, The subject property is located at 731425 EI Paseo (APN.627-252-004,
005).
B. Adoption of an addendum to a previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration
as it relates to the project thereto.
� �' ��
a
sT�nr E+wr,, �
r�
� �
�
a
�
o �
�r��
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 11, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Paim Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information 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 Palm Desert City
Council at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen, Secretary
May 29,2009 Palm Desert City Council
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #1 TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN TO REVISE THE NEW EL PASEO VILLAGE CENTER,
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
AMENDING THE EL PASEO VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELATED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT 73-425 EL PASEO (APN: 627-252-004,005) CASE NOS.: PP 07-10
WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Architectural Review Commission and the
Planning Commission and after duly noticed public hearings, the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, adopted Resolution 08-42 on May 22, 2008. This Resolution approved
three items:
1. Precise Plan of Design PP 07-10 for(a) an expansion of the existing Saks Sth Avenue at
the existing Gardens on El Paseo center(73-545 El Paseo; APN: 627-261-006) and(b)
replacement of the existing El Paseo Village shopping center with a new retail, restaurant
and office complex plus a one-story parking structure; and
2. Conditional Use Permit 07-18 permitting restaurants within the new El Paseo Village
center; and
3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City's procedures far
implementing CEQA.
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert adopted Ordinance No. 1156 on June 12, 2008 approving Development Agreement DA
07-03 between the City and El Paseo Land Company, LLC providing vested rights to the new El
Paseo Village Shopping Center and Development Agreement DA 07-04 between the City and
Gardens SPE II, LLC providing vested rights to the Saks Sth Avenue expansion project; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Palm Desert passed Resolution No. 550 on June 26, 2008 approving a Second Addendum to
Parking Easement Agreement by which the Agency approved the Saks Sth Avenue expansion
project and the project parking site plan.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
approving the El Paseo Village Public Parking Easement Agreement and Parking Management
Plan to provide limited public parking at the new El Paseo Village Shopping Center. These
documents satisfied certain conditions of the Development Agreements.
Reso.Revised.EPV Page 1 of 4
RESOLIITION NO. 09-41
WHEREAS, a reduced-size El Paseo Village Shopping Center has been proposed through
an amendment to Precise Plan No. PP 07-10 together with a First Amendment to El Paseo
Village Public Parking Easement Agreement (as shown on Exhibit"A") and a First Amendment
to Parking Management Plan for the El Paseo Village Shopping Center Public Parking Easement
(as shown on Exhibit"B"). In addition, amendments to Development Agreements 07-03 and 07-
04 have been proposed. The major features of the revised project are a one-story development to
accommodate the restaurants and retail uses with a surface parking lot.
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the previously adopted MND has been prepared, as shown
on Exhibit"C", which the Director of Community Development has determined complies with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act including the "City of Palm Desert
Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 06-
78; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission recommended approval of the
revised project at its May12, 2009 meeting and the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the project, including the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, at its
May 19, 2009 meeting by passing Resolution No. 2501; and
WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Development Agreement 07-03 for the El Paseo
Village Shopping Center and a First Amendment to Development Agreement 07-04 for the Saks
Expansion at the Gardens on El Paseo have been prepared and are subject to separate approval
through City Council Ordinance No. ; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council's public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approving the entitlements sought for
the revised project:
First Amendment to Precise Plan No. 07-10:
1. The proposed location of the project is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
The proposed project is located in a Gl, General Commercial zone, with a Scenic
Preservation overlay and is covered by the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific
Plan, which encourages the retail/restaurant enhancement of the El Paseo Corridor. The
proposed retail and restaurants are in accordance with the district in which it is located
and the superior architecture and design meets the intent of the Scenic Preservation
overlay district. The project as proposed helps fulfill objective 25.02.020B1 of the Zoning
Ordinance by producing sales tc�and property revenue to the City over time.
2. The proposed location of the project and the conditions under which it will be operated and
maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Reso.Revised.EPV Page 2 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 09-41
The revised project will improve the aesthetics and overall quality of the area and will be
constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and all relevant safety
standards and regulations so as to not be materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity or be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare of the City. The
revised project blends with and enhances the neighboring Gardens on El Paseo center.
3. The proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title.
The project complies with all standards of the C-1, General Commercial zone. The project as
conditioned complies with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including the precise plan,
except to the extent that those standards are superseded by standards provided in the
development agreements.
4. The proposed project complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted
General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Community
Commercial and also the goals outlined in the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific
Plan of keeping the El Paseo area as a unique,pedestrian-oriented high-end retail shopping
area.
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 the City Council does hereby approve the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration utilizing its independent judgment. A Notice of Determination shall be filed
with the County Clerk.
3. That the City Council does hereby approve the First Amendment to El Paseo Village
Public Parking Easement Agreement.
4. That the City Council does hereby approve the First Amendment to Parking Management
Plan("PMP") for the El Paseo Village Shopping Center Public Parking Easement.
5. That the City Council does hereby approve the First Amendment to Precise Plan PP 07-
10 generally shown on the Preliminary Site Plan dated May 14, 2009, as may be further
refined, applying the conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. 08-42 with the
following changes:
• Condition No. 11 is no longer applicable due to the June 26, 2008 Palm Desert
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 550 approving a Second Addendum to Parking
Easement Agreement for the Gardens on El Paseo.
Reso.Revised.EPV Page 3 of 4
RESOLUTION N0. 09-41
• Condition No. 12 is amended to read as follows:
"The applicants shall enter into amendments to the two existing development agreements
for the approval of the above noted project, one amendment relating to the Saks Fifth
Avenue expansion project and the other amendment for the El Paseo Village project.
These projects are independent of each other; for example their construction schedules
and openings may differ. The development agreements, as amended, shall address items
including but not limited to: full reciprocity of parking between the existing Gardens on
El Paseo and the El Paseo Village remodel, and parking for hybrid vehicles at the El
Paseo Village surface parking lot."
• Condition No. 14 is amended to read as follows:
"The applicant shall provide a First Amendment to El Paseo Village Public Parking
Easement Agreement for the new surface parking lot."
6. That the City Council's earlier approvals of Precise Plan 07-10 and CUP 07-18 through
Resolution 08�42 remain in force and applicable to the Gardens on El Paseo Shopping
Center Saks 5 Avenue expansion project and to allow restaurants at the El Paseo Village
project.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 11" day of June 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayar
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN,
City Clerk Palm Desert City Council
Reso.Revised.EPV Page 4 of 4
ADDENDUM TO
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND FINDINGS
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
("CEQA") FOR THE
REVISED EL PASEO VILLAGE PROJECT
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND
The GARDENS EXPANSION/NEW EL PASEO VILLAGE Project (the
"Project")was approved by the City of Palm Desert, California through a series of
approvals on or about January 8, 2008 (Architectural Review Commission), February 5,
2008 (Planning Commission),February 28, 2008, May 22, 2008 and June 12, 2008 (City
Council). This Project provided for the (i) limited expansion of the existing Saks Fifth
Avenue building at the existing Gardens on El Paseo shopping center; and (ii) the
redevelopment of the El Paseo Village shopping center. An Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration("MND")was prepared for the Project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The MND was
circulated for public comment and approved by the Palm Desert City Council through
Resolution No. 08-42 adopted on May 22, 2008. In accordance with all Project
approvals, the existing El Paseo Village shopping center has been razed.
In response to the current downturn in the economy, a reduced redevelopment
design has been proposed for the new El Paseo Village portion of the project (the
"Reduced Project"). The Reduced Project envisions a one-half reduction in the gross
square feet of the original El Paseo Village center, from approximately 70,000 s.f. to
about 40,800 s.f. The Reduced Project consists of 3 one-story buildings for retail and
restaurant uses with a surface parking lot covering generally the same footprint as the
original El Paseo Village center. The original El Paseo Village center consisted of 3 two-
story buildings for retail,restaurant and office uses with a one-story parking structure.
There are no physical changes proposed for the Saks Fifth Avenue building expansion
portion of the Project.
The Reduced Project entails certain technical amendments to the approvals issued
for the Project in 2008 and also requires a new Precise Plan. These amendments and
Precise Plan are materially consistent with the original Project approvals and all
CEQA Findings&Addendum for the Reduced El Paseo Village Project(5-12-09) Page 1 of 3
applicable development regulations of the City of Palm Desert, including without
limitation the City's General Plan, Commercial Core Area Specific Plan, and Zoning
Ordinance, inclusive of the C-1 zone standards and scenic preservation overlay standards.
CEOA ANALYSIS
Review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)has already
occurred for the Project through the adopted MND. CEQA limits re-review to conditions
or circumstances that arise under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
These CEQA laws state no subsequent environmental document such as an EIR or
negative declaration shall be prepared for a proj ect unless the lead agency determines, on
the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is underta.ken which will require major revisions of the previous MND
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(3) New information of substantial importance,which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous MND was approved as complete shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous MND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous MND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible but the project proponents decline to adopt
such measures or alternative;
d. Considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project
proponents decline to adopt such measures or alternative
Where none of the conditions set forth above occur,with substantial evidence,
then the lead agency may determine to prepare an Addendum to the previously adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration. CEQA Guidelines 15162(b) and 15164(b). Reliance
upon the earlier MND is cause for the filing of a new Notice of Determination once the
Reduced Project is approved accompanied by an Addendum. CEQA Guidelines 15094.
CEQA Findings&Addendum for the Reduced EI Paseo Village Project(5-12-09) Page 2 of 3
The Reduced Project has been evaluated to determine if there is any substantial
evidence of the circumstances or conditions which would warrant a subsequent
environmental document. The existing environmental assessments, studies and reports
were evaluated and compared with the Reduced Project. All 17 potential environmental
impacts studied in the MND were determined to be Less Than Significant, with only
Aesthetics, Geology& Soils, Noise and Transportation/Traffic requiring select mitigation
measures in order to reach that determination.
Due to the fact that this Reduced Project presents a substantial reduction in the
size of the original proj ect, its potential physical impacts on the environment are fewer
and less intense than the original Project. Its height,massing and scale are significantly
reduced, and the parking structure is replaced with an adequate surface parking lot. In
addition, this Reduced Project is materially consistent with the existing approvals and
land use regulations of the City of Palm Desert. Therefore, there is no substantial
evidence that any of the conditions or circumstances which would require a new
environmental document are present. This smaller project does not present new or
heightened significant effects nor introduce the possibility of new, feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives.
In conclusion, the lead agency, the City of Palm Desert, in the exercise of its
independent judgment, determines that this Addendum is complete and has been prepared
in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The previously adopted MND is
incorporated herein by this reference. The City determines that all mitigation measures in
the MND remain applicable to the Reduced Project except all those which relate to the
parking structure (sometimes referred to as the New El Paseo Village Parking Deck)
since the Reduce Project does not contain a parking structure.
A notice of determination shall be filed with the County Clerk upon the approval
of the Reduced Project.
Signature—Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Date
Director, City of Palm Desert
CEQA Findings&Addendum far the Reduced El Paseo Village Project(5-12-09) Page 3 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 1186
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
FIRST AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF
SAKS STH AVENUE AT THE EXISTING GARDENS ON
EL PASEO AND THE EL PASEO VILLAGE REMODEL
WHEREAS in a series of approvals culminating in the May 22, 2008 adoption of
Resolution No. 08-42and the June 12, 2008 adoption of Ordinance No. 1156, the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert approved an expansion of the existing Saks Fifth
Avenue Building at The Gardens on El Paseo shopping center(the "Gardens") and
approved the redevelopment of the adjacent El Paseo Village shopping center(the "El
Paseo Village Center"); and
WHEREAS through Ordinance No. 1156, the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert approved Development Agreement 07-04 between the City and Gardens SPE II,
LLC for the Gardens project and Development Agreement 07-03 between the City and El
Paseo Land Company, LLC for the El Paseo Village Center. Upon review of the
Agreements, the City, SPE II, LLC and El Paseo Land Company, LLC have concluded
that each party is in compliance with the terms of each Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS minor amendments are proposed to each Development Agreement to
reflect changes to the Gardens and El Paseo Village Center projects (the "Revised
Project"); and
WHEREAS the First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-
03 have been duly noticed for public hearing, and the City Council conducted the public
hearing on June 11, 2009 where it considered all testimony of all interested persons; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California,
does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-03 have
been subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
through the City's May 22, 2008 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND")
and the Addendum to the MND prepared and approved in connection with the Revised
Project. The First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-03 are
consistent with all applicable laws governing development agreements and the
amendment thereof, and further the health, safety and welfare of the Palm Desert
community.
Ordinance Approving Amendments to Das (5-12-09) Page 1 of 2
3. The First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-03 are
hereby approved. The Mayor and City Clerk shall sign the First Amendments to
Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-03 on behalf of the City, and the City Clerk shall
cause the First Amendments to Development Agreements 07-04 and 07-03 to be recorded
in the official records of the County of Riverside.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 2009 b
the following vote, to wit: — ' ' y
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
Ordinance Approving Amendments to Das (5-12-09) Page 2 of 2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,AND
WHEN RECORDED,MAIL TO:
City Clerk's Office
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-03
by and between the
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
and
EL PASEO LAND COMPANY,L.L.C.
of
_, 2009
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-03
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-03 is made
and entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California (the "City"), and EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company (the "Developer"). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Development Agreement 07-03.
RECITALS
1. The City and the Developer did enter into that certain Development Agreement
07-03 dated June 12, 2008 and recorded on June 26, 2008 as Doc #2008-0350515, in Riverside
County, California(the "Agreement").
2. The City and Developer are not in default of their respective obligations under the
Agreement.
2. The City and the Developer desire to amend the Agreement (the "First
Amendment") to reflect certain approved changes to the Project, as allowed pursuant to Section
2.2 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Development Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "A" is deleted and in
its entirety and is replaced with the First Amended Development Plan attached to this First
Amendment as Exhibit"A".
2. The last sentence of Section 1.9 of the Development Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and is replaced with the following: "In general, the Project comprises the demolition of
the existing El Paseo Village shopping center and its redevelopment with 3 one-story buildings
to form a new El Paseo Village retail and restaurant project."
3. Section 5 of the Development Agreement is deleted in its entirety and is replaced
with the following: "The City and Developer desire to cooperate with each other to secure the
following enhancements to the Project to be furnished by Developer using its commercially
reasonable efforts: (a) inclusion of preferential parking spaces for hybrid or hydrocarbon-fuel-
alternative vehicles at the new El Paseo Village surface parking lot; (b) reciprocal parking within
the Project's new surface parking lot shall be provided for customers of the adjacent Gardens on
El Paseo shopping center by means of private easement executed by Developer; (c) the City shall
provide written notification to Developer and shall consult with Developer in advance of any
future consideration to place any objects taller than four (4) feet within public rights of way
surrounding the Project; (d) Because Developer has submitted to the City a recordable
nonexclusive easement for approximately 150 public parking spaces in the surface parking lot
and a parking management plan, the City shall pay the Developer seven hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($750,000), one source for this payment may be Fa�ade Enhancement Program funds,
payable to Developer as follows: one-half due upon notice to City from Developer that Project
construction has commenced, and one-half due upon tender to City from the Project Architect of
a Certificate of Substantial Completion for Developer's construction (ie. core & shell, site work
and parking lot); (e) Developer shall register the Project with the United States Green Building
Council and apply for a"certified"rating under either the New Construction rating system or the
Core & Shell and Commercial Interiors rating system using either Version 2.0 or 3.0; to the
extent the LEED specifications and standards are subjective or not clearly defined, Developer
shall use commercially reasonable efforts to comply with reasonable interpretations of what
those standards would be; and (� Developer shall include a solar photovoltaic (PV) energy
system within any one of the roof elements of the Project which includes any of the carport
canopies in the parking lot. The PV system shall be designed to provide 100% of the power
required for all common areallandlord controlled electrical circuits."
4. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the terms, provisions,
covenants and conditions of the Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
5. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this First
Amendment to the Development Agreement 07-03 to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives and the City has caused its seal to be affixed thereto, and attested as to the date
first above written.
"CITY": CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
By:
Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On this day of , 2009, before me appeared
, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he
is the Mayor of the CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, an incorporated political
subdivision of the State of California, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the
seal of said City, and said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said City by authority of
its City's Board of Councilmen, and said Mayor acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said City.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
"DEVELOPER": EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Attest:
Robert Perlmutter, Manager
(SEAL)
, Secretary
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
COUNTY OF j SS.
On this day of , 2009, before me appeared
to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Manager of EL
PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and that he is
authorized to sign the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that he
executed the within instrument as said company's free act and deed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
EXHIBIT ��A"
FIRST AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Project Development Plan represents City approval of demolition of the El Paseo Village
shopping center on the Property Described on Exhibit "B" and replacement with an
approximately 40,800 square foot retail and restaurant complex and a new surface parking lot.
The Project Development Plan shall include and shall be constructed consistent with the
following:
1. The City approved plans by developer on file with the City.
2. The City approved Precise Plan PP 07-10, as amended.
3. The City approved Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Addendum thereto dated May 12,
2009.
4. The City Architectural Review Commission approval.
5. The City approved Conditional Use Permit CUP 07-18.
6. The existing Land Use Regulations except that the following specific development
standards shall apply irrespective of any conflict or inconsistency with any existing Land
Use Regulation:
a. The Project is allowed to encroach into the eastern and western corner lot setback
of the "daylight triangle" pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
25.25.016.
b. The new surface parking lot at the Project shall be constructed with a minimum of
182 parking spaces. The total number of spaces is allowed to fluctuate up or
down thereafter by no more than S%.
c. Tenant improvements are allowed to fluctuate from the Project Development Plan
so long as they do not substantially alter the overall aesthetic of the approved
Proj ect.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY,AND
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:
City Clerk's Office
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-04
by and between the
CITY OF PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA
and
GARDENS SPE II,L.L.C.
of
_,2009
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-04
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 07-04 is made and
entered into as of this _ day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFOItNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
(the "City"), and GARDENS SPE II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the `Developer").
All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Development Agreement 07-04.
RECITALS
1. The City and the Developer did enter into that certain Development Agreement 07-04
dated June 12, 2008 and recorded on June 26, 2008 as Doc #2008-0350516, in Riverside County,
California(The"Agreement").
2. The City and Developer are not in default of their respective obligations under the
Agreement.
3. The City and the Developer desire to amend the Agreement to reflect certain approved
modifications to the Development Plan for the Project, as allowed pursuant to Section 2.2 of the
Agreement.
4. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the terms, provisions and
covenants of the Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
5. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original and shall constitute on and the same instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged,the parties agree as follows:
The Development Plan attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit "A" is deleted in its
entirety and is replaced with the First Amended Development Plan attached to this First Amendment as
Exhibit"A".
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the City and the Developer have caused this First Amendment to the
Development Agreement 07-04 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and the City has
caused its seal to be affixed thereto, and attested as to the date first above written.
"CITY": CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
By:
Attest:
Mayor
(SEAL)
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On this_day of , 2009, before me appeared to
me personally lrnown, who,being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Mayor of the CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, an incorporated political subdivision of the State of California, and that the
seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the seal of said City, and said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said City by authority of its City's Board�f Councilmen, and said Mayor acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said City.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the
County and State aforesaid,the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
"DEVELOPER": GARDENS SPE II,L.L.C.
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Attest:
Robert Perlmutter,Manager
(SEAL)
, Secretary
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF �
On this day of , 2009, before me appeared to me
personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Manager of Gardens SPE II,
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and that he is authorized to sign the instrument on behalf of
said company, and aclrnowledged to me that he executed the within instrument as said company's free act
and deed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the
County and State aforesaid,the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
EXHIBIT��A"
FIRST AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Project Development Plan represents City approval of an approximate 27,000 square foot two-story
expansion of the existing Saks Fifth Avenue building and associated improvements,including without
limitation modifications to the existing two-story parking structure, all of which are located at the existing
Gardens on El Paseo shopping center on the Properiy described on Exhibit"B".
The Project Development Plan shall include and shall be constructed consistent with the following:
1. The City approved plans by developer on file with the City.
2. The City approved Precise Plan PP 07-10,as may be amended.
3. The City Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and its Addendum thereto dated May 12, 2009.
4. The City Architectural Review Commission approval.
5. The existing Land Use Regulations except that the following specific development standards shall
apply irrespective of any conflict or inconsistency with any existing Land Use Regulation:
a. In consideration of the present state of excess parking capacity in the parking structure,
the Project is allowed to operate below the parking requirements of 1 space for each 250
square feet of net floor area set forth in the Existing Land Use Regulations. After the
project is constructed,the total number of spaces is allowed to fluctuate up or down by no
more than 2%.
b. Tenant improvements are allowed to fluctuate from the Project Development Plan so long
as they do not substantially alter the overall aesthetic of the approved Project.
Recording requested by, and when
recorded, mail to:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attn: City Clerk
[This instrument is exempt from Documentary Transfer Tax pursuant to Revenue and Taxation
Code Section 11922 and is exempt from Recorder's Fees pursuant to Government Code Sections
6103 and 27383J
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
EL PASEO VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT
by and between the
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
and
EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.
of
_, 2009
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
EL PASEO VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EL PASEO VILLAGE PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT
AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California (the "City"), and EL PASEO LAND COMPANY,
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the "Developer"). All capitalized terms used but
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the El Paseo Village
Public Parking Easement Agreement.
RECITALS
1. The City and the Developer did enter into that certain El Paseo Village Public
Parking Easement Agreement dated September 8, 2008 and recorded on October 2, 2008 as Doc
#2008- 0537024, in Riverside County, California(the "Agreement").
2. The City and the Developer are not in default of their respective obligations under
the Agreement principally because the Easement is not yet in effect.
3. The City and the Developer desire to amend the Agreement to reflect certain
approved changes to the Project, including, inter alia, that the Project will not have a parking
deck, but will have only a surface parking area and that the total number of parking spaces will
be 182 and not the 295 spaces originally contemplated.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. The Parking Site Plan attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "B" is deleted in its
entirety and is replaced with the First Amended Parking Site Plan attached to this First
Amendment as Exhibit"A".
2. Section 1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the
following: "Public Parking Easement. Developer hereby grants to City a non-exclusive
easement solely for the purpose of providing passenger vehicle parking to one hundred fifty
(150) public parking spaces within the surface parking lot of the El Paseo Village Shopping
Center. This Easement inures to the benefit of the general public, the Developer and developer's
tenants, occupants, employees, customers, invitees and licensees. Developer, on behalf of itself
and all future owners of the Property, expressly reserves all of its rights which are not
inconsistent with the use and enjoyment of the Easement herein granted, including without
limitation, the right to operate a private commercial development. There shall be no residential
parking nor parking provided for employees of other businesses within the El Paseo Village
Business District."
3. Section 2 of the El Paseo Village Public Parking Easement Agreement is deleted in
its entirety and replaced with the following: "Effective Date and Term of Easement. The term of
the Easement and this Agreement shall commence upon the date which the City issues a
certificate of occupancy for the project inclusive of the surface parking lot and the City delivers
to Developer the amount specified as consideration for this Easement in Development
Agreement 07-03, as may be amended (the `Bffective Date"). Should the aforementioned
conditions not occur, the Easement and this Agreement shall be void ab initio and of no legal
force and effect. Should the aforementioned conditions occur, the term of the Easement and this
Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect on January 1, 2050, unless priar to
the expiration date, the parties (or their successors and assigns) in writing terminate this
Easement and Agreement."
4• Wherever the term "Parking Deck" appears in the Agreement and Easement, the
term shall be replaced with"surface parking lot."
5. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the terms, provisions and
covenants of the Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
6. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this First
Amendment to the El Paseo Village Public Parking Easement Agreement to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives and the City has caused its seal to be affixed thereto, and attested
as to the date first above written.
"CITY": CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
By:
Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On this day of , 2009, before me appeared
, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he
is the Mayor of the CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, an incorporated political
subdivision of the State of California, and that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the
seal of said City, and said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said City by authority of
its City's Board of Councilmen, and said Mayor acknowledged said instrument to be the free act
and deed of said City.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
"DEVELOPER": EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Robert Perlmutter, Manager
Attest:
(SEAL)
, Secretary
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
j SS.
COUNTY OF
On this day of , 2009, before me appeared
to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Manager of El
Paseo Land Company, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and that he is authorized to
sign the instrument on behalf of said company, and acknowledged to me that he executed the
within instrument as said company's free act and deed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal
in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
My Commission Expires:
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (��PMP") FOR THE EL PASEO VILLAGE
SHOPPING CENTER PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT
by and between the
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
and
EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.
of
_,2009
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (��PMP") FOR THE EL PASEO VILLAGE
SHOPPING CENTER PUBLIC PARHING EASEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (��PMP") FOR THE
EL PASEO VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER PUBLIC PARKING EASEMENT is made
and entered into as of this _ day of , 2009, by and between the CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California (the "City"), and EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company (the "Developer"). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the PMP.
RECITALS
1. The City and the Developer did enter into that certain Parking Management Plan
("PMP") For The El Paseo Village Shopping Center Public Parking Easement dated September
8, 2008 (the"Agreement").
2. The City and the Developer are not in default in the performance of their
respective obligations under the PMP primarily because the underlying Easement is not yet in
effect.
3. The City and the Developer desire to amend the Agreement to reflect certain City
approved changes to the El Paseo Village Shopping Center, as allowed by Article 6 of the PMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Wherever the term "Pazking Structure" appears in the PMP, the term shall be
replaced with "Parking Lot."
2. Section 1.3 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: "The Parking Site Plan defines all parking improvements, areas and spaces within
the Parking Lot at the El Paseo Village Shopping Center, inclusive of those Improvements for
public parking, as may be amended. The current Parking Site Plan is the First Amended Parking
Site Plan attached as Exhibit A to the First Amendment to Parking Management Plan("PMP")."
3. The Parking Site Plan attached to the PMP as Exhibit A is deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the First Amended Parking Site Plan attached to the First Amendment to the
PMP as Exhibit"A".
4. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the terms, provisions,
covenants and agreements of the PMP remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
5. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original and shall constitute on and the same document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have caused this First
Amendment to the Parking Management Plan ("PMP") For The El Paseo Village Shopping
Center Public Parking Easement to be executed in their respective names and the City has caused
its seal to be affixed thereto, and attested as to the date first above written.
"CITY": CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Manager
Attest:
(SEAL)
City Clerk
"DEVELOPER": EL PASEO LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Robert Perlmutter, Manager
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19 200
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Campbell voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resol ' n No. 2500, denying
Case No. CUP 09-180. Motion carried 4-1 (Co sioner Campbell voted
no).
,� B. Case Nos. PP 07-10, CUP 0 , DA 07-0 d DA 07-04 — DAVIS
STREET LAND COMPAN. licant
�-
Request for a recomm ` tion to Ci ouncil of ap I of
Amendment #1 to a e P f Design, inc ding
Conditional Use Permit an pment Agreements, to
allow a 27,00 are foot a to the existing Saks 5tn
Avenue at t ' g Gar on EI Paseo, and
construction of 2, are fo ' gle-story retail and
restaurant devel " ent, tio an addendum to
the d Mitig i ration as it relates to
t reto. prope are located at 73-545
aseo ( ens o Paseo, APN: 627-261-006) and 73-
5 EI Pas EI Pase �, lage, APN: 627-252-004, 005).
, r ,�.
r. Ra ' �� ;
Y � aff report. He noted that the amendments
� ' d II the stan of the General Commercial zone and the
j two ' ally roved development agreements. Staff believed that the
revise ' ct be a top notch project for EI Paseo and would bring a
� �� nice new ing currently empty block. He asked for any questions,
����� noting that devel pers were present, as well as their architects, parking
���alysis fol nd others to answer any questions.
��
is r Schmidt noted that in looking at the elevations, and taking
the n differences for the overall height, that most of it falls under the
30 feet, ut there were two dimensions on the drawings, and it might be just
the drawings that showed each at 32 feet high to the top of the parapet. Mr.
Stendell explained that they did go through a few revisions, but they are at
30 feet overall. Using the plan, he showed the 30-foot mark. What they were
seeing was a mechanical screen, and he pointed out the 30-foot high points,
and indicated that the bulk of the building was well beneath the 30-foot limit.
Commissioner Schmidt clarified that she was referring only to the parapet
3
MINUTES
T PLANNING OMMISSION MAY 1 g 200
across the drawings and the two vistas which said 32. Mr. Stendell
apologized and clarified that it would be 30-feet high maximum.
Commissioner DeLuna indicated that she would have a question for the
applicant.
Commissioner Limont asked staff if there wa ny discussion of solar
panels for this building. Mr. Stendell indicat at there wasn't a solar
component in the original project, and he w prepared to say yes or no
to that. He explained that they had a st ' n on Thursday with the
City Council where a lot of different to wo discussed. He didn't
know if there would be one with thi 'ect. Com ' ner Limont asked if
they agreed to it, if it could be . Mr. Stendel rred that to the
developer.
Chairperson Tanner o ened th lic g and asked t applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. STEVE ' h Davis t Land Company in Evanston,
Illinois, thanked ' ion fo sidering their project which,
as Ryan mention was a ' ' atio the previously approved EI
Pa e. Th el' ' ed project, while still focusing
, ' h the t was t important part of the EI Paseo
rict, wa ly one ry in height and much more in keeping with
e other b esses o ildings in EI Paseo Village. He said their
itect esen provide much more detail about the
p ir team members, to answer any specific
� que
� Commi er a stated that it's an exciting project for our city in the
most pro nt I ' n and was an excellent opportunity to showcase
�, some of th nergy standards. She asked what their intentions were for
� een and s inable design standards.
ito said they do have a number of green building construction
ods they were planning to incorporate into the project. Mr.
empster, their architect, had a list of what those were and he could
go into more detail.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if it was correct that originally it was
scheduled to be a gold standard Leed development.
Mr. DiVito said that silver was the standard.
4
MINUTES
ERT PLANNING GOMMISSION MAY 19 200
Commissioner DeLuna noted that she didn't see any reference to that and
questioned if that had been modified, or if it was still a silver Leeds certified
building.
Mr. DiVito replied that modification was in process and believed that
was the focus of Thursday's study session with City Council. They
would be focusing on doing certain con ction methods that are
included in Leed, instead of pursuing an I certification.
Commissioner DeLuna asked why t dn't pursue an actual
certification.
Mr. DiVito said that Mr. De r could speak ' more detail, but
his understanding was t h the piece of the b g that they are
not building as office, t ece of th ilding that p sly allowed
them to pursue Leed ce ion, didn't have co rol over what
the retail tenants on the oor could do as part of their
construction. as their standing that certification was
extremely unli , therefo e reason for not pursuing it,
voluntarily they e cert nstruction methods that are
part of a Leed pro m in ' ct.
Commi na ex that it her experience that the Leed
certif' n proce holisti d encouraged ongoing, it wasn't something
tha to happ t the en f a project, so she didn't understand why
they n't p ' ver s ard regardless of whether it was a one-
tory or u ould have had office space on the second
° s w tenants.
iVit ied that with the office tenants above, they had a much
�� gre con f the build-out of that space.
����
MR. RY DEMPSTER, Altoon and Porter Architects, 444 South
������j Flo n Los Angeles, said that one of the original intents was to
��� the Leed certification. Since he has been studying for the
AP (Accredited Professional) test, and would be taking it on
ne 23, he had become ever more familiar with the requirements of
getting Leed certification on a building. As they probably knew, it was
predicated on certain prerequisites and credits that they achieve by
achieving certain things. The bulk of credits available for Leed have
to do with energy conservation and exceeding minimum standards.
The presumption was that the client or the owner of the building is
installing the systems. In the previous building, they were installing
the systems for the office space: doing their air-conditioning, doing
5
MINUTES
_ PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19 200
their lighting and doing their electrical systems, which gave them an
opportunity to influence the energy efficiency to those systems.
With the new dynamic, that work was going to be on the part of the
tenant, so they didn't have an opportunity to influence that or apply
for a credit for that work because it wasn't in their purview. So the
one thing they had been discussing with client is that they were
going to encourage the tenants to desi ir individual mechanical
systems, their lighting systems, an ey put in restrooms, the
water consumption to low flow fi rder to comply with the
intent of Leed, but they couldn' ndat or presume that they
were going to get credit for it. hat they een doing with their
client is going through an sis of all the L rerequisites and
points that, had they b ursuing this and able to get a
certification, would ha omplied . They hav . en advising
them of all the things the . still within the pro� ct, but where
they would fall short was they didn't control their own
destiny. So t s why wh r. DiVito said that they were not
assuming the applyin certification was because they
didn't believe t c t to t inimum level because they
weren't building e gh o 'ding.
d tell t as that Leed approach still had to do
a site ustaina and renewable materials, and they were
till pursui numb f those initiatives as it relates to public
sport onn ity to the community as it has to do with
r ,,,� aste, reducing pollution during the
�`� con ion process, ater efficient landsca in and reducin
P� 9� g
su of potable water for non-potable uses. They were going
� t de of the parking structure. They were also trying to select
�� rec d ma I, so they were very sensitive to the Leed idea, and if
with kind of luck he passes and becomes a Leed certified AP
� next th, they were very sensitive to that and so was their client.
�� The t wanted to be totally candid in that they didn't believe they
� c et certified because they don't control their destiny on enough
` es.
Commissioner DeLuna noted that Commissioner Limont asked about solar
panels. She asked if that was something that would work into his idea for
the project.
Mr. Dempster replied that the challenge here is that it wasn't his
client consuming electricity, it was the tenants. They do a lot of retail
work, and pursuing Leed certification for a retail building is a bit of a
6
MINUTES
ERT PLANNING OMMISSION MAY 19 200
chailenge, the USGBC (United States Green Building Counsel) is
presently studying it, and there's a pilot program to create a retail
certification. They only do shell, not tenant spaces. They explored it
previously, and quite honestly what they were advised is that the tax
credits for using solar power were grandfathering out under the
previous administration. The solar providers they contacted here in
the valley have said that they weren't sure at the implications were
of tax credits that will be under the new nistration. So they were
in a bit of a "no man's land". It is e dinarily expensive. It was
surprising to them the cost of pro�' e panels versus the rate
of return if they are not actually c min electricity; the tenants
are. So the short answer to question 't was not presently
being considered.
Commissioner DeLuna indic hat he ioned the e se, and she
believed that the City has co cial s available fo such energy
saving.
Mr. Dempster that wen ond his purview for this project.
He was only 'gn If the d any other questions, he
hopefully would h the a
Commi na tha m for his orough answers.
r. Demps asked i y would like a dog and pony show, or if
wou ith tendelPs.
�
:�� ����'� erso ner asked� is presentation.
�� em said when they were last here over a year ago, some
�� of rev d it as Planning Commissioners and some were on
��� the itectu al Review Committee. They had an opportunity to get
� the fit of all of their advice and insight. They've been back
� thro the Architectural Review Committee last Tuesday and
� r d their approval, because they were smart enough to carry
ard the advice from last year to this year's redesign. But as they
knew, the economic climate this year was very much different than
it was last year and the year before. Fortuitously for them, there was
an opportunity to still go forward with the project by minimizing some
of the spaces that were previously included which are presently in
this day and age not as economically feasible. It was still the design
intent to create a synergy between The Gardens as it is still owned
by the same client from the same side of the street on opposite sides
of the corners. So they were still envisioning that the use of the
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMISSION MAY 19 2009
materials, the colors, the textures, and the design approach were
sympathetic across the street. The idea was that the corner elements
are still sympathetic on either side between the Gardens and EI
Paseo Village. They made an error in the documentation that was
submitted, and he apologized because ultimately it was his fault; it
was going to remain under 30 feet. Ryan was very kind to point that
out immediately upon submission, so ey submitted revised
drawings and would stay at the 30-foot um height.
Mr. Dempster said that the origina 'tion and this composition
still very much considered shado e p light, and changes in
planes to take advantage of incredible quality here in the
desert. They modified par because they do want this to
look like a collection of ngs. It is a sympho d not just one
note and they really it to ha some variatr o that when
driving down the street, ' ex ced at differe` levels. The
interesting part about retail is that they are experienced on
foot or from shield, so they look at renderings and flat
drawings, it is ading b e they never really experience
the building like E t. e tha here and have the sheer joy
of using EI Pas lot, ally s on the storefronts and
eve at eye I o by and the stuff that happens
es ve subse nt to that which happens at the
et leve . they to compose a back drop to the buildings
nd really I e tenan 'ng, because that's what really happens on
stre ' ab the tenants and not much about the
b at pained him to say that, but that's their
'ob.
� ote Mr. Stendell mentioned that they had been working
�%�� wit ff to nd increase landscape along the southern edge of
����'�� their 'ghbor . They might recall that one of the issues forefront in
�j�� every 's discussion last year was the influence of the elevated
��,,� par ' deck on their adjacent neighbors. Fortuitously, that issue had
n ne away and they were able to do what they had always
� ded, which was create a landscape buffer which separates their
oject, more importantly the light and noise, away from the adjacent
properties. Through staff's recommendation, and insistence, they
increased the landscape buffer that helps create a visual barrier
between the tennis court on the adjacent parcel and their property.
Mr. Dempster mentioned that one of the Leed initiatives has to do
with recognizing that there is a certain amount of solar heat gained
by the sun's rays heating up building materials and they let off heat in
8
MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMISSION MAY 19 200
the evening; one of the initiatives they very much supported was
shaded parking. One of their credits is shading 50% of the parking
area, so this design between the use of trees and the parking
coverage would actually accommodate that. That was one of the
things that while they might not be getting accreditation, they were
very sensitive to implement as much of that information as they
could.
Commissioner DeLuna suggested putting s anels on top of the parking
structure.
Mr. Dempster said that origin, hey had di ed that as well. He
wouldn't bore them with al rials and tribu s of the analyses
they've gone through, they are very h The support
mechanism to support panels d take a pre urdy column
and one of the impacts o is t act of the colu n size on the
parking stalls and the intrus he wouldn't bore them with the
minutia, but it omething hey looked at. He wasn't going to
tell them no, b d tell the didn't think right so right now.
Regarding the breezew , Co ' er una pointed out that they
have an o 'ty, beca ens which has Saks recessed
and ha ard i ront, this uilding does not have that and
she the op unity two breezeways, instead of just having
ca � going fro he front' he building back to the parking, it was an
oppo to c sive ` rtyard situation.
� . ^p %
����� Mr. ster showe�� drawing and described it as a quiet respite
,
ce ater and seating.
��� Commissi De identified a curved path and what appeared to be
benches an sked i that was what he was showing them.
\ �, Mr. pster said they had a sketch of that particular area. To her
��
ne of the things that these are supposed to be sort of was a
� ite place between the parking and the street. Their client was
ally saying that they need a place for the employees to go rest, or if
someone just wanted to get out of the heat, there just needed to be a
quiet, but probably not contemplative area, something similar to what
she was describing. So the idea was that they would put an art wall
or some sort of water feature within the paseo itself and the base of it
would be a seating off of the main circulation path. It would also
introduce some landscaping and some other ideas against that wall
to just soften that space, because while ultimately it is just a
9
MINUTES
M DESERT PLANNINC GOMMISSION MAY 19 200
connective tissue befinreen the streets, it really needed to do more
than that. So they very much supported her suggestion.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if they intended at any future date to add a
second story to what's now just the retail space.
Mr. Dempster said they were not making provisions structurally,
and he could tell them that from xperience one of the
challenges in trying to do that is u ately, every time there is
seismic activity in California, the ange and their ability to
forecast what that requirement oin e into the future, they
would build in redundancy th y might no ble to use. So they
very rarely found it to be t effective pla exercise. In the
event of an earthquake he codes and requ nts changing,
they might not be able se that w they provi o presently
the discussion was no.
Commissioner DeLu nked him.
Commissioner Schmid ke had ' the possibility of retrofitting
solar and so forth on the 'Iding e in uture.
said � rtainly t roof design would support the
d load lar pa yes.
�
� ��s,y.
Com ' ner � �'`'' ' k ked i ce the buildings were occupied and they
ee who hey use, it could be done.
De er said it was possible, yes.
�
�� Commissi Sch thought he should plan for that.
\�
�\ Mr. D pster said structurally they have planned for it.
�
C is r Schmidt asked about their construction timeframe, assuming
this is approved. She referred to a sign that said 2010, but asked if
they ar really funded and ready to proceed.
Mr. Dempster replied emphatically yes. They stood before them
ready to actually build the project.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the timeframe on Saks and if it would
open at the same time.
10
MINUTES
DESERT PLANNINC GOMMISSION MAY 19 200
(Mr. Mike Radis of Davis Street Land Company spoke from the
audience and said it would be 2011.)
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any significant reason for that, or
if it was because of the economy.
(Mr. Radis confirmed that it was because e economy.)
There were no other questions for the appli hairperson Tanner asked
if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR o POSITION to the public
hearing. There was no one and the pub eari s closed. Chairperson
Tanner asked for Commission com .
Commissioner Campbell state she was in favor o roject when it
came in front of them before two stori nd she wa even more
in favor of it with one story. T igh o the south s uld be even
happier without the two-story par the landscaping that would be
done on the outside a lot more the EI Paseo Village had when
they were there. She ' favor of roject and moved for approval.
Chairperson Tanner se d otion. . sked if there was any further
discussion.
Action:
It w ved b ommis er Campbell, seconded by Chairperson
Ta approvin finding presented by staff.
ommis ' I f'''' `
� ere were any conditions of approval. Mr.
' II e ed that they e doing the first amendment to the precise
plan, itio se permit, and also the two development agreements
that we pr by the City Council. All of the conditions from the
����y� wrgten Ilwith r me slight m d f cat onsl topaccommodate th y things were
!�� e new pro�ect.
�� e wanted make sure he addressed this because he wanted the
missi have the most up-to-date information. The way they had
p t is evening, because they were attempting to accommodate
the le and support EI Paseo and try to move this through, the
origina roject had a condition for Leed. It was not to be Leed certified,
but to build the project to the standards of Leed Silver. Because of the
nature of Leed, they could not give a Certificate of Occupancy and know
whether they've achieved Leed or not, it comes after the fact. So in this
new project, with where they're at, and they were submitting
documentation to staff to review the type of Leed approval they could go
after, staff was not at a spot where they were comfortable saying yes they
can do it, or no they can't. But a lot of those issues were being dealt with
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMIS ION MAY 19 2009
and would be brought up at the study session with the City Council on
Thursday. So the way they teed this up for them today was they removed
all of the components to the two development agreements that were in the
first project in an attempt to look at the project as it is today, which was
definitely a project approvable by this Commission. And then they would
study the Leed aspect as they go forward, especially on Thursday, and
then by the time they got to City Council they d have it worked out.
They were trying to accommodate the project move it forward in the
interest of serving EI Paseo.
Based on that, Commissioner Limo aid agreed with both
Commissioners in that she though as a grea 'ect and liked it a
whole lot better. It was much m keeping with seo and was a
much classier design. Before t like they had five ds of cement
in a one pound bag and they' just pu ' way too m ' there. So
she applauded them. Howeve , a City that too 811 up to
Sacramento; they are the City tha to be the beta for the State in
terms of energy con ness and g it into play. They have a very
active Council that's ing that rd, so she encouraged them
when they sat down a ' n, an did not know engineering,
but thought they could in wh ey ed into the structure so
that down if they e ' t e tenant had the ability to
put in s better ion, wha er the criteria might be, that
they le to d ithout much redoing. But great project.
Com` ' ner "� � ' ��, as al oncerned about the project not being
eed sil , have all sort of committed to that. She
at i expensive a asked if the Commission was being asked
to s mo ead with this so that Council could review it for final
� approv if t eeded to pass this with a condition that it should be
�� Leed cert in s sense, if they had that ability, or if they passed it
�� with a stro recom endation that every possible way be explored for
ergy savi on the project. It's a big project and it just can't be ignored.
was v leased with this project. She thought it was wonderful and
th 'd azing job. And she was happy to hear that they were using
ever ervation source that they possibly could, including recycled
materi , etc., and that spoke volumes. But she really was concerned. She
wanted their project to proceed, but also wanted them to understand that
she would be looking for at least solar somewhere on those buildings in
the near future.
Commissioner DeLuna was in agreement with the other two
Commissioners who spoke. It was her understanding that in Leed certified
construction, that it's not one list of what they must do, it included all sorts
12
��'N' NERLY 707 WIL3HIRE BLV�.SUITE I400
_ `-1/�MESHAW &C LOSANGELE5,CALiFORiJ1A OOOF7
L MAIN TBL:213/312'1250
R�SS� �-�-� F/J(:213�312-1266
A'T7QRNEYS AT LAW «•ww.klrBrm.com
N C.
0
o "FD�z
� � �
L �
C • ,-
Z �.,..
ME MORt�NDUM — �'^
_ �,.. ;
��. :
�Y t
date: June 11,2009 � "" �
--��'
o - �,..�
to:
David Erwin, City Attorney,City of Palm Desert o �,c,,
Robert Hacgreaves,Assistant City Attorney,Caty of Palm Desert � "7
Lauri Ayiaian&Ryan Stendell,Caty of Palm Desert Community Development
cc: Robert Perlmutter,Mike Radis &Steve DiVito,Davis Street Land Cornpany
("DSLC"}
from: Paul Ande�on,Esq.
sub)ect: E1 Paseo Village ("EPV") Project:: LEED/Solar Incrernental Cos�s &
Limitations on LEED to Project's Core and Shell
LEED/Solar Incremental Costs
At the City's request,DSLC provides the attached spreadsheet detailing the
incremental costs to comply with the City's request for LEED and So1ar enhancements to
the Project. Assuming potential solar rebates and tax credits,the incremental costs fotal
$916, 230. The Solar enhancements are described under the line item en#itled,"On-Site
Renewable" and consist of a phatovoltaic(PV) energy system designed to power all of the
DSLC controlled electrical circuitry. DSLC's solar propasai exceeds what the City Council
directed at their May 21, 2009 Study Session/Closed Session.
Limitations on LEED to Project's Core and Shell
At the Study Session,pi�eiiminary LEED analyses were provided by the City and
DSLC. T�evelopment Agreement 07-03 discusses LEED energy efficiency to the"core&
shell" of the Froject which,by defnition, excludes Tenant space. Since the Study Session,
the LEED professionals frarn the Czty and DSLC have rnet and a�eed to pursue LEED
core &shell construction at the"certified" level under either USGBC version 2.Q or 3.4.
They recognized that the size of the revised Project is half that of the original Project,
including the elimination of the office space and the parking deck. In addition,DSLC will
Memo
To: City of Palm Desert
Frorn: Paul Anderson
June l I, 2009
be aciding a PV solar energy system.All of this is included in the Fia�st Amendment to
Development Agreement 07-03.
At the Study Session,DSLC addressed the question af why the Tenartt spaces were
not suhject to LEED energy efficiency standards, This memo is designed to elaborate on
that response.
The City and DSLC have always limited LEED ta the D�LC-controlled parts of the
Project--core and shell. The first mention of LEED occurred at the February 28,2008
Council meeting when the original Project was approved. At the recent Study Session,the
Council asked for the minutes$•om that meeting. Attached to this rnemo is a copy of page
29 from those minutes which contains the LEED discussion. In relevant part,the minutes
provide the follawing from Councilman Ferguson:
"He knew the architects probably hadn't penciled it out and that
there were many 1evels of LEED Certifcation,but if the Applicant
could come back with a development agreement for the Mayor's
review that it included some level of LEED Certification for at least
the owner-operated or authorized parcels,understanding tenants may
want to do different things, but at least for the main structure."
Therefore, Davelapnnent Agreement 07-031imits LEED to the Project's Core&
Shell,and this continues through the proposed Fi�•st Amendment, Even without this
Iimitation,DSLC cannot force Tenants to install LEED energy efficiencies in their spaces.
This is because the leases specify DSLC is responsible for the base building constniction
witiz the Tenant soleiy respansible for its interior space, including i#ems such as the HVAC
systems, storefront,drywall, insulation, finishes and electrical wark. The project has eight
signed leases, ail of which were negotiated prior�o finalization of DSLC's original
Developrnent A�eement with the City. Nane of the leases mention LEED in any way. It's
a matter of economics,and any inerease in Tenant costs above those expected frozn lease
requirements��vould jeopardize their occupancy. Of course,the Tenant space is required to
comply with the 2005 California Building Code, incluciing its energy efficiency standards
(California Code of Regulations,Title 24,parts 1 and b}as amended by Chapter 2�F.30 of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code because these are established City-wide regulations.
Notwithstanding the above,pleasa note that DSLC will prepare and distribute a
LEED handbook and encourage each Tenant to pursue LEED energy efftciencies.
If you have any questions about this mema,please let me know.
-Page 2 of 2-
� � �' � � T g� o � � � !� � � �� � � � � �' � # � � � � � � � �
� �
� 4 i m �a ?e �. a � 3 �.
yr, 6f -i �r � �� � 3 3 A m ro a a �v R `9 N� �a �, w m � � �g a
� 6 �C � �i �' � � 9' � � � `Ca ; o S � � n �° �. 3, n � � � °v' v�i 3 ro �`
� w �' H ��i � � � � }9 � �Qp � � � �d � � � �
� � Gi �' "' � �n R' « � � a � r��o � � � � � � N
Q � n h' �p . 5(� � � ro�0 ? �
Th �; D ��q�p ' d � � C � V � O � y � \
GS � �, � �'� A p � � ry � �
c � �
� n ZN � � p � w �
� o � � T � �
a � � �
V m �
o �� �
�
N tn N iA N in V�N tA � SR N N N SA IA � Sn 1n N in A 1A tA tJs tJ�fA D
aa � 3
N X � x.
3i c o�i t~ri w ,�+ rn �n� � y+�n � �oo� la mv�i � � 3 000o w� �
� �p H. ', o o O a A Q
g � � � � �� o � g � � gggg � �� � � � �� � pg �
0 0 � 8 8 8 8 � o vS $ 888 888 � o00 00 �
T T f� � � � � � N (y �� C � 0=i v:!#7 ,�Q,0�0�
� � a` K'. t� 7 v� a� v
� � � � u n�i Q n �s n o �� o ^ w
� yP � 6S c�, � $ n m � � �. a �c � �, " � �
'� g � 3_ '� � �$ m ,r a '" � �'
� �. � c+• � v 3 °�' �. Q ° p 8 Q� " �
3 9 Q rv � � � Q � � � p n � a m
.�` $ � � � � $ � � w �. � � �, � � �
� � z �. �� a � g � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � �o' � a
� o � � o $ ��.� W R
Q v "' � o � N 5.$
X g � ° a � '� � o
Q � � A
� � � � � �� Z
�
y�, �
� � �c 7� r�o �n in
� } �. �
x�+ }�0 B �' O
V1 � y�O
� r �o
� � � ��p
Q N 2
N � F
O �
� � O
n �
v � u
�
N
M1NUT'ES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY CQUNCfL M�E1'fNG FEBRUARY 28,2008
, it is because of the open space in fror�t. She said it was unfortunate the open •
space would be sacriflced. She wondered if the City wanted a vlllage-fype
atmosphere, or this wail-fo-wa[I with 36-to�2-feet mass of building with nv
open space.She preferred the open feelir�g of The Gardens and had hoped
ti�at it was going to be repficated wi#h The Gardens II. She agreed it was
tough to provide all the foliage, but if it c�n be accomplished, she would
ap�laud it. She sald fhe Cify hoped for LEED Certiflcation, because it was
set an energy efficiency and hoped the applicant would make a strang effort
tv go 1n that direc#ion.
Mayor Benson stated if she had her druthers, she wouldn't want to see the
propvsed bullding on Ei Paseo. She said Tha Gardens had really set a
precedence for what was to follow along the street and had certainly been
successful. She racognized, however,#hat her druthers weren't necessarily
for the benefit of the communfty and that this expansion was r�eeded, But
wift�the size of the lot and wi�af the developer had to work wlth,she couldn`t
see how ft could be any mare open than it is. She said it was sad, and it
changed the atmosphere, but guessed it vvas a slgn of#he times for these
things to hap�en. What one thought was a sleepy little�lacs and wished to
keep it that way didn't pay for the poiice and flre ar staff to run fhe City. She
had to consider what it dld for the City of Palm Desert,which was what she's
always done. She app[auded what was proposed and hoped the project wtll
stay within the proposed helght limits. She said she was prefty good afi
judging the he(ght EImIEs,and i#it was off a half inch, the devefoper will knaw
it. She sald if anyfhing coufd be done an fhe corners fo lawer fhe 42 feet
helgt�t, averyona would appreciate lt. She dldn't believe in parapets for just
decoratlon purposes,
Councilman �erguson he had forgotten that LEE�Certificatlon was afso on
his list. He said the City�iad the first LE�D Certi�ed Universiiy af Cafifornla `
Carnpus in Palm Desert,fhe very�rst California State Univers9ty Campus ln
Palm �esert, and wll! have the firs# comrnunity college a# Col[ege of the
Desert that was LEED Cert+fied. He said Palm_Deser�was one of the flrst
munfcipal gavernment to have LEED Cer#ified buildings in thedesert and was
very quickly becoming Internafionalfy known for its conscienflousness,vIs a
vis energy and the environment, He knew the archltects probablv hadn't
enciled it out and tha#fhere were man ievefs of LE�D Certlficatfon, but if
,,the App�cant could come back with a eve o�ment aclreement for t e _
� o Mayor's review fhat it included some level of L�ED Certification for at least
the owner-operated or aufhorized parceis, understandin�tenants may want
to da different thln s, but at least for fhe main structure.T e ast item was to
have full reclprocfty amor�g parking s ruc ures. e ou�ted fhat it made a
. difference who parfced there, but it was one more item to support the
development agreament, .
29
Klassen, Racheile
From: Stendell, Ryan
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:26 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Memo LEED/Solar Incremental Costs& LEED Limitations
Attachments: SCN_20090611081759_001.pdf
This came in on the E1 Paseo Village, can you distribute this to the Councilmembers.
Ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Anderson [mailto:paulanderson@klrfirm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:35 AM
To: David.Erwin@bbklaw.com; Robert Hargreaves; Aylaian, Lauri; Stendell, Ryan
Cc: Perlmutter, Robert DSLC; Radis, Michael DSLC; DiVito, Steve; Gary Dempster
Subject: FW: Memo LEED/Solar Incremental Costs & LEED Limitations
Attached is a memorandum which addresses the remaining solar and LEED questions. We look
forward to this afternoon's Council meeting. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Paul
Paul C. Anderson / Kennerly, Lamishaw & Rossi LLP / 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 / Los
Angeles, CA 90017 / Phone: 213-426-2079 /
Reception: 213-312-1250 / Fax: 213-312-1266 / Email:
paulanderson@klrfirm.com / website: www.klrfirm.com This message is sent by
a law firm and may contain information this is privileged or confidential. If you received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message
and any attachments.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
1
Mayor Spiegel and Council members
I am sorry I cannot be there in person to support the El Paseo Village Project. I am in
route to our yearly board planning conference for the chamber that starts today.
The Board of Directors of the Chamber is in full support of this project. What a great
addition this will be to our business community—not only will it bring more merchants to
the Gardens project BUT it will certainly help jump start filling some of the many
vacancies that are on both sides of the street.
How fortunate we are that DS Land Co. is willing to continue to invest in our city. An
added bonus is that it will be another project working towards LEED certification.
Sincerely
Barbara deBoom, IOM ACE
President/CEO
Palm Desert FNE STAR Chamber
�
0
�f'1 T`�-:
� ��.'
L� �
Z -['.
� �,�...
� �r; ,, ,
v,y,: .
a n� ..
3 x c, .
—'C.
O ����.
C^ "r"C':
ny
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Michelson, Wilma on behalf of Kelly, Dick
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:58 AM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: EI Paseo Village
Attachments: Gardens Expansion.doc
For agenda additions ....
From: Barbara deBoom [mailto:barbara@pdcc.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:13 AM
To: bspiegel@ci.palm-desert; cfinnerty@ci.palm.desert.ca.us; Kelly, Dick; Benson, Jean; jferguson@ca.palm-desert.ca.us
Subject: EI Paseo Village
Barbara
Barbara deBoom, IOM, ACE
PresidenUCEO
Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
72559 Hwy 111
Palm Desert CA 92260
Direct Line: 760-834-6796
Phone: 760-346-6111, ext. 309
FAX: 760-346-3263
Email: barbaraCa�pdcc.orq
www.pdcc.orq
1