Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36284 PDH Partners, LLC
CITY OF PALM [ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CEQA PURPOSES, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A PRECISE PLAN, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A PROPOSED 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON 4.97± GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27± ACRES) AND TO -BE -VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7± ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45-640 HIGHWAY 74. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 DATE: July 14, 2011 CONTENTS: Draft Ordinance Exhibit A, Development Agreement Draft Resolution Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval Exhibit B, Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Legal Notice Planning Commission Staff Report, June 21, 2011 Planning Commission Resolution, June 21, 2011 Planning Commission Draft Minutes, June 21, 2011 Environmental Assessment & Initial Study Response to Comments for draft Initial Study and EA LEED Certification Checklist Comments from other departments Architectural Review Commission Notices and Minutes Traffic Impact Report Parking Analysis Letters in Support / Opposition / Neutral Comments Plans and Photo Exhibits Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 2 of 25 Recommendation That the City Council waive further reading and: 1. Pursuant to Section 25.37.050 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, find that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan as described in the Findings of the City Council Resolution N02011_72, and Pass Ordinance No. 1225 to second reading approving Development Agreement 09-507. 2. Adopt Resolution No.2011-72approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA purposes, a Precise Plan of design, a Conditional Use Permit 09-507, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36284, subject to conditions attached. Executive Summar Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a Development Agreement, a Precise Plan of Design, a Conditional Use Permit, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and a Mitigated Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow a new boutique hotel and residential condominium project. The project will total 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential condominium units. All residential condominium units are single ownership; no timeshare sales are proposed. Approval of the project includes ancillary uses and two levels of underground parking for hotel guests and residents, with 24-hour valet service for both. The parking study includes an alternative parking scenario for less onsite parking with off -site parking agreements. At build out, the project will total approximately 380,285 square feet, including private balconies and terraces. The total building area has been reduced by approximately 42,000 square feet since the project was first submitted in 2009. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission. All findings for approval are identified in the staff report as well as the City Council Resolution. Economic Impact If approved, the project construction fees will generate approximately $1.2 million to the City. In addition, the rental of the hotel units are anticipated to generate $1 million annually to the City's General Fund from hotel guests paying 9% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on each room rented. In addition to the hotel providing new revenue from TOT, the increase in travelers with high discretionary income to El Paseo will increase sales tax from other businesses by creating an economic anchor for pedestrian retail shopping. Architectural Review Commission Action The project was presented and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission at five (5) meetings starting in April of 2010. After this series of collaborative meetings, on July 13, 2010, GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 3 of 25 subject to the ARC reviewing the design development plans before construction drawings are submitted to the City. The project was approved on a 5-1-0-1 vote. Planning Commission Action The project was reviewed and discussed at the June 21, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. After staff and the applicant presented the project, members of the public spoke in favor and opposition to it. The Council Chamber was almost full, with about three quarters of the people wearing lapel badges to demonstrate support for the project. After the public hearing was conducted, the Planning Commission approved the project on a 4-1 vote. Public Input: Staff has received approximately 371 letters in favor of the project. Letters of support have been provided by the President of College of the Desert, the Board of Directors for El Paseo Business Improvement District, the Vice President of Development and Strategy for Rosewood Hotels & Resorts, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, hundreds of business members, two homeowner associations on Ocotillo Drive, and 22 home owners within Sandpiper. Staff has received a total of 64 letters from 49 individuals in opposition to the project throughout the two year review process. Several individuals submitted more than one letter. The majority of the letters were provided over a year ago when the project was being reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. Since the project has been under review, there has been a significant decrease in opposition expressed to the project. During the initial Architectural Review process, staff received letters from 39 different individuals opposing the project; though, the authors of two of those letters have since withdrawn their opposition, and one now actively supports the project. Following the reduction in size and massing of the project, the environmental study was recirculated, and, on May 5, 2011, notices were mailed out to the property owners within 300 feet of the project and published in the Desert Sun. Since the May 51h, 2011, notification, staff has received eight (8) letters of opposition (included within the 64 total letters), three (3) of which were from individuals that had submitted letters previously. The major concern expressed from the parties who oppose the project has focused on visual and traffic impacts from the proposed project. As the staff report and exhibits identify, the visual impacts have been mitigated with the reduction of massing and area by 42,000 square feet and the terracing of the two buildings. As for traffic, the property is zoned for hotel use and the traffic generated from the proposed five-star hotel and condominiums is expected to be less than that for any other type of hotel or residential project that could be situated on the site. The traffic report confirms that the project will not generate significant traffic impacts. In addition to low traffic volumes, the project also includes a comprehensive traffic/parking management plan. Background A. Property Description: The vacant 4.97± acre site is located on the east side of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, south of El Paseo and immediately south the Imago Art Gallery. The property GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 4 of 25 consists of six (6) parcels sloping up approximately 28 feet from the north end of the project site to the south end. Prior land uses on the site included a hotel and restaurant that were demolished after 1983. In 1983, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a Change of Zone, Precise Plan and Tentative Tract map for a three-story 248 room hotel with two restaurants. The existing hotel was demolished in approximately 1983 and Le Paon Restaurant was left remaining until 2009 when it was demolished as well. The property has been zoned for hotel use for the past 28 years since the previous hotel was demolished. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan Land Use Designation: Community Commercial (C-C) and High Density Residential (R-H) Zoning Designation: Planned Commercial, Resort (P.C.4) and Scenic Preservation Overlay (SP) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Community Commercial (C-1) / Imago Art Gallery South: Multi -Family Residential (R-3) / Camelot Apartments East: Multi -Family Residential (R-3) / Apartments & Condominiums West: Planned Residential-6 (P.R.6) / Sandpiper Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a combined 82 room transient hotel and 59 unit residential condominium project known as Rosewood. The hotel includes a spa and fitness center, meeting and function space, small boutiques, a signature restaurant, outdoor courtyard and bar, ultra lounge, lobby bar, roof deck amenities, and two levels of underground parking containing a total of 376 parking stalls. The parking study prepared for the project also includes an alternative scenario for one level of underground parking and potential off -site locations for the hotel use during off-peak, nighttime hours to provide flexibility related to construction costs of the hotel. A. Site Plan: The project site is designed with two buildings, each designed with three floors and a partial fourth floor set back an additional 45 feet from Highway 74. The partial fourth floor in the northern building includes an additional 45-foot set back from the northern property line as well. The buildings are designed as U-shaped structures that extend across the site from north to south, parallel to Highway 74, with one floor of the hotel largely below grade. The U-shaped design places the building frontage along Highway 74 with open views and courtyards to the east facing Ocotillo Drive. The setbacks at the closest portions of the building are 15 feet from the south property line, 15 feet from the north property line, 40 GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_StaH_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 5 of 25 feet 6 inches from Highway 74 frontage, and 12 feet from east property line (Ocotillo Drive). The site plan has been designed with most of the existing frontage road being vacated along Highway 74 and incorporated into the overall project design for increased landscaping and decorative paving. A portion of the frontage road will remain at the south end, directly opposite Pitahaya Street, to allow traffic to continue south on the frontage road parallel with Highway 74. B. Access and Parking: The site plan is designed with three driveways with exclusive access from Highway 74, with no access from Ocotillo Drive. The three driveways will serve different areas of the project. The north driveway (driveway 1) will provide access to the trash, service and delivery area located below ground. The main driveway (driveway 2) separating the two buildings, is 39 feet wide and leads into the arrival courtyard where the hotel guests and residents will have 24/7 valet parking service to the underground parking spaces; valet attendants will utilize on -site ramps to move vehicles between the arrival courtyard and the underground parking without the need to access any public streets. The south driveway (driveway 3) provides access to the underground parking spaces for the residential portion of the project, and connects to the existing frontage road extending to south Palm Desert. Both driveway 2 and 3 will be serviced by 27/7 valet parking service. During special events, cars arriving at the site could be directed to driveway 3 in addition to driveway 2 to allow for increased traffic flow capacity if required by operating conditions. The project is providing two levels of underground parking totaling 376 parking stalls. A portion of the parking spaces are designed as tandem spaces that will be parked by a 24/7 valet parking service. The parking study includes an alternative scenario for one level of underground parking and potential off -site locations for the hotel use during off-peak, nighttime hours. If the scenario with one level of underground parking were constructed, the applicant would be removing 103 on -site parking spaces provided with two -levels of underground parking. In order to address the reduced parking scenario, the parking study identifies a potential for 272 parking spaces at several locations. The parking locations include the Daily Grill, Imago Art Gallery, the Debonne commercial property east of the Daily Grill, and a potential future parking lot that will be located on southeast corner of Ocotillo Drive and Tumbleweed Drive. The off-street parking would be used when there is a need for overflow parking associated with weddings and events that would take place when the surrounding businesses are usually closed. C. Building Description: The square footage of both buildings totals approximately 380,285 square feet, including private balconies and terraces. The hotel structure is approximately 206,555 square feet and the residential structure is approximately 173,730 square feet. The following table illustrates the breakdown of square footage of uses within the two buildings: GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 6 of 25 Building Use Square Footage Hotel Units 53,350 Residential Units 117,830 Spa & Fitness 26,060 Meeting & Function 9,690 Boutique & Shops 2,870 Signature Restaurant 2,100 Ultra Lounge 2,070 Lobby Bar 1,640 Roof Deck 1,220 Ancillary Space 170,140 The hotel component will be located in the north building and will provide 68 standard hotel rooms and 14 suites for a total of 82 transient rooms. The hotel will also provide the Ultra lounge, signature restaurant and 40-seat roof -deck bar and grill, spa and fitness center, ballrooms and conference rooms, and boutique and other limited retail shops. The residential condominium component totals 59 residential units, with six one -bedroom units, 40 two -bedroom units, and 13 three -bedroom units. Each residential unit will have the option of being purchased with a furniture package that matches the hotel units, which allows them to be eligible for use for the hotel rental pool. In addition, the two and three bedroom units will also have a one bedroom lockout unit that may be added into the rental pool. With the lockout units or potential rental units from an entire condominium unit, the maximum number of keys available for the hotel from the residential units is 112. All residential units will be sold as fee -simple ownership; no timeshare or fractional ownership is proposed. The residential condominium units will be located in both buildings, with approximately 75% of the units located in the south building. The south building will have a separate courtyard and pool area. D. Architecture and Building Mass: The site is designed with two buildings separated by an open entry courtyard in between them. The buildings are flat roof structures with an architectural style that is characterized as a combination of International Style with Mid -Century Modernism. The design utilizes strong horizontal and vertical lines broken up by recessed glass walkways and balconies with permanent and sliding louvers to provide visual interest as well as provide interior screening and reducing potential reflection of the sun on the glass, which will also be treated to further reduce glare and reflection. The design incorporates neutral stucco color walls, columns and parapets that provide the structure framework of the buildings. The two buildings are designed with three above grade floors and a partial fourth floor, and two subgrade floors for the ancillary uses and parking area. The property slopes 28 feet up GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 7 of 25 from the north end of the site to the south end. Due to the slope of the site, the project height will be described in two ways; from the average (center) grade height, which is the manner in which the zoning code measures building height, and the height from the grade of the structures at the tallest points. From the average grade of the property, both buildings measure 35 feet to the top of the third floor roof, 38 feet 6 inches to the third floor parapet, and 51 feet to the fourth floor parapet. The average grade elevation of the property is 285 feet. The north end of the property is 271 feet, and the south is 299 feet. Given that the height is measured from the average elevation, both buildings are identified as having the same height. However, the actual overall height of the north building is 47 feet from the ground to the top of the roof of the third floor, 50 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet of the third floor, and 60 feet from grade at the north end of the building. The overall height of the south building is 24 feet from the ground to the top of the third floor and 36 feet 6 inches to the top of the fourth floor. The hotel building is designed with a 15-foot setback from the north property line with the fourth floor stepping back an additional 45 feet, for a minimum of 60 feet fourth floor setback from the north property line at the tallest portion. At the northwest corner of the hotel building, there is a corner cut out to increase the setback from the north property line and Highway 74 frontage to provide visibility to the Imago Art Gallery on the north. Along the Highway 74 frontage, both buildings are set back a minimum of 47 feet from the street right-of-way, with the fourth floor stepping back an additional 45 feet for a minimum setback of 92 feet from the street at the tallest portion of the building. Along Ocotillo Drive, both buildings are designed with a minimum of a 12-foot setback from the right-of-way and 24 feet from the paved roadway. Along Ocotillo the buildings are stepped back in three tiers in a U-shape design creating an open view of the buildings with courtyards and landscaping. When the project was first submitted and presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on April 13, 2010, the two buildings were designed as continuous four story buildings with no breaks along the west (Highway 74) and fourth floor portions. It appeared as two large rectangular box -like structures and staff expressed concerns over the massing of the buildings and believed it was a negative visual impact to the surrounding area. The Commission stated that they liked the overall design style, materials, and details, but directed the applicant to prepare massing studies to illustrate the project in context with the surrounding properties. At the following meeting, surrounding owners from the Sandpiper development and the property owner of the Imago Art Gallery objected to the massing and other impacts from the project. After four ARC meetings, the applicant redesigned the project substantially in the following ways: Eliminated fourth floor along the Highway 74 frontage, reducing its area and creating a three-story hotel roofline at 35 feet high measured from the average grade elevation directly along the Highway 74 frontage. Created four (4) breaks in the two front building elevations by carving out deep recessed portions of the building to reduce the massing along Highway 74, and GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Pinal_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 8 of 25 creating some transparency through the building glass allowing natural lighting into the hallways. • Created a partial fourth floor with an additional 45-foot setback from the front of the building, creating a 92-foot setback from Highway 74. Stepped back the second, third and fourth floors from each other along Ocotillo Drive, creating a terraced effect to reduce visual impacts. Reduced the overall square footage of the project by approximately 30,000 square feet for the modifications to reduce the impact on the surrounding properties. The modified plans were reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission on July 13, 2010, with Commissioners Gregory, Stendell, Touschner, Levin, and Lambell voting in favor of the project design, Commissioner Vuksic voting in opposition, and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. The minutes are attached to this report. After the project received approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant wanted to continue to work with the surrounding property owners to address any lingering concerns. The owner of the Imago Art Gallery was concerned about the. visual impacts of the hotel blocking his building from Highway 74, along with concerns over the location of the service vehicle driveway. The applicant redesigned the project after the ARC had approved it, reducing the project by another 12,000 square feet (42,000 square feet total) by creating the cut out in the north and west elevations described above in the third paragraph of this section. The site plan was also redesigned to provide a separate driveway (driveway 1) for the service vehicles, eliminating access from in front of the Imago Art Gallery. Following these modifications, which were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, two property owners who opposed the project during the Architectural Review Commission withdrew their letters objecting to the project. The two property owners are David and Leisa Austin, owners of the Imago Art Gallery and Katherine Keith who lives at the Sandpiper development. E. Landscaping: The project is designed with drought -tolerant landscaping that will comply with the Coachella Valley Water District water efficiency requirements and the City's xeriscape landscape guidelines. The design includes a large area of landscaping along Highway 74 to provide significant landscape presence in front of the building to soften the strong framework of the building. The site design provides for 44% landscaped and hardscaped areas not covered by the buildings. The preliminary landscape plans have been reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Specialist for design and plant material type and placement. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36264 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 9 of 25 F. Sustainability and LEED-Certification: The project has registered for LEED Certification, and it has been designed to achieve status as a LEED Certified project. Sustainability efforts identified include: • Density by design: the project has a higher than typical residential and commercial hotel density, which results in a substantial increase in land use and infrastructure efficiency; and maximizes open space on the property; • Integrated Solar: the project proponent plans to integrate solar thermal and/or electric on the building roof decks, except the pool deck area, to provide hot water for pools and domestic needs, and to off -set some of the demand for electricity from the grid. The extent of solar technology use has not been quantified; • Stormwater runoff will be captured and managed within grass -lined swales and then percolated into the soil and groundwater table via four dry wells, thereby enhancing groundwater recharge; • Highly energy efficient building design and construction, using low-E glass, high levels of insulation, shade and exposure control, etc.; • Desert Landscaping: the landscape plan incorporates the City's low water -use landscape guidelines and those of CVWD to provide the most water thrifty landscape possible; • Green -Sources Construction Materials: the proposed project will use recycled building materials wherever feasible and cost-effective. The construction waste stream will be minimized and wastes will be recycled wherever feasible in conformance with requirements for LEED certification. (Please see attached LEED specification sheet for project.); and • The project will use EnergyStar appliances throughout, and will utilize highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. G. Development Agreement: Approval of the project includes a draft Development Agreement between the City of Palm Desert and the applicant. A development agreement provides the City and the applicant with a higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed, what associated fees and improvements will be required, and assurance of consistency with City policies, ordinances, regulations, and exceptions allowed as part of the zoning ordinance or development agreement. A good development agreement provides benefits to both parties. In this case, the developer is granted height, setbacks, and parking concessions that are not granted by a strict application of the development standards of the underlying zone. In exchange, the City of Palm Desert is assured that the project will provide a luxury hotel product that is otherwise lacking in the city's portfolio of hotel properties, and that will provide direct financial benefit to the City in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax. By GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 10 of 25 virtue of the demographics of its clientele, the hotel will also benefit El Paseo businesses, which indirectly benefits the City in terms of retail sales tax. Analysis: The project is located on six parcels zoned Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4), which describes the development standards in Section 25.30 Planned Commercial District of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The following table describes the development standards of the zoning ordinance and the development standards of the proposed project. STANDARD PC4 ZONE PROJECT *Height 35 feet (measured from "35 feet ( 3r floor roof), 38 feet 6 average grade) inches (3rd floor parapet) **51 feet artial 4th floor Side Setback (north) 15 feet 15 feet / 27 feet / 73 feet Side Setback (south) 15 feet 15 feet / 23 feet North Building: 25 feet at 34 feet tall, 42 feet at 45 feet tall, 51 feet at ***Ocotillo Drive Setback 1-foot setback for 1-foot 56 feet 6 inches tall of height South Building: 26 feet at 20 feet tall, 42 feet at 31 feet tall, 53 feet at 43 feet tall North Building: 56 feet at 49 feet 1-foot setback for 1-foot tall, 103 feet at 60 feet tall ***Highway 74 Setback of height South Building: 60 feet at 31 feet 6 inches tall, 99 feet at 43 feet tall Parking 690 376 **Usable Outdoor / 40% 44% Landscaping Space *25.56.300 Height of a structure: A. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. (Ord. 817 § 10, 1996; Ord. 338 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.09) **25.30.260 Exceptions: Standards outlined in Section 25.30.220 through 25.30.250 shall be required unless modified by the approved precise plan (Ord. 299 (part), 1982; Ord. 95 § 1 (part), 1975) ***25.30.290Special Setback: On interior lots in the PC zone districts setbacks shall be the greater of the setback requirements of Section 25.30.240 for PC(4); or the provisions of Section 25.30.270 (Building setbacks from the planned street line) or one foot of setback for every foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council= Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 11 of 25 Discussion: As proposed, the hotel is requesting exceptions to the Planned Commercial District development standards. As noted in the table above, Section 25.30.260 of the Planned Commercial District allows exceptions to the development standards as part of the precise plan. In addition, the applicant has prepared a draft Development Agreement for the City's consideration. As a development agreement is adopted by ordinance, it is accorded the same weight as a zoning ordinance, and development standards contained in a development agreement will supersede standards in a prior -adopted zoning ordinance with the respect to the project governed by the development agreement. The exceptions and development agreement do not change the allowed land use in the zone. The hotel component is allowed in the PC 4 zone and the residential component is allowed above the first floor as a conditional use. The proposed residential building does not have commercial use on the first floor, but can be approved as residential by the development agreement. A. Planned Commercial Resort Zone and Scenic Preservation: According to the Zoning Ordinance, the resort center concept was established to provide development of a low-rise bungalow scale hotel, entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial use along Highway 111. The default allowable building height in this zone is 35 feet. Historically, the property was developed as a hotel with a restaurant. In 1983, an application was approved to allow a three-story, thirty-five foot tall 248 room hotel with two restaurants and other ancillary uses including tennis courts, ballrooms and underground parking. The original hotel was demolished and the former Le Paon Restaurant was left on the site. The 248 room hotel was never constructed and, other than the recently demolished restaurant, the property has remained undeveloped for 28 years. No hotel approved in the resort center district of Palm Desert meets the criteria of a low- rise bungalow scale hotel. The current request for exceptions is not unusual given that the majority of hotels built in Palm Desert have required a height exception. The recommendation for approval of a height exception has been based on height, building design and view impact studies. In addition to the Planned Commercial Zone, the property is located in a Scenic Preservation Overlay District (SP). The SP overlay zone is placed on certain properties that are considered a scenic corridor that have a special aesthetic quality, and to provide special standards for development in those areas to protect the aesthetic quality. The development standards for the SP overlay zone state that the Architectural Review Commission may consider the following: • Preservation of scenic vistas; • Setbacks; • Landscaping; • Building heights; • Signs; and • Mitigation of excessive noise impacts GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_StaH_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 12 of 25 The project was reviewed 'by the Architectural Review Commission five times to specifically address the massing and visual impacts to Highway 74 and the surrounding properties. A significant reduction to the building size has eliminated 42,000 square feet, and eliminated the full length of a proposed fourth floor along the Highway 74 frontage. The partial fourth floor of the building has been stepped back 45 feet from the front of the building line and the northern building line of the northern building creating a terrace effect to minimize the visual impacts. In addition, the substantial views along Highway 74 to the south and west were analyzed in the CEQA Initial Study and Environmental Assessment and were found not to be significantly impacted by the project (See Exhibit H-D of the Environmental Assessment / Initial Study, attached). B. Height and Views: As described in the table above, the Zoning Ordinance states that the overall height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation grade to the highest point. Based on the average grade, the tallest portion of the main building is 38 feet 6 inches and the partial fourth floor is 51 feet. Although both buildings measure the same height from the average, each building has been designed in context with the 28-foot grade change placing the tallest (60 feet) portion of the building at the north end of the property adjacent to the commercial properties and El Paseo, and placing the shortest (36 feet) portion of the building at the south end of the property adjacent to residential. This type of development has taken place at Westfield Mall, The Gardens on El Paseo, and the recently approved (not constructed) Larkspur Hotel. In all cases, the tallest portions of the buildings were placed away from residential properties to limit the visual impact and massing. For this project, a variety of visual studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. These studies have included on -site field and photographic studies, use of balloons to illustrate the future building heights on site, computer based models with digital terrain from Google Earth, and elevation controlled computer modeling. Staff required the applicant to provide a viewshed study from distinct areas that would illustrate potential impacts from Highway 74 looking north and south, as well as from two locations within the private Sandpiper development. The view studies are provided as Exhibits H-A through H-D in the CEQA Initial Study and Environmental Assessment provided with the report. A detailed viewshed analysis is provided in the Initial Study on pages 8-14. These studies illustrate the building in context with the surrounding properties, illustrating the terraced effect of the building limiting the visual impacts. It should be noted that the original four-story project design was also analyzed to compare the effects of the original to the final elevations, and are Exhibits H-Al through H-D1. When the project was first submitted, staff was concerned that the large size of the building was not compatible with the surrounding properties. The applicant has been very responsive to staff, the Architectural Review Commission, and the surrounding property owners by reducing the building mass and area by 42,000 square feet to step the building back at different heights to create a terraced effect, and created breaks in the long spans across Highway 74. The applicant redesigned the project after the GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 13 of 25 Architectural Review Commission approved it to mitigate impacts to the Imago Art Gallery property, such that the owner of the Imago Art Gallery has withdrawn any objection to the project as now designed. The proposed project height is allowed per Section 25.30.260 of the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council, in enacting a Precise Plan, to approve site -specific development standards that differ from other generally applicable standards. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards in the approved Precise Plan. In addition, a Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty that the project will comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan, including any site specific development standards. C. Setbacks: As proposed, the project site plan provides for the buildings within the required setbacks except for the Highway 74 frontage. At each setback, the building steps back away from the property line at different heights creating the terraced effect. The north end of the building is located adjacent to commercial zoning and is set back 15 feet at the top of the first floor, 27 feet at the top of the third floor, and 73 feet from the fourth floor of the building. At the south end of the property, the residential building is set back 15 feet from adjacent property line and steps back to 23 feet at the tallest portion of the building. As proposed, the project complies with the side yard setback requirements of the PC-4 zone. Along Ocotillo Drive, Section 25.30.290 requires a one -foot of setback for one -foot of building height. As described in the table above, the north building is closer than the one -foot setback for one -foot of building height; however, the building is terraced to minimize the visual impacts along Ocotillo Drive. The request for a closer setback can be approved both through the Precise Plan approval and with the approval of the Development Agreement. As for the south building, the first two levels are below the street grade and the portions above grade comply with the one foot setback for one foot of building height from the ultimate curb. On Highway 74, the project is proposed to incorporate the existing frontage road that will be vacated at a later date, if the project is approved. The building is designed with breaks in the massing for architectural interest. The closest portion of any of the two buildings is set back 56 feet at 49 feet tall, and 109 feet at 60 feet tall. Both buildings comply with Section 25.30.290. D. Traffic and Parking: The traffic study identified the potential impacts on future traffic in 2014 when the project is expected to reach build out, and the potential level of service (LOS) without the proposed project. Based on the study, the anticipated future traffic growth and LOS in 2014 will not require any changes in the intersection design or traffic controls. With "no project", the intersection of El Paseo and Highway 74 is projected to operate at a LOS D GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 14 of 25 in the PM peak hour period; however, the anticipated delay is 38.6 seconds, which is the lowest (best) portion of the LOS D delay scale. With the proposed development and other anticipated traffic growth in 2014, the existing intersection design and traffic controls are expected to continue to be at acceptable levels. The most impacted intersection will be El Paseo at Highway 74, which will continue to experience maximum delays of 38.6 seconds resulting in no change under the "no project" scenario discussed above. The property is zoned for hotel use and any development of this property will increase traffic along Highway 74. The project is proposing a 5-star hotel, which generates the least amount of traffic possible for any hotel use. The traffic study illustrates that there is no change to the LOS with the development of this project. It should also be noted that a former approval would have allowed for a 248 room hotel with restaurants. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) Trip Generation (81h Edition) the 248 room hotel would have generated 2,212 trips per day. In addition, the former approval included approximately 6,000 square feet of restaurant use that would have generated additional traffic of between 558 and 762 trips per day. The former approval would have generated twice or three times as much traffic as the proposed project. Parking: The proposed project is a mix of hotel and residential use, with the residential components potentially extending the number of "hotel" units that can be made available if they are added to the rental pool by the owner. This type of complementary land use pattern generally reduces the need for parking when compared to freestanding condominium development. The City's parking standards do not provide a parking ratio for this unique mixed -use development, which blends hotel, residential, and ancillary uses together. If required to provide the parking requirements for each distinct use, the parking demand would be 690 spaces. However, based upon the significant complementary mix of uses within this development, much of the services demanded would be used by on -site hotel guests and residents, which lowers the number of parking spaces needed. The applicant prepared a separate parking demand study to identify the demand of the project based on the mix of uses, not the City's standards for each separate use. In preparing the study, the consultant used the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd Edition) for reference of this project. Using the parking demand factors from the ITE publication, the proposed project should be required to provide at least 202 parking spaces (116 spaces for the hotel and 86 spaces for the condominiums). The project also includes a few ancillary uses that, if conservatively factored, yield an overall parking demand of 261 parking spaces. In consideration of project space adequate to accommodate a ballroom or other large gathering, an additional approximately 75 parking spaces would be required; bringing the total needed parking to 336 spaces. As currently proposed, the project will provide 376 parking stalls (including handicapped stalls). Based on the study, the project would be providing 40 extra spaces above its true demand. The parking area will have valet service on a 24/7 basis, providing effective and efficient parking for the planned tandem spaces. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 15 of 25 In addition, staff researched an existing Rosewood Hotel operating in Menlo Park, California to evaluate the parking demand of that hotel and provide context for the expected operation of the project. The hotel in Menlo Park totals 121 rooms and provides 225 parking spaces. The hotel also provides ancillary uses similar to this project; however, the meeting spaces can accommodate up to 285 guests and outdoor functions of 400 guests. This Menlo Park hotel provides more units and a larger meeting space with 151 fewer parking spaces than the proposed Palm Desert hotel. Staff contacted the Planning Department in Menlo Park to see if there have been any parking problems with the Rosewood Hotel. The staff person stated that there has never been a parking problem with the Hotel and it has been open for two to three years. Off -site Parking Scenario: An alternative project design also being considered would allow the project to be built with 233 on -site parking spaces (one level underground) and utilizing off -site parking spaces in the surrounding areas to meet peak overflow evening demand generated by ancillary uses. A separate parking analysis specific to this off -site parking option was evaluated and is a part of the environmental analysis. The project traffic study also assumed this worst case scenario in its analysis. As a part of this off -site parking option analysis, several nearby parking areas were surveyed for current levels of parking demand for the time period from 6:00 PM and later. These included three existing lots and one potential future City parking lot, all within approximately 600 feet of the proposed development. The prospective off -site parking areas that could provide the required evening parking for the project include the adjoining Imago Art Gallery parking, Daily Grill parking, the Debonne parking and a potential City parking facility. The off -site parking space assessment and use survey determined that the three existing lots provide a total of 272 parking spaces and have a combined post 6:00 PM demand of approximately 98 spaces, which decreases to 67 spaces after 8:00 PM. Therefore, there is an identified current minimum parking surplus of approximately 174 spaces within these three existing lots. A potential future City parking lot, which is not included in this count, is projected to provide an additional 113 spaces when constructed. It should be noted that the City has reviewed preliminary plans for a 3,600 square foot restaurant within the existing Daily Grill parking lot, which would result in the loss of spaces and generate a net new demand for 49 parking spaces. The Daily Grill lot would also be reconfigured thereby increasing the total available parking. After accounting for existing parking lost to the possible future restaurant and its demand for parking, and accounting for the property's reconfiguration, there would remain a net surplus in the post 6:00 PM period of approximately 73 parking spaces in the Daily Grill parking lot. In summary, on a Saturday night during the peak season, the three existing off -site parking lots will have approximately 174 unoccupied parking spaces after 6:00 PM and more unoccupied spaces thereafter. If the prospective restaurant is built and the Daily Grill lot is reconfigured, the net unoccupied parking during this period would be 130 spaces. This current and projected surplus of existing parking in immediate proximity to GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 16 of 25 the project should be more than adequate to meet the maximum projected 103 off -site parking need if this design option is implemented. If the proposed future City lot planned on Ocotillo Drive just south of El Paseo is constructed, it will provide an additional 113 parking spaces to the parking supply in this area. As noted above, the project would provide 24/7 valet parking service, which would also apply to off -site parking. E. Land Use Compatibility: The northern portion of the subject property is designated Community Commercial (C- C), and the southern portion is designated Residential High Density (R-H). These designations are consistent with the proposed land use with the processing and approval of appropriate development plans and applications. The project is designed as a mixed use project that will provide a high -end hotel and new residents with high discretionary incomes to help anchor El Paseo. The project is located on Highway 74, where there is a mix of commercial development adjacent to El Paseo and residential condominiums and apartments to the south. The property does not physically divide an existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. In terms of the use, the project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing a resort commercial center. Other aspects of the project, height, parking and setbacks, can be approved through application of the exceptions portion of the Planned Commercial District, and the draft Development Agreement. The City Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve projects with exceptions, if adequate documentation can support such a determination. As described in the above sections A-D, it can be determined that the proposed development will have a less than significant impact on aesthetic resources, traffic, and land use compatibility. A few of the goals and policies taken from the General Plan can be found below: GENERAL LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Goal 2 A diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities. GENERAL LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Goal 3 An appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. GENERAL LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Policy 3 The City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 17 of 25 The proposed project meets many other goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment address the project in much more detail. Environmental Review: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has recommended that the City Council determine that, as mitigated and conditioned, the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared and recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. A notice of availability of the Draft Environment Assessment and Initial Study was sent out to adjacent property owners within 300 feet, and published on November 11th, 2010. After modifications to the design of the project, a second notice and publication was sent out on May 5th, 2011, notifying that the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment was available for comments. Conclusion: Staff has been very cautious in the evaluation and processing of this project due to concerns about the size and potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Initially, staff advised the applicant that the proposed use was appropriate, but the size and massing were not. The applicant reduced the project size by 30,000 square feet and eliminated portions of the fourth floor to address the concerns of staff and surrounding property owners regarding massing and visual impacts. After receiving approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant reduced the project another 12,000 square feet to further address the continued concerns of surrounding property owners. In total, the applicant reduced the project by more than 42,000 square feet, decreased the project massing, increased set -backs and step -backs, and implemented all suggested modifications while keeping the project's 5-star hotel program and requirements. The proposed project will provide the first 5-Star hotel in the Coachella Valley and will anchor the El Paseo shopping district. El Paseo has changed dramatically over the past 28 years from mainly small "mom & pop" retail shops to high -end national retail tenants with restaurants and some remaining independent retail shops. The proposed 5-Star hotel will provide a boutique style resort, hundreds of jobs, and tax revenue to the City. Architecturally, the proposed building has the potential to be a landmark. The design incorporates many of the elements of International Style and Mid -Century Modern with an updated sustainability-oriented design that will be a LEED Certified project with solar panels and other sustainability features. Findings CEQA Finding A. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 and City Guidelines to implement CEQA, the City finds, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 18 of 25 Precise Plan Findings: A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of design, consideration shall be given and restrictions shall be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning and use of the subject property and the surrounding property, to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this chapter. The standard restrictions imposed in the various zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circumstances" are intended to refer to the case of a permitted case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded by property in the same zone as the lot in question. Prior to 1983, the property was zoned residential with a hotel and restaurant on the property. In 1983, the property was rezoned as part of an approval of a 248 room hotel with two restaurants. After the approval, the previous hotel was demolished and only the restaurant remained. The restaurant was recently demolished in 2009, leaving the property vacant today. The size and shape of the parcels are restrictive, requiring a creative hotel design that will meet the use allowed by the zone without substantial depreciation of property values, and impacts to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. The creative design of the project has prohibited any traffic on Ocotillo Drive, eliminating any traffic impacts to a residential collector street. Restrictions were imposed during the design process such that the buildings are designed with a the taller portions stepped back from the street and neighboring properties to minimize the massing and view impacts, which will protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 meeting the purpose of the Scenic Preservation Overlay District. This will serve to protect the adjacent property owners to the extent practicable from interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. The project is also designed to take advantage of the 28-foot slope by measuring the project from the average grade height as stated in 25.56.300. This design places the tallest building at the north end of the project adjacent to the commercial zone, and the shortest building at the south end adjacent to the residential zone. If the buildings were designed under "normal circumstances" with a 35-foot height limit from grade of each building, it would cause a greater impact to the residential property to the south and the residential properties to the southeast across Ocotillo Drive. As for the setbacks, Section 25.30.290 requires special setbacks for interior lots within the PC-4 District. The requirement is one foot of setback for one foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The intent of this requirement is to provide step backs in taller buildings so that the buildings are GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 19 of 25 terraced, which minimizes the visual impacts. Along Highway 74, the two buildings comply with the special setback. Along Ocotillo Drive, portions of the north (hotel) building are closer to the ultimate curb line than the one foot requirement, however, the building is terraced after the second floor minimizing the visual impacts of the building and meeting the intent of the special setbacks required in Section 25.30.290. The buildings were designed with terraced step backs to enhance the project's relationship with the properties directly adjacent to the east, prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, and not to create unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. The reduction of Section 25.30.290 can be granted with approval of the Development Agreement. B. If the proposed precise plan of design would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before adoption as to remove said objections. The proposed precise plan of design has been under review by the City for nearly two years, and the project has been reduced in mass and area by 42, 000 square feet to reduce overall project massing, minimize the visual impacts to the surrounding properties and protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 and adjoining properties. In addition to the reduction of 42,000 square feet, the Environmental Assessment and Initial Study incorporate mitigation measures that will reduce any impacts to less than significant. The proposed project will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity, interfere with the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties, or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. The proposed project will buffer residences to the east from Highway 74 traffic noise. The proposed project is expected to increase property values in the immediate vicinity through the redevelopment of a long vacant lot into a project that includes a high -end boutique hotel and residential condominiums that are expected to have sales prices well above average for the area. C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, the planning commission and city council, as the case may be, may also consider and take into account the exterior architectural design, general exterior appearances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility facilities, and if it is found that the proposed precise plan of design, including the considerations enumerated in this chapter would interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise plan area, or with the existing or proposed use thereof, such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before approval as to remove the objections. The architectural and landscaping design was presented to the City's Architectural Review Commission five times and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The design of the buildings was well received by the GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 20 of 25 Architectural Review Commission throughout review, with the Architectural Review Commission's only concern being the massing and size of the buildings as initially proposed. Based on input from all community stakeholders and City staff, the project was reduced by 42,000 square feet and the design otherwise substantially modified to reduce the size and massing impacts to the surrounding property owners and along Highway 74. The project's building and landscape design will enhance the property and will not interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the project. As modified, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to views from any public right of way. Further, though private views from within the Sandpiper development are not legally protected, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to any views from within Sandpiper or any other non -protected view areas. Conditional Use Findings: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; The proposed location of the project is within the Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. The purpose of the PC district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the City. The project will provide a mix of hotel and residential land uses. The hotel component is located at the north end of the site, which is adjacent to commercial zoning and uses, including an existing art gallery. The majority of the residential component is located at the south end of the site, which is adjacent to residential zoning and with an existing condominium complex. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The property is zoned for hotel development, and in 1983, the City approved a 248-room hotel with two restaurant uses on the project site. Due to the size and quality of the proposed project, the proposed hotel will result in lower traffic impacts than what would be expected from other hotel development and environmentally superior to the project approved previously. The former hotel approved in 1983 would have provided at least two times the amount of traffic impacts along Highway 74. Development of the proposed commercial hotel and residential use will meet all applicable requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code for grading and the California Uniform Building Code for construction, and will not be detrimental to general public health, safety, and welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. The proposed project has registered for and will obtain LEED certification. Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by staff and contracted consultants to ensure the project will be built in accordance with such sections described above. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 21 of 25 In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment was conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared, which conclude that with the application of mitigation measures and conditions of approval to be imposed on this project, it will not result in any unmitigated significant impacts and will not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council, in enacting a Precise Plan, to approve site specific development standards that differ from other generally applicable standards. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards in the approved Precise Plan. A Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan, including any site specific development standards. No variances or adjustments not included within the Precise Plan and Development Agreement are required for approval of the project. D. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's General Plan. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Goals and Polices section in the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City." The project represents a mix of commercial hotel and condominium development that will provide a mix of revenue generating land uses. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents and guests is also likely result in positive fiscal consequences for the City, which will fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities that the City provides to the residents and visitors. Goal 1 of the City's Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies section assures 'An integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities." The proposed project is an integration of resort residential and upscale boutique hotel. Residential -serving commercial, including Fresh and Easy, Starbucks, and GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 22 of 25 other neighborhood commercial services are within easy walking distance. Both the residents and hotel guests are also expected to make expenditures within the El Paseo commercial corridor. The project also constitutes a new hospitality and tourist commercial product that should complement the El Paseo village area. Goal 2 of the City's Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies section assures "A pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses." As a part of the El Paseo commercial corridor and with its location on Highway 74, the proposed mixed residential/resort hotel will compliment and create synergies with the El Paseo village area. This type of mixed use supports the City's resort and retail commercial position in the City and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping essentially all project traffic on Highway 74, surrounding neighborhoods are not impacted by project traffic. As noted above and in the discussion under "Aesthetics". the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the adjoining streets (Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive). Goal 1 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure a "A high quality of life provided within a livable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the City's status as a premier resort community and important commercial center." The proposed project represents a new high -end resort hotel and resort residential development for the City of high quality design, amenities and value. In addition to the "boutique" hotel component, the project also provides high value residential units that capture both the visitor and part-time resident. The hotel's design and location are contiguous to the El Paseo commercial corridor, which it is expected to complement. The hotel also diversifies the offering of hotel accommodations in the City and should enhance the City's standing as a premier resort community. Goal 2 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure an 'An aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting." The proposed hotel/condo project brings a high level of architectural design to this portion of Highway 74. The project is a positive contribution to the City's architectural diversity and innovation, and should enhance the community image, as other development along and near the El Paseo corridor has done. The project is located in the heart of the City and is not near any natural open space or elevated terrain. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 23 of 25 Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure "Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources." The proposed project introduces a high level of architectural and landscape design. It also achieves a high level of land use efficiency, providing 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential units on less than five acres. The project also uses a desert themed landscape plan that adheres to the City's xeriscape landscape guidelines. Being located in the urban core of the City, the project is removed from natural open space areas and is located along a highway with a high level of contiguous development. No map shall be approved unless the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted that the Planning Commission approved the project, considering the proposed project consistent with the General Plan. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units on commercially zoned property. The General Plan does not quantitatively address density in the commercial land use section, however, the residential goals, policies, and programs has a goal to provide "a range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio- economic sectors of the community': The density of this hotel does not conflict with the City's General Plan or any specific plans. In addition, the property is located in a Scenic Preservation Overlay District, which allows the City's Architectural Review Commission to consider preservation of scenic vistas. Though views from private development receive no special legal protections, the buildings were specifically redesigned with a partial fourth floor area reduction and that is set back an additional 45 feet from Highway 74 to minimize the impacts to the scenic vistas and impacts to the Sandpiper Residents to the west. The north building was redesigned by eliminating 12,000 square feet and stepping back the partial fourth floor 45 feet from the north side of the building to minimize the visual impact to the Imago Art Gallery. Lastly, both buildings have incorporated step backs at the third and fourth floors along Ocotillo Drive, minimizing the size and massing of the project to the properties on the east side of the project. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The design of the residential component will result in 59 air space condominium units. No physical lots for the residential units will be created. Goal 1 of the Residential Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element states that the City shall GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Councit\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 24 of 25 provide "a balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community." The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to both seasonal and year-round residents. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Although the property is vacant today, 28 years ago there was an existing hotel and restaurant on the property. In addition, the City approved a much larger hotel project on this site in 1983. The site has physical improvements, such as curbs and utilities already providing service to the site. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Initial Study and Environmental Assessment 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development. The proposed 4.97 acres is physically suitable for residential development with access provided to residents and hotel guests by two proposed driveways located on Highway 74. A separate service driveway leading to a below -grade enclosed service area is provided for deliveries, trash removal, and other service uses that is physically separated from residents or hotel guests. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the property is adjacent to residential properties to the south, east and west. 5. The design of the tract map or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study and Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project and all potential impacts are identified as less than significant. Mitigation measures have been identified and will be incorporated throughout the project construction and operation, as applicable. The project is located in the urban core of the City, has been subject to previous site disturbance and development, and its development will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the zoning ordinance and the approved Precise Plan. The proposed development is subject to all applicable City development standards and the Uniform California Building Standards Code, which is developed under the Health and Safety Code (Section 18902), and whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 July 14, 2011 Page 25 of 25 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any public easements acquired by the public. Approval of the project does include a future vacation of the existing frontage road. Vacation of the frontage road for this project will not interfere with access to the remaining portions of the frontage road. Submitted by: Department Head: 1 Tony Bagato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development EEO Johrp'V. Wohlmuth, City Manager GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\City Council\CC Final_PD_Hotel_Staff_Report.doc ORDINANCE NO. 1225 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON 4.97± GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27± ACRES) AND TO -BE - VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7± ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45-640 HIGHWAY 74. CASE NO. DA 09-507 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2554 has recommended approval of Case No. DA 09-507; and WHEREAS, at public hearing(s) held on this 14 day of July, 2011 and on this day of , 2011, the City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan GENERAL LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Goal 2, Goal 3, and Policy 3 as described in the Findings of the City Council Resolution No. 2011-72 ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project will not have significant impacts on the environment with mitigation, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice to Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 5, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Development Agreement and Project and approved the MND; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the Development Agreement 09-507, Exhibit "A" attached hereto, by Ordinance No. 1225 is hereby approved. ORDINANCE NO. 1225 SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this day of 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor K RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Clerk Record for the Benefit of the City of Palm Desert Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 (Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 09-507 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND EP-MONTEREY, LLC ORDINANCE NO. 1225 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Development Agreement" or "Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2011 ("Agreement Date") by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("C�"), and EP-MONTEREY, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). City and Developer are referred to individually as "Party," and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS This Agreement is entered upon the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of City and Developer. A. The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning that would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. B. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs and risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Legislation"), which authorizes City and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property. C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, City has adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements, which procedures and requirements are contained in City Municipal Code Chapter 25.37 (the "City Development Agreement Regulations"). This Development Agreement has been processed in accordance with the City Development Agreement Regulations. D. Developer has a legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 4.97 acres located at 45640 Highway 74, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Property"). E. Developer intends to develop the Property as a condominium, hotel, and retail project (defined more fully in Article 2 below as the "Project"). F. The complexity, magnitude and long-range nature of the Project would be difficult for Developer to undertake if City had not determined, through this Development Agreement, to inject a sufficient degree of certainty in the land use regulatory process to justify the substantial financial investment associated with development of the Project. As a result of the execution of this Development Agreement, both Parties can be 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 assured that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and development policies and requirements, which assurance will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction of the Project. G. City is desirous of advancing the socioeconomic interests of City and its residents by promoting the productive use of property and encouraging quality development and economic growth, thereby enhancing employment opportunities for residents and expanding City's property tax base. City is also desirous of gaining the public benefits associated with the Project, which are in addition to those dedications, conditions and exactions required by laws or regulations and as set forth in this Development Agreement, and which advance the planning objectives of, and provide benefits to, City. H. City has determined that by entering into this Development Agreement: (1) City will ensure the productive use of property and foster orderly growth and quality development in City; (2) development will proceed in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Palm Desert General Plan (the "General Plan") and will implement City's stated General Plan policies; (3) City will receive substantially increased property tax and other tax revenues; and (4) City will benefit from increased employment opportunities for residents of City created by the Project. I. Developer has applied for, and City has granted, the Project Approvals (as defined in Section 1.4) in order to protect the interests of its citizens in the quality of their community and environment. As part of the Project Approvals, City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA"), the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The environmental effects of the proposed development of the Property were originally analyzed by the MND (as defined in Section 1.4.1) approved by City on , 2011, in connection with the Project. City has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the " MMRP") to ensure that those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. Those mitigation measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required by, the Project Approvals. J. In addition to the Project Approvals, the Project may require various additional land use and construction approvals, termed Subsequent Approvals (as defined in Section 1.4.6), in connection with development of the Project. K. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City's General Plan. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 L. On June 21, 2011, the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2254. On , 2011, the City of Palm Desert City Council ("City Council") adopted its Ordinance No. [ ] approving this Development Agreement and authorizing its execution. M. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Development Agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals), thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to use and development of the Property. Continued use and development of the Property will in turn provide substantial housing, employment, and property and sales tax benefits as well as other public benefits to City, and contribute to the provision of needed infrastructure for area growth, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Legislation was enacted. N. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, its Planning Commission and its City Council at publicly noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable and in conformance with the City General Plan, the Development Agreement Legislation, and the City Development Agreement Regulations and, further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City's residents and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, City and Developer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. Parties. 1.1.1. City. City is a California municipal corporation, with offices located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. "City," as used in this Development Agreement, shall include City and any assignee of or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities. 1.1.2. Developer. Developer is a California limited liability company. "Developer," as used in this Development Agreement, shall include any permitted assignee or successor -in -interest as herein provided. 1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement. 1.2.1. Property. All of the Property, as described in Exhibit A and shown in Exhibit B, shall be subject to this Development Agreement. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 1.3. Term. 1.3.1. Effective Date. This Development Agreement shall become effective upon the effectiveness of the ordinance approving this Agreement (the "Effective Date"). 1.3.2. Term of the Agreement. The term ("Term") of this Development Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years, unless extended or earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement (including, without limitation, pursuant to Section 10.2). The Term has been established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop the Project and obtain the public benefits associated with the Project. 1.4. Proiect Approvals. Developer has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the development of the Project, as described below. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the term "Proiect Approvals" shall mean all of the approvals, plans and agreements described in this Section 1.4. 1.4.1. MND The Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved with findings by the City Council on [date] (the "MND"). 1.4.2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map. On June 21, 2011, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 36284. 1.4.3. Development Agreement. Development Agreement. On June 21, 2011, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Ordinance No. [ ] approved this Development Agreement, which incorporates exceptions to Special Setbacks under City Municipal Code Section 25.30.290 and Off -Street Parking under City Municipal Code Section 25.58, as set forth and depicted more fully in the other Proiect Approvals and authorized its execution. This Development Agreement also authorizes exceptions to Special Setbacks under City Municipal Code Section 25.30.290 and Off -Street Parking under City Municipal Code Section 25.58, as set forth and depicted more fully in the Project Approvals. 1.4.4. Precise Plan. On , 2011, the City Council approved Precise Plan 1.4.5. Conditional Use Permit. On , 2011, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit [ ]. 1.4.6. Subsequent Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Development Agreement, the Project may require land use approvals, entitlements, development permits, and use and/or construction approvals other than those listed in Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.5, above, which may include, without limitation: development plans, amendments to applicable redevelopment plans, 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 conditional use permits, variances, subdivision approvals, street abandonments, design review approvals, demolition permits, improvement agreements, infrastructure agreements, grading permits, building permits, right-of-way permits, lot line adjustments, site plans, certificates of occupancy, parcel maps, lot splits, landscaping plans, master sign programs, transportation demand management programs, encroachment permits, and amendments thereto and to the Project Approvals (collectively, "Subsequent Approvals"). At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by the City, then such Subsequent Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement applicable to Project Approvals and shall be treated as a "Project Approval" under this Development Agreement. ARTICLE 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 2.1. Project Development. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Property, in accordance with the Vested Elements (defined in Section 2.2). 2.2. Vested Elements. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density and/or number of residential units, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property are as set forth in: a. The General Plan of City on the Agreement Date, including the General Plan Amendments ("Applicable General Plan"); b. The Zoning Ordinance of City on the Agreement Date ("Applicable Zoning Ordinance"); C. Other rules, regulations, ordinances and policies of City applicable to development of the Property on the Agreement Date (collectively, together with the Applicable General Plan and the Applicable Zoning Ordinance, the 'Applicable Rules"); and d. The Project Approvals, as they may be reasonably amended from time to time upon an amendment in accordance with Section 5.4.2 of this Agreement, are hereby vested in Developer, subject to, and as provided in, the provisions of this Development Agreement (the "Vested Elements"). City hereby agrees to be bound with respect to the Vested Elements, subject to Developer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. The intent of this Section 2.2 is to cause all development rights which may be required to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals to be deemed to be "vested rights" as that term is defined under California law applicable to the development of land or property and the right of a public 67 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 entity to regulate or control such development of land or property, including, without limitation, vested rights in and to building permits and certificates of occupancy. 2.3. Development Construction Completion. 2.3.1. Timing of Development, Pardee Finding. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that, subject to any infrastructure phasing requirements that may be required by the Project Approvals, Developer shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its reasonable subjective business judgment. 2.3.2. Moratorium. No City -imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Property, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Agreement; provided, however, the provisions of this Section shall not affect City's compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court -imposed moratoria or other limitations. 2.3.3. No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur. 2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules. 2.4.1. Governing Rules. Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, development of the Property shall be subject solely to (a) the Project Approvals, and (b) the Applicable Rules. 2.4.2. Changes in Applicable Rules; Future Rules. a. To the extent any changes in the Applicable Rules, or any provisions of future General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances or other rules, regulations, ordinances or policies (whether adopted by means of ordinance, initiative, referenda, resolution, policy, order, moratorium, or other means, adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board, commission, agency, committee, or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate) of City (collectively, "Future Rules") are not in conflict with the Vested Elements, such Future Rules shall be applicable to the Project. For purposes of this Section 2.4.2(a), the word I ORDINANCE NO. 1225 "conflict" means Future Rules that would (i) alter the Vested Elements, or (ii) frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements in relation to the Project, or (iii) materially increase the cost of performance of, or preclude compliance with, any provision of the Vested Elements, or (iv) delay in a more than insignificant way development of the Project, or (v) limit or restrict the availability of public utilities, services, infrastructure of facilities to the Project, or (vi) impose limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Project, or (vii) increase the permitted "Impact Fees" (as defined in Section 2.6.3) or add new Impact Fees, except as provided in Section 2.6.3, or (viii) limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals; or (ix) apply to the Project any Future Rules otherwise allowed by this Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and project sites; or (x) require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than those required by Applicable Rules; (xi) establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Property any fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes), assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees imposed by third party utilities; (xii) impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Rules; (xiii) limit or extending the time for the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals; or (xiv) in any way materially adversely affect the developability, financability, or any other critical aspect of the Project. To the extent that Future Rules conflict with the Vested Elements, they shall not apply to the Project and the Vested Elements shall apply to the Project, except as provided in Section 2.4.2(c) herein. The City shall provide a minimum of five (5) days advance written notice to Developer of any meeting agenda at which a proposed Future Rule that could affect or be applied to the Property will be discussed. b. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any Future Rules from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. City shall not support, adopt or enact any Future Rule, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or spirit and intent of this Agreement or the Project Approvals. Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rule that would conflict with the Vested Elements or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement or the grant of any approval(s) to another project that could have the effect of adversely affecting the capability or adequacy of the systems serving the Project (e.g., traffic, sewage, water impacts). C. A Future Rule that conflicts with the Vested Elements shall nonetheless apply to the Property if, and only if (i) consented to in writing by Developer; (ii) it is determined by City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety; (iii) required by changes in State or Federal 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 law as set forth in Section 2.4.3 below; (iv) it consists of changes in, or new fees permitted by, Section 2.6; (v) it consists of revisions to, or new Building Regulations (as defined in Section 2.11) permitted by, Section 2.11; or (vi) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Development Agreement. d. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties shall have prepared two (2) sets of the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules, one (1) set for City and one (1) set for Developer. If it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules, the contents of these sets are presumed for all purposes of this Development Agreement, absent clear clerical error or similar mistake, to constitute the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. 2.4.3. Changes in State or Federal Laws. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65869.5, in the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date ("State or Federal Law") prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension of this Agreement that may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement and the Vested Elements. City shall provide written notice to Developer of any proposed or enacted State or Federal Law that could affect this Agreement within five (5) business days of the City learning of such proposed or enacted State or Federal Law. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law. In such an event, this Development Agreement together with any required modifications shall continue in full force and effect. In the event that the State or Federal Law operates to frustrate irremediably and materially the vesting of development rights to the Project as set forth in this Agreement, Developer may terminate this Agreement. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge (by any method, including litigation) the State or Federal Law preventing compliance with, or performance of, the terms of this Development Agreement and, in the event that such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise, except that if the Term of this Development Agreement would otherwise terminate during the period of any such challenge and Developer has not commenced with the development of the Project in accordance with this Development Agreement as a result of such challenge, the Term shall be extended for the period of any such challenge. 2.4.4. Conflicts. In the event of an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and the Applicable Rules (on the other hand), the provisions of the Project Approvals shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and this Development Agreement, in particular, (on the other hand), the provisions of this Development Agreement shall control. ORDINANCE NO. 1225 2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals. 2.5.1. Processing of Subsequent Approvals. City will act reasonably to accept, make completeness determinations, and process, promptly and diligently, to completion all applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project, in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: a. the processing of applications for and issuance of all discretionary approvals requiring the exercise of judgment and deliberation by City, including without limitation, the Subsequent Approvals; b. the holding of any required public hearings; C. the processing of applications for and issuing of all ministerial approvals requiring the determination of conformance with the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, site plans, development plans, land use plans, grading plans, improvement plans, building plans and specifications, and ministerial issuance of one or more final maps, zoning clearances, demolition permits, grading permits, improvement permits, wall permits, building permits, lot line adjustments, encroachment permits, conditional and temporary use permits, sign permits, certificates of use and occupancy and approvals and entitlements and related matters as may be necessary for the completion of the development of the Property ("Ministerial Approvals"). To the extent that additional information is required from Developer to process an application for a Subsequent Approval, City shall notify Developer in writing of all such additional materials within ten (10) day of Developer's initial submission, and City shall process to completion all such applications within thirty (30) days of the initial submission. In the event that Developer submits multiple applications for Subsequent Approvals concurrently, the City shall consider all such requests concurrently unless otherwise requested by Developer. 2.5.2. Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions. The scope of the review of applications for Subsequent Approvals shall be limited to a review of substantial conformity with the Vested Elements and the Applicable Rules (except as otherwise provided by Section 2.4), and compliance with CEQA. Where such substantial conformity/compliance exists, City shall not deny an application for a Subsequent Approval for the Project. ORDINANCE NO. 1225 2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions. 2.6.1. General. All fees, exactions, dedications, reservations or other impositions to which the Project would be subject, but for this Development Agreement, are referred to in this Development Agreement either as "Processing Fees," (as defined in Section 2.6.2) or "Impact Fees" (as defined in Section 2.6.3). 2.6.2. Processing Fees. "Processing Fees" mean fees charged on a citywide basis to cover the cost of City review of applications for any permit or other review by City departments. Applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project shall be charged Processing Fees to allow City to recover its actual and reasonable costs of processing Developer's Subsequent Approvals with respect to the Project. 2.6.3. Impact Fees. "Impact Fees" means monetary fees, exactions or impositions, other than taxes or assessments, whether established for or imposed upon the Project individually or as part of a class of projects, that are imposed by City on the Project in connection with any Project Approval for the Project for any purpose, including, without limitation, defraying all or a portion of the cost of public services and/or facilities construction, improvement, operation and maintenance attributable to the burden created by the Project. Any fee, exaction or imposition imposed on the Project which is not a Processing Fee is an Impact Fee. No Impact Fees shall be applicable to the Project except as provided in this Development Agreement. City understands that long-term assurances by City concerning Impact Fees were a material consideration for Developer agreeing to develop the Project, to pay the Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit C of this Development Agreement and to provide the public benefits associated with the Project. a. For a period of five (5) years from the Effective Date (the "Fee Limitation Period"), only the specific Impact Fees listed in Exhibit C shall apply to the Project, except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Section 2.6.3(a). During the Fee Limitation Period, no change to an Impact Fee in Exhibit C (other than by the inflator, if any, permitted in Exhibit C using the specific index identified herein) resulting in an increase in dollar amounts charged to the Project that is adopted after the Agreement Date shall apply to the Project. If, after the Agreement Date, City decreases the rate of any of its Impact Fees existing as of the Agreement Date, Developer shall pay the reduced Impact Fee in effect at the time of payment. No Impact Fee other than those listed in Exhibit C may be imposed on the Project unless it is a fee which meets all of the following criteria: (i) the fee is imposed citywide equally on all new projects, including without limitation on all new hotels, on a nondiscriminatory basis; (ii) the fee is not used, directly or indirectly, for new or replacement transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, park facilities or open space acquisition, educational facilities, housing, art or police or fire facilities; (iii) the fee meets all nexus and rough proportionality tests and other legal requirements; (iv) the fee is adopted by ordinance by the City pursuant to a nexus study which, in addition to other legal requirements, calculates the fee on new development based on a spread of the cost of the subject facility or facilities or to the entire population creating the need for or benefiting from the facility, whether that population is existing or new due to the development, and 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 calculates the fee on new development based solely on the new development's fair share of such cost spread; and (v) the fee is not of a type that would by operation apply only to the Project and to no other projects located in the City. City acknowledges that no new fee may impose on new development the fair share of a facility or repair attributable to or benefiting the existing population, but City must instead charge such costs to the existing population through other fiscal devices or find alternative funding sources for such existing population's fair share. b. Any Impact Fees levied against or applied to the Project must be consistent with the provisions of applicable California law, including the provisions of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. ("AB 1600). Developer retains all rights set forth in California Government Code Section 66020. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall diminish or eliminate any of Developer's rights set forth in such section. 2.6.4. Conditions of Subsequent Approvals. a. In connection with any Subsequent Approvals, City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions including, without limitation, normal and customary dedications for rights of way or easements for public access, utilities, water, sewers, and drainage necessary for the Project; provided, however, such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, nor inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. Developer may protest any conditions, dedications or fees while continuing to develop the Property; such a protest by Developer shall not delay or stop the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. b. No conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals shall require dedications or reservations for, or construction or funding of, public infrastructure or public improvements beyond those already included in the MMRP. In addition, any and all conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals for the Project must comply with Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 herein. 2.7. Public Services. City hereby acknowledges that it will have, and shall reserve, sufficient capacity in its infrastructure, services and utility systems, including, without limitation, traffic circulation, storm drainage, flood control, and sanitation service, as and when necessary to serve the Project as it is developed. To the extent that City renders such services or provides such utilities, City hereby agrees that it will serve the Project and that there shall be no restriction on hookups or service for the Project except for reasons beyond City's control. 2.8. Taxes and Assessments. 2.8.1. Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms. City is unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new or increased assessments covering the Property, or any portion thereof. City understands that long- term assurances by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments were a material consideration for Developer agreeing to process the siting of the Project in its present ORDINANCE NO. 1225 location and to pay long-term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City shall retain the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of new assessment districts covering all or any portion of the Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.6 above, City may impose new taxes and assessments, other than Impact Fees, on the Property in accordance with the then - applicable laws, but only if such taxes or assessments are adopted by or after City-wide voter or City-wide landowner approval of such taxes or assessments and are equally imposed on other land and projects of the same category within the jurisdiction of City, and, as to assessments, only if the impact thereof does not fall disproportionately on the Property vis-a-vis the other land and projects within City's jurisdiction or the portion of City's jurisdiction subject to the assessment. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to limit Developer from exercising whatever rights it may otherwise have in connection with protesting or otherwise objecting to the imposition of taxes or assessments on the Property. In the event as assessment district is lawfully formed to provide funding for services, improvements, maintenance or facilities which are substantially the same as those services, improvements, maintenance or facilities being funded by the fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in an amount equal to Developer's new or increased assessment under the assessment district. Alternatively, the new assessment district shall reduce/credit Developer's new assessment in an amount equal to such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement. 2.9. Life of Project Approvals and Subdivision Maps. 2.9.1. Life of Subdivision Maps. The terms of any subdivision or parcel map for the Property, any amendment or reconfiguration thereto, or any subsequent tentative map, shall be automatically extended such that such tentative maps remain in effect for a period of time coterminous with the term of this Development Agreement. 2.9.2. Life of Other Project Approvals. The term of all other Project Approvals shall be automatically extended such that these Project Approvals remain in effect for a period of time at least as long as the term of this Development Agreement. 2.9.3. Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term of the Agreement, the term of any subdivision or parcel map or any other Project Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval, which shall commence to run on the date that the termination of this Agreement takes effect (including any extensions). 2.10. Further CEQA Environmental Review. The MND, which has been approved by City as being in compliance with CEQA, addresses the potential environmental impacts of the entire Project as it is described in the Project Approvals. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall be construed to require CEQA review of Ministerial Approvals. It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Approvals for the Project, City will rely on the MND to satisfy the requirements of CEQA 12 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration or environmental impact report unless required by CEQA and will not impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals and the MMRP or specifically required by the Applicable Rules. 2.11. Design/Development Standards. The Project consists of a hotel and residential condominium development as set forth in the Project Approvals, including without limitation the Precise Plan for the Project. The Project's height, parking requirements, and set back requirements shall be as approved in the Precise Plan for the Project. 2.12. Developer's Right to Rebuild. Developer may renovate or rebuild the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer's sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the Vested Elements, shall comply with the Project Approvals, the Building Regulations existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City acknowledges that, due to market conditions at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, Developer may, in its sole discretion, seek to modify the density or ratio of hotel rooms to residential units as necessary to meet then current market conditions, which such modification the City acknowledges would be consistent with the Project Approvals so long as such modification does not result in an overall net increase in the building square footage or the combined total number of hotel rooms and residential units. In no case, however, shall Developer be required to modify either the density or ratio of hotel rooms to residential units. 2.13. Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply. Any and all tentative subdivision maps approved for the Project shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7, if, and to the extent, required by Government Code Section 65867.5(c). ARTICLE 3. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES; ALLOCATIONS OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 3.1. Public Infrastructure. In conjunction with construction of the Project, Developer shall reconstruct and reconfigure a portion of the Highway 74 Frontage Road, the surface improvements of which shall be conveyed to City in accordance with the terms of this Article 3 (the "Public Infrastructure"). 3.1.1. Acceptance; Maintenance. Upon completion of any and all Public Infrastructure to be completed by Developer, Developer shall offer for dedication to City from time to time as such Public Infrastructure is completed, and City shall, acting reasonably, promptly accept from Developer the completed Public Infrastructure (and release to Developer any bonds or other security posted in connection with performance thereof in accordance with the terms of such bonds), and thereafter City shall maintain 13 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 the Public Infrastructure. Developer may offer dedication of Public Infrastructure in phases and the City shall not unreasonably refuse to accept such phased dedications or unreasonably refuse phased releases of bonds or other security so long as all other conditions for acceptance have been satisfied. 3.2. Public Improvements. City shall use its best efforts to work with Developer to ensure that all Public Infrastructure in connection with the Project is (i) designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable City standards, (ii) reviewed and accepted by City in the most expeditious fashion possible, and (iii) maintained by City after acceptance, including, without limitation, maintenance of the public parks. Developer (or its affiliates or contractor(s)) shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals necessary for development of the public infrastructure. ARTICLE 4. ANNUAL REVIEW 4.1. Annual Review. The annual review required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 and Section 25.37.070 of the City Municipal Code shall be conducted for the purposes and in the manner stated in those laws as further provided herein. As part of that review, City and Developer shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert action(s) that either Party reasonably believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other Party a justification for the other Party's position with respect to such action(s), and to take such actions as permitted by law. The procedure set forth in this Article shall be used by Developer and City in complying with the annual review requirement. 4.2. Commencement of Process. The Director of City's Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning Director") shall commence the annual review process by notifying Developer in writing at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the Effective Date each year that the annual review process shall commence as specified in Section 4.1. Failure of Planning Director to send such notification shall be deemed to extend the time period in which annual review is required until at least forty-five (45) days after such notice is provided. City's failure to perform an annual review pursuant to the terms of this Article 4 shall not constitute or be asserted as a default by Developer. 4.3. Developer Compliance Letter. Not less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the Planning Director's notice pursuant to Section 4.2, Developer shall submit a letter to the Planning Director demonstrating Developer's good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and shall include in the letter a statement that the letter is being submitted to City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1. 4.4. Planning Director Review. Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of Developer's letter, the Planning Director shall review Developer's submission and reasonably determine whether Developer has, for the year under review, demonstrated 14 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. 4.5. Planning Director Compliance Finding. If the Planning Director finds that Developer has so complied, the Planning Director shall schedule the annual review for the next available meeting of the Planning Commission and shall prepare a staff report to the Planning Commission, which shall include, in addition to Developer's letter, (i) a demonstration of City's good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; and (ii) the Planning Director's recommendation that the Planning Commission find Developer to be in good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. 4.6. Planning Director Noncompliance Finding. If the Planning Director (or the Planning Commission, on review of the Planning Director's recommendation pursuant to Section 4.5) reasonably finds and determines that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement for the year under review, the Planning Director shall issue and deliver to Developer a written "Notice of Alleged Default" specifying in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the Planning Director (or Planning Commission) reasonably claim constitutes material noncompliance, all facts demonstrating substantial evidence of material noncompliance, and the manner in which such noncompliance may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the Development Agreement. In the event that the material noncompliance, if proven to be true, would qualify an Event of Default pursuant to Article 6 herein, the Parties shall be entitled to their respective rights and obligations under both Articles 4 and 6 herein, except that the particular entity allegedly in default shall be accorded only one of the 60-day cure periods referred to in Sections 4.7 and 6.1 herein. 4.7. Cure Period. If the Planning Director or Planning Commission reasonably finds that Developer is not in compliance, the Planning Director shall grant a reasonable period of time for Developer to cure the alleged noncompliance. The Planning Director shall grant a cure period of at least sixty (60) days and shall extend the sixty (60) day period if Developer is proceeding in good faith to cure the noncompliance and additional time is reasonably needed. At the conclusion of the cure period, the Planning Director shall either (i) find that Developer is in compliance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 4.5; or (ii) find that Developer is not in compliance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 4.8. 4.8. Referral of Noncompliance to Planning Commission. The Planning Director shall refer the alleged default to the Planning Commission if Developer fails to cure the alleged noncompliance to the Planning Director's reasonable satisfaction during the prescribed cure period and any extensions thereto. In addition, the Planning Director shall refer the alleged noncompliance to the Planning Commission if Developer requests a hearing before the Planning Commission to review the Planning Director's determination of non-compliance. The Planning Director shall prepare a staff report to the Planning Commission which shall include, in addition to Developer's letter, if any, 15 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 (i) demonstration of City's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; (ii) the Notice of Alleged Default; and (iii) a description of any cure undertaken by Developer during the cure period. 4.9. Delivery of Documents. At least five (5) days prior to any City hearing regarding Developer's compliance with this Development Agreement, City shall deliver to Developer all staff reports and all other relevant documents pertaining to the hearing. 4.10. Planning Commission Compliance Finding. If the Planning Commission, following a noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 4.5 or 4.8, determines that Developer is in compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and that determination is not appealed to the City Council, the annual review shall be deemed concluded. City shall, at Developer's request, issue and have recorded a Certificate of Compliance indicating Developer's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement. 4.11. Planning Commission Noncompliance Finding; Referral to City Council. If the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 4.5 or 4.8, reasonably finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms or conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement, Developer shall have a reasonable time determined by the Planning Commission to meet the reasonable terms of compliance approved by the Planning Commission, which time shall be not less than fifteen (15) days. If Developer does not complete the terms of compliance within the time specified, the Planning Commission shall forward its recommendations to the City Council and the City Council shall hold a public hearing regarding termination or modification of this Development Agreement. Notification of intention to modify or terminate this Development Agreement shall be delivered to Developer by certified mail containing: (i) the time and place of the City Council hearing; (ii) a statement as to whether City proposes to terminate or modify this Development Agreement and the terms of any proposed modification; and (iii) any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceedings. At the time of the hearing, Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as necessary to protect the interests of City; provided that any modification or termination of this Development Agreement pursuant to this provision shall bear a reasonable nexus to, and be proportional in severity to the magnitude of, the alleged breach, and in no event shall termination be permitted except in accordance with Article 6 herein. 4.12. Relationship to Default Provisions. The above procedures shall supplement and shall not replace that provision of Section 6.4 of this Development Agreement whereby either City or Developer may, at any time, assert matters which either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Alleged Default and following the procedures set forth in said Section 6.4. 16 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS 5.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as those provisions existed at the Agreement Date. No amendment or addition to those provisions or any other federal or state law and regulation that would materially adversely affect the interpretation or enforceability of this Development Agreement or would prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement shall be applicable to this Development Agreement unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the change in law, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of the application of such a change in law, the Parties shall meet in good faith to reasonably determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension that may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Development Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend this Development Agreement to permit such applicability. Developer and/or City shall have the right to challenge any new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and in the event such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. The Term of this Agreement may be extended for the duration of the period during which such new law or regulation precludes compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 5.2. Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement. This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of both Parties in writing in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation and the City Development Agreement Regulations. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. All amendments to this Development Agreement shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals. 5.3. Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer and development of the Property hereunder may demonstrate that refinements and clarifications are appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this Development Agreement, City and Developer reasonably agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, City 17 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 5.3 or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 5.2 above. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any operating memoranda hereunder on behalf of City. 5.4. Amendments to Project Approvals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, Developer may seek and City may review and grant amendments or modifications to the Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals) subject to the following (except that the procedures for amendment of this Development Agreement are set forth in Section 5.2 herein). 5.4.1. Amendments to Project Approvals. Project Approvals (except for this Development Agreement the amendment process for which is set forth in Section 5.2) may be amended or modified from time to time, but only with the written consent of both Developer and the City (in their respective sole discretion) and in accordance with Section 2.4. All amendments to the Project Approvals shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development as set forth in all such amendments shall be automatically vested pursuant to this Development Agreement, without requiring an amendment to this Development Agreement. Amendments to the Project Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules, subject to Section 2.4. 5.4.2. Administrative Amendments. Upon the request of Developer for an amendment or modification of any Project Approval, the Planning Director or his/her designee shall reasonably determine: (a) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (b) whether the requested amendment or modification substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules. If the Planning Director or his/her designee reasonably finds that the requested amendment or modification is both minor and substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules, the amendment or modification shall be determined to be an "Administrative Amendment," and the Planning Director or his/her designee may approve the Administrative Amendment, without public notice or a public hearing. In those instances where the Planning Director believes an application for administrative amendment will generate significant public interest or significant policy issues, the Planning Director may refer the application to the Planning Commission for ORDINANCE NO. 1225 review and action. Each decision made by the Planning Director pursuant to delegated authority in accordance with this Section shall be placed as an information item on the Planning Commission agenda together with a summary of the Administrative Amendment. If the Planning Director receives a written request for a Planning Commission public hearing and action by the Planning Commission any time during the review process but no later than ten (10) days after the action of the Planning Director, or at the Planning Commission meeting for which the information item is on the agenda, then the Administrative Amendment shall be set for Planning Commission public hearing and action. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, reductions in the density, intensity, scale or scope of the Project, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the overall design concepts of the Project, substitution of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections and facilities that do not substantially alter design concepts of the Project, amendments to the master sign program, and minor adjustments to a subdivision map or the Property legal description shall be deemed to be minor amendments or modifications. Any request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval that is determined not to be an Administrative Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Rules and this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 6.1. Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 10.2 hereof regarding permitted delays and a Mortgagee's right to cure pursuant to Section 9.3 hereof, any failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Development Agreement (not including any failure by Developer to perform any term or provision of any other Project Approvals) shall constitute an "Event of Default," (i) if such defaulting Party does not cure such failure within one hundred twenty (120) days (such one hundred twenty (120) day period is not in addition to any cure period under Section 4.7, if Section 4.7 is applicable) following written notice of default from the other Party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such one hundred twenty (120) day period, or (ii) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such one hundred twenty (120) day period, the defaulting Party does not within such one hundred twenty (120) day period commence substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the Event of Default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Development Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of R ORDINANCE NO. 1225 any approval with respect to the Project. The waiver by either Party of any default under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Development Agreement. 6.2. Meet and Confer. During the time periods specified in Section 6.1 for cure of a failure of performance, the Parties shall meet and confer in a reasonably timely and responsive manner, to attempt to resolve any matters prior to litigation or other action being taken, including without limitation any action in law or equity; provided, however, nothing herein shall be construed to extend the time period for this meet and confer obligation beyond the 120-day cure period referred to in Section 6.1 (even if the 120- day cure period itself is extended pursuant to Section 6.1(ii)) unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. 6.3. Remedies and Termination. If, after notice and expiration of the cure periods and procedures set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, the alleged Event of Default is not cured, the non -defaulting Party, at its option, may institute legal or judicial reference proceedings pursuant to Section 6.4 or 6.6 of this Development Agreement and/or terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 6.7 herein. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 6.7 herein and litigation or judicial reference is instituted that results in a final decision that such termination was improper, then this Development Agreement shall immediately be reinstated as though it had never been terminated. 6.4. Legal Action by Parties. 6.4.1. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Development Agreement. All remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rules that would conflict with the Vested Elements or the Subsequent Approvals for the Project or reduce the development rights provided by the Project Approvals. 6.4.2. No Damages. In no event shall either Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any default under this Development Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to either Party for a breach or violation of this Development Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Development Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Development Agreement including, but not limited to 20 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 obligations to pay attorneys' fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party's choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party's rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Development Agreement by the other Party. 6.5. Effects of Litigation. In the event that litigation is timely instituted, and a final judgment is obtained, which invalidates in its entirety this Development Agreement, then Developer shall have no obligations whatsoever under this Development Agreement. In the event that any payment(s) have been made by or on behalf of Developer to City pursuant to the obligations contained in Section 2.6, City shall give to Developer a refund of the monies remaining in any segregated City account into which such payment(s) were deposited, if any, along with interest which has accrued, if any. To the extent the payment(s) made by or on behalf of Developer were not deposited, or no longer are, in the segregated City account, City shall give Developer a credit for the amount of said payment(s) as determined pursuant to this Section 6.5, along with interest, if any, that has accrued, which credit may be applied by Developer to any costs or fees imposed by City on Developer in connection with construction or development within or outside the Property. Developer shall be entitled to use all or any portion of the credit at its own discretion until such time as the credit has been depleted. Any credits due to Developer pursuant to this Section 6.5 may, at Developer's own discretion, be transferred by Developer to a third party for application by said third party to any costs or fees imposed by City on the third party in connection with construction or the development of property within City, whether or not related to the Project. In the event that Developer has already developed or is developing a portion of the Project at the time of any invalidation of the Development Agreement, then any such refund or credit shall be limited to the amount paid by Developer that exceeds, on a pro rata basis, the proportion and uses of the Property retained by Developer to the entire Property. This Section 6.5 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. 6.6. Judicial Reference. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 638, et seq., all legal actions shall be heard by a referee who shall be a retired judge from either the Riverside County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, the United States District Court or the United States Court of Appeals, provided that the selected referee shall have experience in resolving land use and real property disputes. Developer and City shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before such referee. If Developer and City are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either Party hereto, either Party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such 21 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the Parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 6.6 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 6.6, either Party shall be entitled to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, or to enjoin the other Party from an asserted breach thereof, pending the selection of a referee as provided in this Section 6.6, on a showing that the moving party would otherwise suffer irreparable harm. Upon the mutual agreement by both Parties, any legal action shall be submitted to non -binding arbitration in accordance with rules to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. 6.7. Termination. 6.7.1. Expiration of Term. Except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement as set forth in Section 1.3. 6.7.2. Survival of Obligations. Upon the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement as provided herein, neither Party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property under this Development Agreement except with respect to any obligation that is specifically set forth as surviving the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. The termination or expiration of this Development Agreement shall not affect the validity of the Project Approvals (other than this Development Agreement) for the Project. 6.7.3. Termination by City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, City shall not have the right to terminate this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Property before the expiration of its Term unless City complies with all termination procedures set forth in the Development Agreement Legislation and there is an Event of Default by Developer and such Event of Default is not cured pursuant to Article 4 herein or this Article 6 and Developer has first been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged default before the City Council and this Development Agreement is terminated only with respect to that portion of the Property to which the default applies. Compliance with the procedures set forth in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 and 6.7.3 shall be deemed full compliance with the requirements of the California Claims Act (Government Code Sections 900 et seq.) including, but not limited to, the notice of an event of default hereunder constituting full compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 910. ARTICLE 7. COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development Agreement shall reasonably cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this 22 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 7.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies. Other public agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Development Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. Nevertheless, City shall be bound by, and shall abide by, its covenants and obligations under this Development Agreement in all respects when dealing with any such agency regarding the Property. To the extent that City, the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, agency, committee, department or commission of City constitutes and sits as any other board, agency, commission, committee, or department, it shall not take any action that conflicts with City's obligations under this Agreement. 7.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants. Developer shall apply in a timely manner in accordance with Developer's construction schedule for the permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. Developer shall comply with all such permits, requirements and approvals. City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain (a) such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time, at the request of Developer, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to enter into binding agreements with any such entity to ensure the availability of such permits and approvals, or services, at each stage of the development of the Project; and (b) any grants for the Project for which Developer applies. 7.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. 7.4.1. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or Developer relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or approval of any Subsequent Approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity. City shall not stipulate to or cooperate in the issuance of any such order. 7.4.2. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement, the procedures leading to its adoption, or the Project Approvals for the Project, Developer and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action, to select its own counsel (and pay for such counsel at its own expense), and to control its participation and conduct in the litigation in all respects permitted by law. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense 23 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. City retains the option to select and employ independent defense counsel at its own expense. If, in the exercise of its sole discretion, Developer agrees to pay for defense counsel for City, Developer shall jointly participate in the selection of such counsel. Notwithstanding the provisions of California Government Code Section 66474.9, City shall not require, as a condition for a tentative map application or approval, or any other applications for Project Approvals, that Developer defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul a City approval concerning a subdivision. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 7.5. Revision to Project. In the event of a court order issued as a result of a successful legal challenge, City shall, to the extent permitted by law or court order, in good faith seek to comply with the court order in such a manner as will maintain the integrity of the Project Approvals and avoid or minimize to the greatest extent possible (i) any impact to the development of the Project as provided for in, and contemplated by, the Vested Elements, or (ii) any conflict with the Vested Elements or frustration of the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements. 7.6. State, Federal or Case Law. Where any state, federal or case law allows City to exercise any discretion or take any act with respect to that law, City shall, in an expeditious and timely manner, at the earliest possible time, (a) exercise its discretion in such a way as to be consistent with, and carry out the terms of, this Agreement and (b) take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the terms of this Agreement. 7.7. Defense of Agreement. City shall take all actions that are necessary or advisable to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Agreement. If this Agreement is adjudicated or determined to be invalid or unenforceable, City agrees, subject to all legal requirements, to consider modifications to this Agreement to render it valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law. ARTICLE 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS 8.1. Right to Assign. Developer shall have the right to sell, assign or transfer ("Transfer') in whole or in part its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement, to any person or entity at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall the rights, duties and obligations conferred upon Developer pursuant to this Development Agreement be at any time so Transferred except through a transfer of the Property. In the event of a transfer of a portion of the Property, Developer shall have the right to Transfer its rights, duties and 24 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 obligations under this Development Agreement that are applicable to the transferred portion, and to retain all rights, duties and obligations applicable to the retained portions of the Property. Upon Developer's request, City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer and any proposed transferee to allocate rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals among the transferred Property and the retained Property. Other than Transfers of individual residential condominium units located on the Property, Developer shall provide City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the close of escrow for any Transfer the identity of the proposed transferee, a summary of the proposed transferee's qualifications, and a copy of the proposed assignment and assumption agreement between Developer and the proposed transferee. 8.2. Release upon Transfer. Upon the Transfer of Developer's rights and interests under this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1, Developer shall automatically be released from its obligations and liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred, and any subsequent default or breach with respect to the Transferred rights and/or obligations shall not constitute a default or breach with respect to the retained rights and/or obligations under this Development Agreement, provided that (i) Developer has provided to City written notice of such Transfer, and (ii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of Developer under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer's obligations under this Agreement by such transferee, City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee with the provisions of this Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such transferee. A default by any transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer's rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such transferee. The transferor and the transferee shall each be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such transferor/transferee, and any amendment to this Agreement between City and a transferor or a transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferor or transferee. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not affect the running of any covenants herein with the land, as provided in Section 8.3 below, nor shall such failure negate, modify or otherwise affect the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the individual owner of any residential condominium unit located on the Property that has been finally subdivided, constructed and sold, shall have no obligations under this Development Agreement, including without limitation, the obligation to participate in periodic review as required under Article 4, above. 8.3. Covenants Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by 25 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 merger, reorganization, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder (i) is for the benefit of such Property and is a burden upon such Property, (ii) runs with such Property, (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such Property or any portion thereof, and (iv) each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such Property, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit the Property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such Property. ARTICLE 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE 9.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property ("Mortgage'). This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and inure to the benefit of any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee') who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 9.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement, or by the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. 9.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given to Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed a default, and if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall 26 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the Event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 9.4. No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 9 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee's obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Development Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 9 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 9.3. 9.5. Technical Amendments to this Article 9. City agrees to reasonably consider and approve interpretations and/or technical amendments to the provisions of this Agreement that are required by lenders for the acquisition and construction of the improvements on the Property or any refinancing thereof and to otherwise cooperate in good faith to facilitate Developer's negotiations with lenders. ARTICLE 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1. Limitation on Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, in no event shall: (a) any partner, officer, director, member, shareholder, employee, affiliate, manager, representative, or agent of Developer or any general partner of Developer or its general partners be personally liable for any breach of this Development Agreement by Developer, or for any amount which may become due to City under the terms of this Development Agreement; or (b) any member, officer, agent or employee of City be personally liable for any breach of this Development Agreement by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer under the terms of this Development Agreement. 10.2. Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals and the time within which Developer shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the Party seeking the delay by strikes, lock -outs and other labor difficulties, Acts of God, inclement weather, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, any development moratorium or any action of other public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services prevents, prohibits or delays construction of the Project, enemy action, civil disturbances, wars, terrorist acts, fire, unavoidable casualties, litigation involving this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Developer which substantially interferes with carrying out the development of the Project. Such extension(s) of time shall not constitute an Event of Default and shall occur at the request of any Party. In addition, 27 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 the Term of this Development Agreement and any subdivision map or any of the other Project Approvals shall not include any period of time during which (i) a development moratorium is in effect; (ii) the actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the Property prevent, prohibit or delay either the construction, funding or development of .the Project or (iii) there is any mediation, arbitration; litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding pending involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. The Term of the Project Approvals shall therefore be extended by the length of any development moratorium or similar action; the amount of time any actions of public agencies prevent, prohibit or delay the construction, funding or development of the Project or prevents, prohibits or delays the construction, funding or development of the Project; or the amount of time to finally resolve any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. Furthermore, in the event the issuance of a building permit for any part of the Project is delayed as a result of Developer's inability to obtain any other required permit or approval, then the Term of this Development Agreement shall be extended by the period of any such delay. 10.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Formal written notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally (including delivery by private courier), dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or delivered by nationally recognized overnight courier service, or by electronic facsimile transmission followed by delivery of a "hard" copy to the offices of City and Developer indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either Party may from time -to -time designate in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the name and/or address change and as provided in this Section 10.3. City: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Manager with copies to: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Attorney City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Planning Director 9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 Developer: EP-Monterey, LLC c/o Friedman Equities, LLC 150 East 58th Street, 21 st Floor New York, NY 10155 Attn: Mr. Peter Friedman with copies to: Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Attn: Mr. Matthew Joblon JMH Development 401 West Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Attn: Mr. Jason Halpern Notices personally delivered shall be deemed to have been received upon delivery. Notices delivered by certified mail, as provided above, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated above as the Party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) within five (5) days after a certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. Notices delivered by overnight courier service as provided above shall be deemed to have been received twenty-four (24) hours after the date of deposit. Notices delivered by electronic facsimile transmission shall be deemed received upon receipt of sender of electronic confirmation of delivery, provided that a "hard" copy is delivered as provided above. 10.4. Proiect as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnership. The Project constitutes private development, neither City nor Developer is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and City and Developer are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Development Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 10.5. Severability. If any terms or provision(s) of this Development Agreement or the application of any term(s)or provision(s) of this Development Agreement to a particular situation, is (are) held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Development Agreement or the application of this Development Agreement to other situations, shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties; provided that, if the invalidation, voiding or enforceability would deprive either City or Developer of material benefits derived from this Development Agreement, or make performance under this Development Agreement unreasonably difficult, then City and Developer shall meet and confer and shall make good faith efforts to amend or modify this Development Agreement in a manner that is mutually acceptable to City and Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Development Agreement, 4t ORDINANCE NO. 1225 or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, Developer (in its sole and absolute discretion) may terminate this Development Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to City. 10.6. Section Headings. Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement. 10.7. Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement. 10.8. Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement is executed in (_) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Development Agreement consists of (_) pages including the Recitals, and (_) exhibits, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, which, together with the Project Approvals, constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The exhibits and appendices are as follows: Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B Map of the Property Exhibit C Impact Fees 10.9. Estoppel Certificates. Either Party may, at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and. a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if amended; identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other information reasonably requested. The Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed response explaining why it will not do so within five (5) business days following the receipt thereof. The failure of either Party to provide the requested certificate within such five (5) business day period shall constitute a confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and no modification or default exists. Either the City Manager or the Planning Director shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 10.10. Recordation. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868.5, within ten (10) days after the later of execution of the Parties of this Development 30 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 Agreement or the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder. Thereafter, if this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Riverside County Recorder. 10.11. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon noncompliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall be in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought, and any such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach or non-performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 10.12. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Development Agreement for which time is an element. 10.13. Applicable Law. This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10.14. Attorneys' Fees. Should any legal action be brought by either Party because of a breach of this Development Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and such other costs as may be found by the referee. Attorneys' fees under this Section shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal and, in addition, a Party entitled to attorneys' fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation, expert witness fees, incurred in connection with such action. In addition to the foregoing award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party, the prevailing party in any lawsuit shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees incurred in any post -judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement. 10.15. Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise provided herein, City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any third party beneficiary to this Development Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third party beneficiary status. 10.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Development Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property. 10.17. Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed by each Party on a separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single instrument. 31 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 10.18. Authority. Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that the person or persons executing this Agreement on such party's behalf has the authority to bind his or her respective Party and that all necessary board of directors', shareholders', partners', city councils', redevelopment agencies' or other approvals have been obtained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first set forth above. DEVELOPER: EP-Monterey, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation By: Name: Title: ATTESTATION: By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: , City Clerk City Attorney 32 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On _ , 2011 before me, (here insert name of the officer), Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public [Seal] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss: COUNTY OF On _ , 2011 before me, (here insert name of the officer), Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [Seal] Signature of Notary Public 33 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PARCEL 1: LOTS 10 AND 11 OF BLOCK NO. A-3 OF PALM DESERT UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 21, PAGES 81 THROUGH 84, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: LOTS 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK NO. A-3 OF PALM DESERT UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 21, PAGES 81 THROUGH 84, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 34 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 EXHIBIT B MAP OF PROPERTY VICINITY MAP AO r M SCAL 35 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 EXHIBIT C IMPACT FEES All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Development Agreement to which this Exhibit C is attached to and a part thereof. The following Impact Fees shall apply to the Project as provided in Section 2.6.3 of this Development Agreement: 1. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.44) 2. The Childcare Facilities Impact Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.45) 3. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.46) 4. The Neighborhood and Community Public Facilities Fee (PDMC Ch. 26.48) 5. The Drainage Facility Fee (PDMC Ch. 26.49) 6. The City Signalization Fee 7. Art in Public Places Fee (PDMC Ch. 4.10) 8. Low Income Housing Fee ORDINANCE NO. 1225 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS............................................................................3 1.1. Parties........................................................................................................3 1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement......................................3 1.3. Term...........................................................................................................4 1.4. Project Approvals.......................................................................................4 ARTICLE 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.......................................................5 2.1. Project Development..................................................................................5 2.2. Vested Elements........................................................................................ 5 2.3. Development Construction Completion......................................................6 2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules..........................................................................................................6 2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals............................................................9 2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions........................................10 2.7. Public Services.........................................................................................11 2.8. Taxes and Assessments..........................................................................11 2.9. Life of Project Approvals and Subdivision Maps......................................12 2.10. Further CEQA Environmental Review......................................................12 2.11. Design/Development Standards...............................................................13 2.12. Developer's Right to Rebuild....................................................................13 2.13. Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply.........................................13 ARTICLE 3. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES; ALLOCATIONS OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.......................................................................................................................13 3.1. Public Infrastructure.................................................................................13 3.2. Public Improvements................................................................................14 ARTICLE 4. ANNUAL REVIEW.....................................................................................14 4.1. Annual Review.........................................................................................14 4.2. Commencement of Process.....................................................................14 4.3. Developer Compliance Letter...................................................................14 4.4. Planning Director Review.........................................................................14 4.5. Planning Director Compliance Finding.....................................................15 4.6. Planning Director Noncompliance Finding...............................................15 4.7. Cure Period..............................................................................................15 4.8. Referral of Noncompliance to Planning Commission...............................15 4.9. Delivery of Documents.............................................................................16 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 4.10. Planning Commission Compliance Finding..............................................16 4.11. Planning Commission Noncompliance Finding; Referral to CityCouncil.............................................................................................16 4.12. Relationship to Default Provisions............................................................16 ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS.........................................................................................17 5.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation .............................17 5.2. Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement...................17 5.3. Operating Memoranda.............................................................................17 5.4. Amendments to Project Approvals...........................................................18 ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION...........................................19 6.1. Events of Default......................................................................................19 6.2. Meet and Confer......................................................................................20 6.3. Remedies and Termination......................................................................20 6.4. Legal Action by Parties.............................................................................20 6.5. Effects of Litigation................................................................................... 21 6.6. Judicial Reference....................................................................................21 6.7. Termination..............................................................................................22 ARTICLE 7. COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION...............................................22 7.1. Further Actions and Instruments..............................................................22 7.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies.......................................................23 7.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants...............................23 7.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge...........................................23 7.5. Revision to Proiect...................................................................................24 7.6. State, Federal or Case Law......................................................................24 7.7. Defense of Agreement.............................................................................24 ARTICLE 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.........................................................24 8.1. Right to Assign.........................................................................................24 8.2. Release upon Transfer.............................................................................25 8.3. Covenants Run with the Land..................................................................25 ARTICLE 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE..................26 9.1. Mortgagee Protection............................................................................... 26 9.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated.........................................................................26 9.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure....................26 9.4. No Supersedure....................................................................................... 27 9.5. Technical Amendments to this Article 9...................................................27 ARTICLE 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS...........................................................27 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 10.1. Limitation on Liability................................................................................27 10.2. Force Maieure..........................................................................................27 10.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties...................................................................................................... 28 10.4. Proiect as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnership............................................................................................... 29 10.5. Severability...............................................................................................29 10.6. Section Headings..................................................................................... 30 10.7. Construction of Agreement.......................................................................30 10.8. Entire Agreement.....................................................................................30 10.9. Estoppel Certificates................................................................................30 10.10. Recordation.............................................................................................. 30 10.11. No Waiver................................................................................................31 10.12. Time Is of the Essence.............................................................................31 10.13. Applicable Law......................................................................................... 31 10.14. Attorneys' Fees........................................................................................31 10.15. Third Party Beneficiaries..........................................................................31 10.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance........................................................31 10.17. Counterparts............................................................................................31 10.18. Authority................................................................................................... 32 EXHIBITA.....................................................................................................................34 EXHIBITB.....................................................................................................................35 EXHIBITC.....................................................................................................................36 IM RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CEQA PURPOSES, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A PROPOSED ROSEWOOD 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON A 4.97t GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27t ACRES) AND TO -BE -VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7t ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45-640 HIGHWAY 74. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 10-26, and City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project will not have significant impacts on the environment with mitigation, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice to Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 10, 2010 and again on May 5, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the draft MND and Initial Study to the public for a thirty -day (30) review and comment period beginning on May 5, 2011 and ending on May 24, 2011 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b); and WHEREAS, as set forth below, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 21 day of June 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the PDH Partners, LLC. for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2554 has recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; WHEREAS, at public hearing(s) held on this 14 day of July, 2011 and on this day of , 2011, the City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: FINDINGS: CEQA Finding: A. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 and City Guidelines to implement CEQA, the City finds, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Precise Plan Findings: A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of design, consideration shall be given and restrictions shall be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning and use of the subject property and the surrounding property, to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this chapter. The standard restrictions imposed in the various zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circumstances" are intended to refer to the case of a permitted case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded by property in the same zone as the lot in question. Prior to 1983, the property was zoned residential with a hotel and restaurant on the property. In 1983, the property was rezoned as part of an approval of a 248 room hotel with two restaurants. After the approval, 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 the previous hotel was demolished and only the restaurant remained. The restaurant was recently demolished in 2009, leaving the property vacant today. The size and shape of the parcels are restrictive, requiring a creative hotel design that will meet the use allowed by the zone without substantial depreciation of property values, and impacts to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. The creative design of the project has prohibited any traffic on Ocotillo Drive, eliminating any traffic impacts to a residential collector street. Restrictions were imposed during the design process such that the buildings are designed with a the taller portions stepped back from the street and neighboring properties to minimize the massing and view impacts, which will protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 meeting the purpose of the Scenic Preservation Overlay District. This will serve to protect the adjacent property owners to the extent practicable from interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. The project is also designed to take advantage of the 28-foot slope by measuring the project from the average grade height as stated in 25.56.300. This design places the tallest building at the north end of the project adjacent to the commercial zone, and the shortest building at the south end adjacent to the residential zone. If the buildings were designed under "normal circumstances" with a 35-foot height limit from grade of each building, it would cause a greater impact to the residential property to the south and the residential properties to the southeast across Ocotillo Drive. As for the setbacks, Section 25.30.290 requires special setbacks for interior lots within the PC-4 District. The requirement is one foot of setback for one foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The intent of this requirement is to provide step backs in taller buildings so that the buildings are terraced, which minimizes the visual impacts. Along Highway 74, the two buildings comply with the special setback. Along Ocotillo Drive, portions of the north (hotel) building are closer to the ultimate curb line than the one foot requirement, however, the building is terraced after the second floor minimizing the visual impacts of the building and meeting the intent of the special setbacks required in Section 25.30.290. The buildings were designed with terraced step backs to enhance the project's relationship with the properties directly adjacent to the east, prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, and not to create unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. The reduction of Section 25.30.290 can be granted with approval of the Development Agreement. B. If the proposed precise plan of design would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before adoption as to remove said objections. C RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 The proposed precise plan of design has been under review by the City for nearly two years, and the project has been reduced in mass and area by 42,000 square feet to reduce overall project massing, minimize the visual impacts to the surrounding properties and protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 and adjoining properties. In addition to the reduction of 42,000 square feet, the Environmental Assessment and Initial Study incorporate mitigation measures that will reduce any impacts to less than significant. The proposed project will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity, interfere with the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties, or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. The proposed project will buffer residences to the east from Highway 74 traffic noise. The proposed project is expected to increase property values in the immediate vicinity through the redevelopment of a long vacant lot into a project that includes a high -end boutique hotel and residential condominiums that are expected to have sales prices well above average for the area. C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, the planning commission and city council, as the case may be, may also consider and take into account the exterior architectural design, general exterior appearances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility facilities, and if it is found that the proposed precise plan of design, including the considerations enumerated in this chapter would interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise plan area, or with the existing or proposed use thereof, such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before approval as to remove the objections. The architectural and landscaping design was presented to the City's Architectural Review Commission five times and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The design of the buildings was well received by the Architectural Review Commission throughout review, with the Architectural Review Commission's only concern being the massing and size of the buildings as initially proposed. Based on input from all community stakeholders and City staff, the project was reduced by 42,000 square feet and the design otherwise substantially modified to reduce the size and massing impacts to the surrounding property owners and along Highway 74. The project's building and landscape design will enhance the property and will not interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the project. As modified, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to views from any public right of way. Further, though private views from within the Sandpiper development are not legally protected, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to any views from within Sandpiper or any other non -protected view areas. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 Conditional Use Findings: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; The proposed location of the project is within the Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. The purpose of the PC district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the City. The project will provide a mix of hotel and residential land uses. The hotel component is located at the north end of the site, which is adjacent to commercial zoning and uses, including an existing art gallery. The majority of the residential component is located at the south end of the site, which is adjacent to residential zoning and with an existing condominium complex. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The property is zoned for hotel development, and in 1983, the City approved a 248-room hotel with two restaurant uses on the project site. Due to the size and quality of the proposed project, the proposed hotel will result in lower traffic impacts than what would be expected from other hotel development and environmentally superior to the project approved previously. The former hotel approved in 1983 would have provided at least two times the amount of traffic impacts along Highway 74. Development of the proposed commercial hotel and residential use will meet all applicable requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code for grading and the California Uniform Building Code for construction, and will not be detrimental to general public health, safety, and welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. The proposed project has registered for and will obtain LEED certification. Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by staff and contracted consultants to ensure the project will be built in accordance with such sections described above. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment was conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared, which conclude that with the application of mitigation measures and conditions of approval to be imposed on this project, it will not result in any unmitigated significant impacts and will not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2(X 1 - 72 The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council, in enacting a Precise Plan, to approve site specific development standards that differ from other generally applicable standards. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards in the approved Precise Plan. A Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan, including any site specific development standards. No variances or adjustments not included within the Precise Plan and Development Agreement are required for approval of the project. D. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's General Plan. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Goals and Polices section in the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. " The project represents a mix of commercial hotel and condominium development that will provide a mix of revenue generating land uses. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents and guests is also likely result in positive fiscal consequences for the City, which will fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities that the City provides to the residents and visitors. Goal 1 of the City's Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies section assures "An integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities." The proposed project is an integration of resort residential and upscale boutique hotel. Residential -serving commercial, including Fresh and Easy, Starbucks, and other neighborhood commercial services are within easy walking distance. Both the residents and hotel guests are also expected to make expenditures within the El Paseo commercial corridor. The project also constitutes a new hospitality and tourist commercial product that should complement the El Paseo village area. Goal 2 of the City's Commercial Land Use assures "A pattern of commercial lan d 1.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 As a part of the El Paseo commercial corridor and with its location on Highway 74, the proposed mixed residential/resort hotel will compliment and create synergies with the El Paseo village area. This type of mixed use supports the City's resort and retail commercial position in the City and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping essentially all project traffic on Highway 74, surrounding neighborhoods are not impacted by project traffic. As noted above and in the discussion under 'Aesthetics", the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the adjoining streets (Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive). Goal 1 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure a 'A high quality of life provided within a livable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the City's status as a premier resort community and important commercial center." The proposed project represents a new high -end resort hotel and resort residential development for the City of high quality design, amenities and value. In addition to the "boutique" hotel component, the project also provides high value residential units that capture both the visitor and part- time resident. The hotel's design and location are contiguous to the El Paseo commercial corridor, which it is expected to complement. The hotel also diversifies the offering of hotel accommodations in the City and should enhance the City's standing as a premier resort community. Goal 2 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure an "An aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting." The proposed hotel/condo project brings a high level of architectural design to this portion of Highway 74. The project is a positive contribution to the City's architectural diversity and innovation, and should enhance the community image, as other development along and near the El Paseo corridor has done. The project is located in the heart of the City and is not near any natural open space or elevated terrain. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure "Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources." The proposed project introduces a high level of architectural and landscape design. It also achieves a high level of land use efficiency, providing 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential units on less than five acres. The project also uses a desert themed landscape plan that adheres to the City's xeriscape landscape guidelines. Being located in the urban M RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 core of the City, and is located development the project is removed from natural open space areas along a highway with a high level of contiguous No map shall be approved unless the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General . Plan. It should be noted that the Planning Commission approved the project, considering the proposed project consistent with the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units on commercially zoned property. The General Plan does not quantitatively address density in the commercial land use section, however, the residential goals, policies, and programs has a goal to provide "a range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community" The density of this hotel does not conflict with the City's General Plan or any specific plans. In addition, the property is located in a Scenic Preservation Overlay District, which allows the City's Architectural Review Commission to consider preservation of scenic vistas. Though views from private development receive no special legal protections, the buildings were specifically redesigned with a partial fourth floor area reduction and that is set back an additional 45 feet from Highway 74 to minimize the impacts to the scenic vistas and impacts to the Sandpiper Residents to the west. The north building was redesigned by eliminating 12, 000 square feet and stepping back the partial fourth floor 45 feet from the north side of the building to minimize the visual impact to the Imago Art Gallery. Lastly, both buildings have incorporated step backs at the third and fourth floors along Ocotillo Drive, minimizing the size and massing of the project to the properties on the east side of the project. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The design of the residential component will result in 59 air space condominium units. No physical lots for the residential units will be created. Goal 1 of the Residential Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "a balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community." The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to both seasonal and year-round residents. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Although the property is vacant today, 28 years ago there was an existing hotel and restaurant on the property. In addition, the City approved a much larger hotel project on this site in 1983. The site has physical improvements, such as curbs and utilities already providing service to the site. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Initial Study and Environmental Assessment 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development. The proposed 4.97 acres is physically suitable for residential development with access provided to residents and hotel guests by two proposed driveways located on Highway 74. A separate service driveway leading to a below -grade enclosed service area is provided for deliveries, trash removal, and other service uses that is physically separated from residents or hotel guests. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the property is adjacent to residential properties to the south, east and west. 5. The design of the tract map or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study and Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project and all potential impacts are identified as less than significant. Mitigation measures have been identified and will be incorporated throughout the project construction and operation, as applicable. The project is located in the urban core of the City, has been subject to previous site disturbance and development, and its development will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the zoning ordinance and the approved Precise Plan. The proposed development is subject to all applicable City development standards and the Uniform California Building Standards Code, which is developed under the Health and Safety Code (Section 18902), and whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any public easements acquired by the public. Approval of the project does include a future 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 vacation of the existing frontage road. Vacation of the frontage road for this project will not interfere with access to the remaining portions of the frontage road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the decision - making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Initial Study, and whole administrative record, on file with the City and available for review at City Hall, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Rules to Implement CEQA. SECTION 2. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Rules to Implement CEQA. The City further finds that the Project, as modified and mitigated, will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received regarding the Project have been examined and determined to not modify the conclusions of the MND or the City Council. The City Council finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, provides adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Relative to identified areas of potentially significant impact, the City Council finds as follows: A. Aesthetics The Project has gone through extensive City review and has been modified to reduce its size and massing to a sufficient degree that it will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, will not substantially damage scenic resources as seen from Highway 74 or surrounding properties, will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site or area, and will not create a substantial source of light or glare that could affect day or nighttime views in the area. B. Air Quality The Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the PM10 State Implementation Plan or other applicable air quality plan, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 C. Noise The Project will not exposure people to or result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City General Plan or noise ordinance, will not generate or expose people to excessive levels of ground -borne noise or vibration, and will not result in a substantial permanent increase or temporary or periodic increase in local ambient noise levels. D. Land Use/Planning The Project is consistent with the General Plan Community Commercial and High Density Residential designations assigned to the subject property, consisting of a mixed project that will provide a high -end hotel and new residents with high discretionary incomes to help anchor El Paseo. The property does not physically divide an existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing a resort commercial center. Other aspects of the project, height, parking and setbacks are also found consistent based on application of the exceptions portion of the Planned Commercial District, and the Project Precise Plan and Development Agreement. E. Traffic The Project consists of a complementary mix of land uses that reduces off -site travel and will generate substantially less traffic than other previously approved land uses for this site. The Project will not generate a substantial increase in traffic or adversely affect roadway capacity. The Project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City of the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways in the vicinity. The Project will not result in a change in traffic patterns, traffic levels or a change in location that may results in substantial safety risks due to design features or other causes. The Project will not result in inadequate emergency access, inadequate parking or conflict with adopted transportation policies plans or programs. SECTION 3. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at City Hall for the City of Palm Desert, located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside within five (5) working days of approval of the Project. SECTION 6. Findings. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 SECTION 7. Approval. That the City Council does hereby approve: • A Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA Purposes, attached • Development Agreement 09-507, as provided in City Council Ord. No. • Precise Plan 09-507, provided as the site plan for the Project • CUP 09-507, as provided as the Conditions of Approval, attached • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36284, as provided per the tract map for the Project PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this day of 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801), the approved landscape plan, and the current addition of the City of Palm Desert Plant Maintenance Guide. 4. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. The applicant shall contact Burrtec Waste and Recycling, Inc. to provide trash and recycling services that shall include the provisions of and operation of a stinger/bin truck to maneuver the bins to a collection area above ground from within the underground service area. Depending on the location of the trash and recycle bins, the trash enclosures may be required and shall be consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and other conditions, such as number, size, and location of enclosures to accommodate the required number of bins. All bins or enclosures must be screened from public view. 5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. The Art in Public Places Department recommends an onsite public art project for the hotel. 7. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return, or artifacts to tribe, etc.). 8. The applicant shall provide designated parking spaces that can be used for electric vehicles, golf carts and bicycles. 9. The proposed project shall meet the specifications of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Green Building. 10. Vehicular access or deliveries from Ocotillo Drive shall be prohibited. 11. Due to the parking modifications for tandem spaces and a reduction of parking stalls for actual use based on the traffic study provides, the applicant shall provided 100% valet parking for all employees, hotel guests, visitors, and residents. 12. The applicant shall submit design development plans to the Architectural Review Commission before review of the construction drawings by the City. 13. The Final Development Agreement shall be recorded within 30 days of final approval of the project by the City Council. 14. The future hotel operator shall provide the Community Development / Planning Department with a parking management plan, and traffic management plan for stacking within the project and potential stacking on Highway 74 for special events. Said parking and traffic management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Department of Building and Safety 15. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 16. If the project is constructed with the use of off -site parking, the applicant shall provide the Community Development / Planning Department with parking agreements from said property owners identified in the Parking Study before the issuance of any building permits are issued. 17. The applicant, its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any action, claim, or proceeding against the City that attacks, challenges, or seek to set aside this approval with the counsel chosen by the City, subject to the applicant's approval of counsel and expense at the sole of the applicant. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the applicant and cooperate in the defense. Applicant upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover any expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. This 14 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 condition does not prohibit the City from participating in the defense or action or proceeding. 18. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of the Tract Map and any permits: 1. The tract map shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 2. The tract map shall record before the condominium plan. The map recording information shall be referenced on the condo plan. A copy of the grant deeds relative to the conveyance of the units shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to recording the condominium plan and deeds. 3. The applicant shall submit CC&R's concurrently with the map for review and approval by the City. Once approved by the City, the CC&R's shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office. 4. The map shall accommodate for 59' of half street of right-of-way along Highway 74. 5. Reciprocal access easement and drainage easement shall be provided for on the tract map. 6. A drainage easement for the benefit of the public to accommodate northerly flows on the frontage road shall be included on the map. 7. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include: a. The installation of a deceleration lane. Design shall be per the approved site plan. b. The installation of an 8' ADA compliant sidewalk and curb ramps on Highway 74. Design shall be per the approved site plan. c. All overhead utility lines shall be placed underground. d. Modify the existing curb adjacent sidewalk on Ocotillo to current ADA standards. 8. The frontage road shall be accessible on the north and south sides per the design of the approved site plan. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2011, - 72 10. This map may include existing survey monuments that may be disturbed through construction activities. Certain existing survey monumentation may be deemed necessary for preservation and perpetuation subsequent to final construction improvements associated with this project. All survey monuments deemed necessary for perpetuation as recommended by the design civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be identified and shown on the final map for perpetuation. Such survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and if disturbed replaced after construction pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a statement noting whether any monuments will be disturbed and submit monumentation security as determined by the Department of Public Works. 11. The applicant shall submit clearance letters from all utility companies. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 12. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 13. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The Operation and Maintenance section of the approved WQMP shall be recorded with Riverside County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works department. 14. Submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. Submit a site -specific geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist. 16. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. Submit a landscape plan concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicant must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. f. Applicant must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. 18. Any changes to the civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 19. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement is required and needs to be recorded to maintain landscaping as installed per the approved landscape plan. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY: Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC) 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC) 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards) 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1173. 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2007 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 4. All exits must provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 1133B.8 and 1127B.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 6. Provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be ADA accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building & Safety. 7. Please note all residential units are required to comply with CBC Chapter 11A and hotel units must meet requirements of CBC Chapter 11 B. 8. Public pools and spas shall be approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and then submitted to Department of Building & Safety. Pools and spas for public use are required to be ADA accessible. 9. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 10. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 11. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1173 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1173 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1173 or Municipal Code Section 15.15 from the Department of Building & Safety counter staff. 12. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of Building & Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of al buildings per California Fire Code Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fired Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The applicant shall provided proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm fire flow for 3000 gpm for commercial buildings prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-21/2" discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway way prior to any building permits approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install buildings with a 3000 sq approve the locations c Department Connections feet of a building and all Hydrant. 7. All valves switches Code. a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all care foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25 'ire Department Connections shall be within 50 feet of a Fire controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -flow hall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building. and Fire 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1-2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 square feet, 3' to 5' above grade with no more than 75' walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single-family residence. 11. The applicant shall install an all weather Fire Department accessible roadway extending to any portion of the building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 20' and height clearance is 13'6" Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. 12. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: • A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. 13. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to the city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 14. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: • Fire Alarm System • Sprinkler System • Fire Main Underground • Hood Suppression System • Site Plan to Scale 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 19 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 - 72 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a proposed 82 Room Hotel and 59 Unit Residential Condominium project with ancillary uses and amenities on 4.97± gross acres of vacant land (4.27± acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located east of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, and South of the Imago Art Gallery. The subject property address is known as 45-640 Highway 74. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 73-510 FRLD Wnuwc Dim,E PALM DLsi.m, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TLL:760 346—o6ii tnx: 760 341-7098 inloc„�,alnrdc.vrrc.urF CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council on July 14, 2011, for consideration of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a proposed transient hotel and residential condominium on a 4.97± gross acres of currently vacant land (4.27± acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located immediately east of Highway 74, immediately west of Ocotillo Drive, and immediately south of the Imago art gallery. The hotel component will provide 68 standard hotel rooms and 14 suites for a total of 82 transient hotel units. The hotel will also provide a 2,070 square foot Ultra lounge, a 2,100 square foot restaurant and a 40-seat roof -deck bar and grill, spa and fitness center, ballrooms and conference rooms, and boutique and other limited retail commercial totaling 2,870 square feet. The residential condominium component will include 59 units that will be sold as single ownership; no timeshare sales are proposed. i .. A., W, .i Art $ �y "` � ,� yl►� C pi t _ fiJ, tg fill PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert City Council on Thursday July 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk July 2, 2011 City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council on July 14, 2011, for consideration of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto, for a proposed 82 room hotel and 59 unit residential condominium project with ancillary uses and amenities on 4.97± gross acres of currently vacant land (4.27± acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located east of highway 74, west of ocotillo drive, and south of the Imago Art Gallery. The subject property address is known as 45-640 Highway 74. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert City Council on Thursday July 14, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk July 2, 2011 City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PRECISE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A PROPOSED 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON 4.97± GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27± ACRES) AND TO -BE -VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7± ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45-640 HIGHWAY 74. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 DATE: June 21, 2011 CONTENTS: Draft Resolution Exhibit A, Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit B, Development Agreement Legal Notice LEED Certification Checklist Comments from other departments Architectural Review Commission Notices and Minutes Environmental Assessment & Initial Study Traffic Impact Report Parking Analysis Letters in Support Letters in Opposition Response to Comments for draft Initial Study and EA Plans and Photo Exhibits Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 2 of 19 Recommendation That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Development Agreement, Precise Plan, and Conditional Use Permit 09-507, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36284 as proposed, subject to conditions attached. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation will recommend to City Council approval of a new boutique hotel and residential condominium project. The project will total 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential condominium units. All residential condominium units are single or fractional fee -simple ownership; no timeshare sales are proposed. Approval of the project includes ancillary uses and two levels of underground parking for hotel guests and residents, with 24-hour valet service for both. The parking study includes an alternative parking scenario for less onsite parking with off -site parking agreements. At build out, the project will total approximately 380,285 square feet, including private balconies and terraces. The total building area has been reduced by approximately 42,000 square feet since the project was first submitted in 2009. The reduction of square footage included removal of 15 feet of building height along the building frontage for a proposed 4tn floor. The changes were made in response to the comments made by the Architectural Review Commission and concerns of the adjacent art gallery owner to the north of the project. Public Input: Staff has received a total of 309 letters in favor of the project. Letters of support have been provided by the President of College of the Desert, the Board of Directors for El Paseo Business Improvement District, the Vice President of Development and Strategy for Rosewood Hotels & Resorts, the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, hundreds of business members, two homeowner associations on Ocotillo Drive, and 22 home owners within Sandpiper. Staff has also received letters from three parties who oppose the project as it is currently designed. This represents a significant decrease from the opposition expressed to the project as it was originally proposed, when 39 different property owners expressed opposition. The major concern expressed at that time related to the overall size and height of the project and the consequent impact on views to the east from the Sandpiper development. As of writing this report, after more than one year of revising the project to address the height and massing concerns, the number of parties expressing opposition has been reduced to three. These parties have now broadened the areas of their opposition to include traffic, noise, and light. The objecting parties are residents of Sandpiper, who stand to have views (which are not legally protected) of Eisenhower Mountain impacted by the project. The extent of impact is depicted on the Exhibit Pages H-A — H-D. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 3 of 19 Architectural Review Commission Action The project was presented and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission at five (5) meetings starting in April of 2010. On July 13, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval of the building and landscaping design, subject to the ARC reviewing the design development plans before construction drawings are submitted to the City. The project was approved on a 5-1-0-1 vote. Background A. Property Description: The vacant 4.97± acre site is located on the east side of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, south of El Paseo and immediately south the Imago Art Gallery. The property consists of four (4) parcels sloping up approximately 28 feet from the north end of the project site to the south end. Prior to this property being vacant, there was a hotel and restaurant that were demolished after 1983. In 1983, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a Change of Zone, Precise Plan and Tentative Tract map for a three-story 248 room hotel with two restaurants. The existing hotel was demolished and La Paon Restaurant was left remaining, until 2009 when it was demolished as well. The property has been zoned for hotel use for the past 28 years since the previous hotel was demolished. B. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan Land Use Designation: Community Commercial (C-C) and High Density Residential (R-H) Zoning Designation: Planned Commercial, Resort (P.C.4) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Community Commercial (C-1) / Imago Art Gallery South: Multi -Family Residential (R-3) / Camelot Apartments East: Multi -Family Residential (R-3) / Apartments & Condominiums West: Planned Residential-6 (P.R.6) / Sandpiper Proiect Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a combined 82 room transient hotel and 59 unit residential condominium project known as Rosewood. The hotel includes a spa and fitness center, meeting and function space, small boutiques, a signature restaurant, outdoor courtyard and bar, ultra lounge, lobby bar, roof deck amenities, G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 4 of 19 and two levels of underground parking totaling 376 parking stalls. The parking study includes a scenario for one level of underground parking and potential off -site locations for the hotel use during off-peak, nighttime hours to provide flexibility related to construction costs of the hotel. A. Site Plan: The project site is designed with two buildings, each designed with three floors and a partial fourth floor set back an additional 45 feet from Highway 74. The buildings are designed as a U-shaped structure that extends across the site from north to south, parallel to Highway 74 with one floor of the hotel largely below grade. The U-shaped design places the building frontage along Highway 74 with open views and courtyards to the east facing Ocotillo Drive. The setbacks at the closest portions of the building are 15 feet from the south property line, 15 feet from the north property line, 40 feet 6 inches from Highway 74 frontage, and 12 feet from east property line (Ocotillo Drive). The site plan has been designed with most of the existing frontage road being vacated along Highway 74 and incorporated into the overall project design for increased landscaping and decorative paving. A portion of the frontage road will remain at the south end, directly opposite Pitahaya Street, to allow traffic to continue south along Highway 74. B. Access and Parking: The site plan is designed with three driveways exclusively from Highway 74, with no access from Ocotillo Drive. The three driveways will serve different areas of the project. The north driveway (driveway 1) will provide access to the trash, service and delivery area located below ground. The main driveway (driveway 2) separating the two buildings, is 39 feet wide and leads into the arrival courtyard where the hotel guests and residents will have 24/7 valet parking service to the underground parking spaces. The south driveway (driveway 3) provides access to the underground parking spaces for the residential portion of the project, and connects to the existing frontage road extending to south Palm Desert. The project is providing two levels of underground parking totaling 376 parking stalls. All parking spaces are designed as tandem spaces that will be parked by a 24/7 valet parking service. The parking study includes an alternative scenario for one level of underground parking and potential off -site locations for the hotel use during off-peak, nighttime hours. If the scenario with one level of underground parking were constructed, the applicant would be removing 103 on -site parking spaces provided with two -levels of underground parking. In order to address the reduced parking scenario, the parking study identifies a potential for 272 parking spaces at several locations. The parking locations include the Daily Grill, Imago Art Gallery, the Debonne commercial property east of the Daily Grill, and a potential future parking lot that will be located on southeast corner of Ocotillo Drive and Tumbleweed Drive. The off-street parking would GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 5 of 19 be used when there is a need for overflow parking associated with weddings and events that would take place when the surrounding businesses are usually closed. C. Building Description: The square footage of both buildings totals approximately 380,285 square feet, including private balconies and terraces. The hotel structure is approximately 206,555 square feet and the residential structure is approximately 173,730 square feet. The following table illustrates the breakdown of square footage of uses within the two buildings: Building Use Square Footage Hotel Units 53,350 Residential Units 117,830 Spa & Fitness 26,060 Meeting & Function 9,690 Boutique & Shops 2,870 Signature Restaurant 2,100 Ultra Lounge 2,070 Lobby Bar 1,640 Roof Deck 1,220 Ancillary Space 170,140 The hotel component will be located in north building and will provide 68 standard hotel rooms and 14 suites for a total of 82 transient rooms. The hotel will also provide the Ultra lounge, signature restaurant and 40-seat roof -deck bar and grill, spa and fitness center, ballrooms and conference rooms, and boutique and other limited retail shops. The residential condominium component totals 59 residential units, with six one - bedroom units, 40 two -bedroom units, and 13 three -bedroom units. The two and three bedroom units will have a one bedroom lockout unit that may be added into the rental pool. In addition, each residential unit will have the option of being purchased with a furniture package that matches the hotel units, which allows them to be eligible for use for the hotel rental pool. With the lockout units or potential rental units from an entire condominium unit, the maximum number of keys available for the hotel is 115. All residential units will be sold as fee -simple ownership; no timeshare or fraction ownership proposed. The residential condominium units will be located in both buildings, with approximately 75% of the units located in the south building. The south building will have a separate courtyard and pool area. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2,doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 6 of 19 D. Architecture and Building Mass: The site is designed with two buildings dividing the site with an open courtyard in between them. The buildings are flat roof structures with an architectural style that is characterized as a combination of International Style with Mid -Century Modernism. The design utilizes strong horizontal and vertical lines broken up by recessed glass walkways and balconies with permanent and sliding louvers to provide visual interest as well as provide screening of potential reflection from the sun on the glass. The design incorporates neutral stucco color walls, columns and parapets that provide the structure framework of the buildings. The two buildings are designed with three above grade floors and a partial fourth floor, and two subgrade floors for the ancillary uses and parking area. The property slopes 28 feet up from the north end of the site to the south end. Due to the slope of the site, the project height will be described in two ways; from the average (center) grade height and the height from the grade of the structures at the tallest points. From the average grade of the property, both buildings measure 35 feet to the top of the third floor roof, 38 feet 6 inches to the third floor parapet, and 51 feet to the fourth floor parapet. The average elevation of the property is 285 feet. The north end of the property is 271 feet, and the south is 299 feet. Given that the height is measured from the average elevation, both buildings are identified as having the same height. However, the actual overall height of the north building is 47 feet from the ground to the top of the roof of the third floor, 50 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet of the third floor, and 60 feet from the grade of the north end of the building. The overall height of the south building is 24 feet from the ground to the top of the third floor and 36 feet 6 inches to the top of the fourth floor. The hotel building is designed with a 15-foot setback from the north property line with the fourth floor stepping back an additional 45 feet for a minimum of 60 feet from the north property line at the tallest portion. At the northwest corner of the hotel building, there is a corner cut out to increase the setback from the north property line and Highway 74 frontage to provide visibility to the Imago Art Gallery on the north. Along the Highway 74 frontage, both buildings are set back at least 40 feet from the street, with the fourth floor stepping back an additional 45 feet for a minimum setback of 85 feet from the street at the tallest portion of the building. Along Ocotillo Drive, both buildings are designed with a minimum of a 12-foot setback with the buildings stepping back in three tiers in a U-shape design creating an open view of the buildings with courtyards and landscaping. When the project was first submitted and presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on April 13, 2010, the two buildings where designed as four story buildings with no breaks along the north, Highway 74, and fourth floor portions. It appeared as two large rectangular box -like structures and staff expressed concerns over the massing of the buildings and believed it was a negative visual impact to the surrounding area. The Commission stated that they liked the overall design style, G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 7 of 19 materials, and details, but directed the applicant to prepare massing studies to illustrate the project in context with the surrounding properties. At the following meeting, surrounding owners from the Sandpiper development and the property owner of the Imago Art Gallery objected to the massing and other impacts from the project. After four ARC meetings, the applicant redesigned the project substantially in the following ways: • Eliminated fourth floor along the Highway 74 frontage, creating a three-story hotel roofline at 35 feet high measured from the average grade elevation directly along the Highway 74 frontage. • Created four (4) breaks in the two front building elevations by carving out deep recessed portions of the building to reduce the massing along Highway 74, and creating some transparency through the building glass allowing natural lighting into the hallways. • Created a partial fourth floor with an additional 45-foot setback from the front of the building, creating a 95-foot setback from Highway 74. • Stepped back the second, third and fourth floors from each other along Ocotillo Drive, creating a terraced effect to reduce visual impacts. • Reduced the overall square footage of the project by approximately 30,000 square feet for the modifications to reduce the impact on the surrounding properties. The modified plans were reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission on July 13, 2010, with Commissioners Gregory, Stendell, Touschner, Levin, and Lambell voting in favor of the project design, Commissioner Vuksic voting in opposition, and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. The minutes are attached to this report. After the project received approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant wanted to continue to work with the surrounding property owners to address any lingering concerns. The owner of the Imago Art Gallery was concerned about the visual impacts of the hotel blocking his building from Highway 74, along with concerns over the location of the service vehicle driveway. The applicant redesigned the project after the ARC had approved it, reducing the project by another 12,000 square feet (42,000 square feet total) by creating the cut back in the north elevation described above in the third paragraph of this section. The site plan was also redesigned to provide a separate driveway (driveway 1) for the service vehicles, eliminating access from in front of the Imago Art Gallery. With the most recent modifications that are shown as proposed for the Planning Commission, two property owners who opposed the project during the Architectural Review Commission have withdrawn their letters objecting to the project. The two property GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 8 of 19 owners are David and Leisa Austin, owners of the Imago Art Gallery and Katherine Keith who lives at the Sandpiper development. E. Landscaping: The project is designed with drought -tolerant landscaping that will comply with the Coachella Valley Water District water efficiency requirements. The design includes a large area of landscaping along Highway 74 to provide significant landscape presence in front of the building to soften the strong framework of the building. The site design provides for 44% landscaped and hardscaped areas not covered by the buildings. The preliminary landscape plans have been reviewed and approved by the City's Landscape Specialist for design and plant material type and placement. F. Sustainability and LEED-Certification: The project has been designed with the intent of creating a LEED Certified project. Sustainability efforts identified include: • Density by design: the project has a higher than typical residential and commercial hotel density, which results in a substantial increase in land use efficiency; maximizing open space on the property; • Integrated Solar: the project proponent plans to integrate solar thermal and/or electric on the building roof decks, except the pool deck area, to provide hot water for pools and domestic needs, and to off -set some of the demand for electricity from the grid. The extent of solar technology use has not been quantified; • Stormwater runoff will be captured and managed within grass -lined swales and then percolated into the soil and groundwater table via four dry wells, thereby enhancing groundwater recharge; • Highly energy efficient building design and construction, using low-E glass, high levels of insulation, shade and exposure control, etc.; Or Desert Landscaping: the landscape plan incorporates the City's low water -use landscape guidelines and those of CVWD to provide the most water thrifty landscape possible; • Green -Sources Construction Materials: the proposed project will use recycled building materials wherever feasible and cost-effective. The construction waste stream will be minimized and wastes will be recycled wherever feasible in conformance with requirements for LEED certification. (Please see attached LEED specification sheet for project.); and G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 9 of 19 • The project will use EnergyStar appliances throughout, and will utilize highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. G. Development Agreement: Approval of the project includes a draft Development Agreement between the City of Palm Desert and the applicant. A development agreement provides the City and the applicant with a higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed, what associated fees and improvements will be required, and assurance of consistency with City policies, ordinances, regulations, and exceptions allowed as part of the zoning ordinance or development agreement. Analysis: The project is located on four parcels zoned Planned Commercial Resort (PC4) which describes the development standards in Section 25.30 Planned Commercial District of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The following table describes the development standards of the zoning ordinance and the development standards of the proposed project. STANDARD PC4 ZONE PROJECT *Height 35'(measured from 38'6" (Tcl floor) averagegrade) 51'(partial 4th floor "*Front Setback (north) 30' 15' / 27' / 73' **Rear Setback (south) 30' 15' / 23' **Ocotillo Drive Setback 25' 12' min / 149' **Highway 74 Setback 32' 40'3" min Parking 690 376 "Usable Outdoor / Landscaping Space 40% 44% *25.56.300 Height of a structure: A. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. (Ord. 817 § 10, 1996; Ord. 338 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.32-7.09) **25.30.260 Exceptions: Standards outlined in Section 25.30.220 through 25.30.250 shall be required unless modified by the approved precise plan (Ord. 299 (part), 1982; Ord. 95 § 1 (part), 1975) G:\Planning\Tony Sagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09.507, 1736284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 10 of 19 Discussion: As proposed, the hotel is requesting exceptions to the Planned Commercial District development standards. As noted in the table above, Section 25.30.260 of the Planned Commercial District allows exceptions to the development standards as part of the precise plan. In addition, the applicant has prepared a draft Development Agreement for the City's consideration. A development agreement can modify development standards as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The exceptions and development agreement do not change the allowed land use in the zone. The hotel component is allowed in the PC 4 zone and the residential component is allowed above the first floor as a conditional use. The proposed residential building does not have commercial use on the first floor, but can be approved as residential by the development agreement. A. Planned Commercial Resort Zone: According to the Zoning Ordinance, the resort center concept was established to provide development of a low-rise bungalow scale hotel, entertainment, and restaurant facilities with related commercial use along Highway 111. Historically, the property was developed as a hotel with a restaurant. In 1983, an application was approved to allow a 248 room hotel with two restaurants and other ancillary uses including tennis courts, ballrooms and underground parking. The original hotel was demolished and the former La Paon Restaurant was left on the site. The 248 room hotel was never constructed and, other than the recently demolished restaurant, the property has remained undeveloped for 28 years. No hotel approved, to date, in the resort center district meets the criteria of a low-rise bungalow scale hotel. The request for exceptions is not unusual given that the majority of hotels built in Palm Desert have required a height exception. The approval of a height exception has been based on height and view impact studies. B. Height and Views: As described in the table above, the Zoning Ordinance states that the overall height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation grade to the highest point. Based on the average grade, the tallest portion of the main building is 38 feet 6 inches and the partial fourth floor is 51 feet. Although both buildings measure the same height from the average, each building has been designed in context with the 28-foot grade change placing the tallest (60 feet) portion of the building at the north end of the property adjacent to the commercial properties and El Paseo, and placing the shortest (36 feet) portion of the building at the south end of the property adjacent to residential. This type of development has taken place at Westfield Mall, The Gardens on El Paseo, and the recently approved (not constructed) Larkspur Hotel. In all cases, the tallest portions of the buildings were placed away from residential properties to limit the visual impact and massing. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 11 of 19 For this project, a variety of visual studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project. These studies have included on -site field and photographic studies, use of balloons to illustrate the future building heights on site, computer based models with digital terrain from Google Earth, and elevation controlled modeling. Staff required the applicant to provide a viewshed study from distinct areas that would illustrate potential impacts from Highway 74 looking north and south, as well as two locations within the Sandpiper development. The view studies are provided as Exhibits H-A through H-D in the CEQA Initial Study and Environmental Assessment provided with the report. A detailed viewshed analysis is provided in the Initial Study on pages 8-14. These studies illustrate the building in context with the surrounding properties, illustrating the terraced effect of the building limiting the visual impacts. When the project was first submitted, staff was concerned that the large size of the building was not compatible with the surrounding properties. The applicant has been very responsive to staff, the Architectural Review Commission, and the surrounding property owners by reducing the building by 42,000 square feet to step the building back at different heights to create a terraced effect, and created breaks in the long spans across Highway 74. The applicant redesigned the project after the Architectural Review Commission approved it to mitigate impacts to the Imago Art Gallery property. The new design as proposed is supported by staff. C. Setbacks: As proposed, the project site plan provides for the buildings within the required setbacks except for the Highway 74 frontage. At each setback, the building steps back away from the property line at different heights creating the terraced effect. The north end of the building is located adjacent to commercial zoning and is set back 15 feet at the top of the first floor, 27 feet at the top of the third floor, and 73 feet from the fourth floor of the building. At the south end of the property, the residential building is set back 15 feet from adjacent property line and steps back to 23 feet at the tallest portion of the building. Along Ocotillo Drive, both buildings are U-shaped with a minimum setback of 12 feet, and step back to 29 feet and 45 feet at the closest portions of the building. The farthest portion of the middle of the U-shaped buildings is set back 149 feet from the east property line. On Highway 74, the project is proposed to incorporate the existing frontage road that will be vacated at a later date, if the project is approved. The building is designed with breaks in the massing for architectural interest. The breaks in the architecture create a setback range between 40 feet 3 inches and 72 feet from Highway 74. In addition, the partial fourth floors are setback an additional 45 feet for a total of 95 feet from the new property line along Highway 74. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 12 of 19 D. Traffic and Parking: The projected traffic anticipated from the project is approximately 1,013 average daily trips (ADT), with the hotel component being the greatest trip generator of 670 ADT. Daily peak hour trips for the hotel and residential units are calculated at 14 trips (13.98), with 72 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour period and 80 vehicles in the PM peak hour period. The heaviest project traffic is expected to occur on Highway 74, between the project site and Highway 111. The traffic study also assumed a 2% annual growth rate in background traffic. The traffic study also indentified the potential impacts associated with the use of the optional off -site parking spaces. The proposed project will have three points of access from Highway 74 and include the following: • Driveway No. 1: Full Highway 74 Access (Service Entry at north end). • Driveway No. 2: Full Highway 74 Access (Main Entry) • Driveway No. 3: Full Highway 74 Access (Residential Entry on south) The traffic study identified the potential impacts on future traffic in 2014 when the project is expected to reach build out, and the potential level of service (LOS) without the proposed project. Based on the study, the anticipated future traffic growth and LOS in 2014 will not require any changes in the intersection design or traffic controls. With "no project", the intersection of El Paseo and Highway 74 is projected to operate at a LOS D in the PM peak hour period; however, the anticipated delay is 38.6 seconds, which is the lowest (best) portion of the LOS D delay scale. With the proposed development and other anticipated traffic growth in 2014, the existing intersection design and traffic controls are expected to continue to be at acceptable levels. The most impacted intersection will be El Paseo at Highway 74, which will continue to experience maximum delays of 38.6 seconds resulting in no change to the "no project" scenario discussed above. Parking: The proposed project is a mix of hotel and residential use, with the residential components potentially extending the number of "hotel" units that can be made available if they are added into the rental pool by the owner. This type of use pattern generally reduces the need for parking when compared to freestanding condominium development. The City's parking standards do not provide a parking ratio for this unique mixed use development, which blends hotel, residential, and ancillary uses all together. If required to provide the parking requirements for each use, the parking demand would be 690 spaces. However, based upon the significant mix of uses within this development, much of the services demanded would be used by on -site hotel guests and residents, which lowers the number of parking spaces needed. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 13 of 19 The applicant prepared a separate parking demand study to identify the demand of the project based on the mix of uses, not the City's standards for each separate use. In preparing the study, the consultant used the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd Edition) for reference of this project. Using the parking demand factors from the ITE publication, the proposed project should be required to provide at least 202 parking spaces (116 spaces for the hotel and 86 spaces for the condominiums). The project also includes a few ancillary uses that, if conservatively factored yield, an overall parking demand of 261 parking spaces. In consideration of project space adequate to accommodate a ballroom or other large gathering, an additional approximately 75 parking spaces would be required; bringing the total needed parking to 336 spaces. As currently proposed, the project will provide 376 stalls (including handicapped stalls). Based on the study, the project would be providing 40 extra spaces for its true demand. The parking area will have valet service on a 24/7 basis, providing effective and efficient parking for the tandem spaces provided. In addition, staff researched a Rosewood Hotel in Menlo Park, California to evaluate the parking demand of this project. The hotel in Menlo Park totals 121 rooms and provides 225 parking spaces. The hotel also provides ancillary uses similar to this project; however, the meeting spaces can accommodate up to 285 guests and outdoor functions of 400 guests. This project provides more units and a larger meeting space with 151 fewer parking spaces than the proposed Palm Desert hotel. Staff contacted the Planning Department in Menlo Park to see if there have been any parking problems with the Rosewood Hotel. The staff person stated that there has never been a parking problem with the Hotel and it has been open for two to three years. Off -site Scenario: An alternative project design also being considered would allow the project to be built with 233 on -site parking spaces (one level underground) and utilizing off -site parking spaces in the surrounding areas to meet peak evening demand generated by ancillary uses. A separate parking analysis specific to this off -site parking option was evaluated and is a part of the environmental analysis. The project traffic study also assumed this worst case scenario in its analysis. As a part of this off -site parking option analysis, several nearby parking areas were surveyed for current levels of parking demand for the time period from 6:00 PM and later. These included three existing lots and one potential future City parking lot, all within approximately 600 feet of the proposed development. The prospective off -site parking areas that could provide the required evening parking for the project include the adjoining Imago Art Gallery parking, Daily Grill parking, the Debonne parking and a potential City parking facility. The three existing lots provide a total of 272 parking spaces and have a post 6:00 PM demand of approximately 98 spaces, which decreases to 67 spaces after 8:00 PM. Therefore, there is an identified current minimum parking surplus of approximately 174 spaces. A potential future City G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 14 of 19 parking lot, which is not included in this count, is projected to provide an additional 113 spaces when constructed. It should be noted that the City has reviewed preliminary plans for a 3,600 square foot restaurant within the existing Daily Grill parking lot, which will result in the loss of spaces and generate a net new demand for 49 parking spaces. The Daily Grill lot would also be reconfigured to increase the total available parking. After accounting for area lost to the possible future restaurant and its demand for parking, and accounting for the property's reconfiguration, there would remain a net surplus of approximately 73 parking spaces in the Daily Grill parking lot. In summary, on a Saturday night during the peak season, the three existing off -site parking lots will have approximately 174 unoccupied parking spaces after 6:00 PM and more unoccupied spaces thereafter. If the prospective restaurant is built and the Daily Grill lot is reconfigured, the net unoccupied parking during this period would be 130 spaces. This current and projected surplus of existing parking in immediate proximity to the project should be more than adequate to meet the maximum projected 103 off -site parking need if this design option is implemented. If the proposed future City lot planned on Ocotillo Drive just south of El Paseo is constructed, it will provide an additional 113 parking spaces to the parking supply in this area. As noted above, the project would provide 24/7 valet parking service, which would also apply to off -site parking. E. Land Use Compatibility: The northern portion of the subject property is designated Community Commercial (C-C), and the southern portion is designated Residential High Density (R-H). These designations are consistent with the proposed land use with the processing and approval of appropriate development plans and applications. The project is designed as a mixed project that will provide a high -end hotel to anchor El Paseo. The project is located on Highway 74, where there is a mix of commercial development adjacent to El Paseo and residential condominiums and apartments to the south. The property does not physically divide and existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. In terms of the use, the project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing a resort commercial center. Other aspects of the project, height, parking and setbacks, can be approved by the exceptions portion of the Planned Commercial District, and the draft Development Agreement. The City Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve projects with exceptions, if adequate documentation can support such a determination. As described in the above sections A-D, it can be determined that the proposed development will have a less than significant impact on aesthetic resources, traffic, and land use compatibility. A few of the goals and policies taken from the General Plan can be found below: GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 15 of 19 Goal 2 A diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities. Goal 3 An appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. Policy 3 The City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development. The proposed project meets many other goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment address the project in much more detail. Environmental Review: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Notices of availability of the draft Initial Study and Environment Assessments was sent out to adjacent property owners within 300 feet, and published on November 11th, 2010. After modifications to the design of the project, a second notice and publication was sent out on May 5th, 2011, identify that the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment was available for comments. As of writing this report and the May 5th notice for comments, staff has received three letters in opposition. A response to comments document has been prepared, and is attached as one of the documents for this project. Staff believes that all potential impacts have been addressed and are less than significant with proposed mitigation measures. Since the project has been in review, staff has received letters of opposition from 39 groups of property owners and 309 letters in support. It should be noted, that two of the 39 property owners no longer oppose the project, and one of them has written a letter in support. Conclusion: Staff has been very cautious with this project due to concerns about the size and potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Initially, staff advised the applicant that the proposed use was appropriate, but the size and massing was not. The applicant reduced G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 16 of 19 the project size by 30,000 square feet and eliminated portions of the fourth floor to address the concerns of staff and surrounding property owners. After receiving approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant reduced the project another 12,000 square feet to further address the continued concerns of surrounding property owners. The proposed project will provide the first 5-Star hotel in the Coachella Valley and will anchor El Paseo. El Paseo has changed dramatically over the past 28 years from mainly small "mom & pop" retail shops to high -end national retail tenants with restaurants and some remaining independent retail shops. Rosewood is a 5-Star hotel franchise that will provide a boutique style resort, hundreds of jobs, and tax revenue to the City. Architecturally, the proposed building has the potential to be a landmark. The design incorporates many of the elements of International Style and Mid -Century Modern with an updated sustainability-oriented design that will be a LEED Certified project with solar panels and other sustainability features. Findings: The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; The proposed location of the project is within the Planned Commercial Resort (P) zone. The purpose of the PC district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the City. The property is zoned for a resort center with entertainment, and restaurant facilities to support other commercial uses. The project will provide a mix of hotel and residential land uses. The hotel component is located at the north end of the site, which is adjacent to commercial zoning with an existing art gallery. The majority of the residential component is located at the south end of the site, which is adjacent to residential zoning and with an existing condominium complex. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; • Development of the proposed commercial hotel and residential use will meet all applicable requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section for grading and the California Uniform Building Code for construction, and will not be detrimental to general public health, safety, and welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by staff and contracted consultants to ensure the project will be built in accordance with such sections described above. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 17 of 19 C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; • The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council to approve exceptions to development standards. A Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty that the project will provide comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, even exceptions. D. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's general plan. • Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Goals and Polices section in the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City." The project represents a mix of commercial hotel and condominium development that will provide a mix of revenue generating land uses. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of TOT and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents is also likely to have positive fiscal consequences for the City, which will fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities that the City provides to the residents and visitors. No map shall be approved unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. 1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; • The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units on commercially zoned property. The General Plan does not address density in the commercial land use section, however, the residential goals, policies, and programs has a goal to provide "a range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community" The density of this hotel does not conflict with the City's General Plan or any specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 18 of 19 • The design of the residential component will result in 59 air space condominium units. No physical lots will be created. Goal 1 of the Residential Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "a balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community." The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to seasonal residents. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. • Although the property is vacant today, 28 years ago there was an existing hotel and restaurant on the property. The site has physical improvements, such as curbs and utilities already providing service to the site. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment attached. 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development. • The proposed 4.97 acres is physically suitable for residential development with access provided by two proposed driveways located on Highway 74. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the property is adjacent to residential properties to the south, east and west. 5. The design of the tract map or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • A draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment have been prepared for the project and all potential impacts are and identifies less than significant. ,Mitigation measures have been identified and will be adopted during construction. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the zoning ordinance. The proposed development is subject to applicable City development standards and the Uniform California Building Standards Code, which is developed under the Health and Safety Code (Section 18902), and whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. G.\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc Staff Report Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 June 21, 2011 Page 19 of 19 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. • The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any public easements acquired by the public. Approval of the project does include a future vacation of the existing frontage road. Vacation of the frontage road for this project will not interfere with access to the remaining portions of the frontage road. Submitted by: Tony Bagato Principal Planner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development GAPlanning\Tony 8agato\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09.507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Planning Commission\Planning Commission Staff Report 2.doc �3-5I0 Fiteu WARING DRIVE Y.k1.m Ut:.;EitI" C.vLIF011N1A 92 260-2578 TEL: 760 346-06II infi,!�rcity'da irlidesert.urg PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: June 22, 2011 PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 Re: Case No DA/PP/CUP 09-507 VTTM 36284. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and took the following action at its regular meeting of June 21, 2011: THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CASE NO. DA/PP/CUP 09- 507 AND VTTM 36284. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER LIMONT VOTING NO). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission /tb cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal File- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2554 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A PROPOSED ROSEWOOD 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON A 4.97t GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27t ACRES) AND TO -BE -VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7t ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45- 640 HIGHWAY 74. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 21 th day of June 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the PDH Partners, LLC. for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act', Resolution No. 10-26, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council of said request: FINDINGS: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; • The proposed location of the project is within the Planned Commercial Resort (P) zone. The purpose of the PC district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the City. The property is zoned for a resort center with entertainment, and restaurant facilities to support other commercial uses. The project will provide a mix of hotel and residential land uses. The hotel PLANNING COMMISSK RESOLUTION NO. 2554 component is located at the north end of the site, which is adjacent to commercial zoning with an existing art gallery. The majority of the residential component is located at the south end of the site, which is adjacent to residential zoning and with an existing condominium complex. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; C 0 Development of the proposed commercial hotel and residential use will meet all applicable requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section for grading and the California Uniform Building Code for construction, and will not be detrimental to general public health, safety, and welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by staff and contracted consultants to ensure the project will be built in accordance with such sections described above. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council to approve exceptions to development standards. A Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty that the project will provide comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, even exceptions. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's general plan. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Goals and Polices section in the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City." The project represents a mix of commercial hotel and condominium development that will provide a mix of revenue generating land uses. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of TOT and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents is also likely to have positive fiscal consequences for the City, which will fund a G:'.Planning\Tony Becker'PC Resoluuons'pc Res 2554 docx 2 PLANNING COMMISS. A RESOLUTION NO. 2554 high level of community development activities, services and facilities that the City provides to the residents and visitors. No map shall be approved unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. 1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; • The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units on commercially zoned property. The General Plan does not address density in the commercial land use section, however, the residential goals, policies, and programs has a goal to provide "a range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community" The density of this hotel does not conflict with the City's General Plan or any specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; • The design of the residential component will result in 59 air space condominium units. No physical lots will be created. Goal 1 of the Residential Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "a balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community. " The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to seasonal residents. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Although the property is vacant today, 28 years ago there was an existing hotel and restaurant on the property. The site has physical improvements, such as curbs and utilities already providing service to the site. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment attached. 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development. The proposed 4.97 acres is physically suitable for residential development with access provided by two proposed driveways located on Highway 74. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the G^,Planning\Tony Becker'PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554.docx 3 PLANNING COMMISSIC ,RESOLUTION NO. 2554 j property is adjacent to residential properties to the south, east and west. 5. The design of the tract map or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • A draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment have been prepared for the project and all potential impacts are and identifies less than significant. Mitigation measures have been identified and will be adopted during construction. The project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the zoning ordinance. The proposed development is subject to applicable City development standards and the Uniform California Building Standards Code, which is developed under the Health and Safety Code (Section 18902), and whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. • The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any public easements acquired by the public. Approval of the project does include a future vacation of the existing frontage road. Vacation of the frontage road for this project will not interfere with access to the remaining portions of the frontage road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284, subject to conditions. G,.Planninq\cony Becker`PC Resolutions'pc Res 2554.docx 11 PLANNING COMMISS. ,J RESOLUTION NO. 2554 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 211h day of June 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, DE LUNA, TANNER AND DASH NOES: LIMONT ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission SONIA CAMPBELL, Chairperson G:'Planning!Tony Becker`PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554.docz 5 PLANNING COMMISSK 'RESOLUTION NO. 2554 ) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801), the approved landscape plan, and the current addition of the City of Palm Desert Plant Maintenance Guide. 4. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. The applicant shall contact Burrtec Waste and Recycling, Inc. to provide trash and recycling services that shall include the provisions of and operation of a stinger/bin truck to maneuver the bins to a collection area above ground from within the underground service area. Depending on the location of the trash and recycle bins, the trash enclosures may be required and shall be consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and other conditions, such as number, size, and location of enclosures to accommodate the required number of bins. All bins or enclosures must be screened from public view. 5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. The Art in Public Places Department recommends an onsite public art project for the hotel. G.Planning\Tony Recker\PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554.docx �u PLANNING COMMISS J RESOLUTION NO. 2554 7. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return, or artifacts to tribe, etc.). 8. The applicant shall provide designated parking spaces that can be used for electric vehicles, golf carts and bicycles. 9. The proposed project shall meet the specifications of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Green Building. 10. Vehicular access or deliveries from Ocotillo Drive shall be prohibited. 11. Due to the parking modifications for tandem spaces and a reduction of parking stalls for actual use based on the traffic study provides, the applicant shall provided 100% valet parking for all employees, hotel guests, visitors, and residents. 12. The applicant shall submit design development plans to the Architectural Review Commission before review of the construction drawings by the City. 13. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. 14. The Final Development Agreement shall be recorded within 5 days of final approval of the project by the City Council. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of the Tract Map and any permits: 1. The tract map shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 2. The tract map shall record before the condominium plan. The map recording information shall be referenced on the condo plan. A copy of the grant deeds relative to the conveyance of the units shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to recording the condominium plan and deeds. G.`Planning\Tony Becker'PC Resolutions'pc Res 2554.docx 7 PLANNING COMMISSK RESOLUTION NO. 2554 3. The applicant shall submit CC&R's concurrently with the map for review and approval by the City. Once approved by the City, the CC&R's shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office. 4. The map shall accommodate for 59' of half street of right-of-way along Highway 74. 5. Reciprocal access easement and drainage easement between the two lots shall be provided for on the tract map. 6. A drainage easement for the benefit of the public to accommodate northerly flows on the frontage road shall be included on the map. 7. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include: a. The installation of a deceleration lane. Design shall be per the approved site plan. b. The installation of an 8' ADA compliant sidewalk and curb ramps on Highway 74. Design shall be per the approved site plan. c. All overhead utility lines shall be placed underground. d. Modify the existing curb adjacent sidewalk on Ocotillo to current ADA standards. 8. The frontage road shall be accessible on the north and south sides per the design of the approved site plan. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 10. This map may include existing survey monuments that may be disturbed through construction activities. Certain existing survey monumentation may be deemed necessary for preservation and perpetuation subsequent to final construction improvements associated with this project. All survey monuments deemed necessary for perpetuation as recommended by the design civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be identified and shown on the final map for perpetuation. Such survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and if disturbed replaced after construction pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a statement noting whether any monuments will be disturbed and submit monumentation security as determined by the Department of Public Works. G Planning\Tony Becker`PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554.docx E:1 PLANNING COMMISS J RESOLUTION NO. 2554 11. The applicant shall submit clearance letters from all utility companies. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 12. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 13. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The Operation and Maintenance section of the approved WQMP shall be recorded with Riverside County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works department. 14. Submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. Submit a site -specific geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist. 16. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. Submit a landscape plan concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicant must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. f. Applicant must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. 18. Any changes to the civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 19. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement is required and needs to be recorded to maintain landscaping as installed per the approved landscape plan. G.'Planning'.Tony 9ecker..PC Pesolutions'pc Res 2554 docx 9 PLANNING COMMISSIC ,RESOLUTION NO. 2554 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY: 1. Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC) 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC) 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards) 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1173. 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2007 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 4. All exits must provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 113313.8 and 112713.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 6. Provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be ADA accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building & Safety. 7. Please note all residential units are required to comply with CBC Chapter 11A and hotel units must meet requirements of CBC Chapter 11 B. 8. Public pools and spas shall be approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and then submitted to Department of Building & Safety. Pools and spas for public use are required to be ADA accessible. 9. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. G. PlanningtTony Becker'PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554.docx 10 PLANNING COMMISSi RESOLUTION NO. 2554 10. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 11. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1173 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1173 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1173 or Municipal Code Section 15.15 from the Department of Building & Safety counter staff. 12. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of Building & Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 1. The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of al buildings per California Fire Code Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fired Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The applicant shall provided proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm fire flow for 3000 gpm for commercial buildings prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-2'/2" discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway way prior to any building permits approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire G,,P!anninglTony Gecker'PC Resolutions'pc Res 2554.docx 11 PLANNING COMMISSIt ;RESOLUTION NO. 2554 Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25 feet of a building and all Fire Department Connections shall be within 50 feet of a Fire Hydrant. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water - flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1-2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 square feet, 3' to 5' above grade with no more than 75' walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single-family residence. 11. The applicant shall install an all weather Fire Department accessible roadway extending to any portion of the building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 20' and height clearance is 13'6" Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. 12. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: • A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. 13. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to the city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 14. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: • Fire Alarm System • Sprinkler System G Planning\Tony Becker`PC Resolutions`pc Res 2554 docx 12 PLANNING COMMISS, �1 RESOLUTION NO. 2554 Fire Main Underground Hood Suppression System Site Plan to Scale 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. G. Planning\Tony Becker PC Resolurions�pc Res 2554.docx 13 PLANNING COMMISSI( '; RESOLUTION NO. 2554 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-807AND VTTM 36284 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a proposed 82 Room Hotel and 59 Unit Residential Condominium project with ancillary uses and amenities on 4.97t gross acres of vacant land (4.27t acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7f acres) located east of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, and South of the Imago Art Gallery. The subject property address is known as 45-640 Highway 74. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT G. PianninglTony BeckerTC Resolutions'pc Res 2554 docx 14 73-510 FRst) WARING DRIVE I'ALM DEsf:RT, CALIFORNIA 92z60—z578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii I -As: 760 341-7o98 info(1pa1m do ...urg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: That a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on June 21, 2011, for review and approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a proposed transient hotel and residential condominium on a 4.97± gross acres of currently vacant land (4.27± acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located immediately east of Highway 74, immediately west of Ocotillo Drive, and immediately south of the Imago art gallery. The hotel component will provide 68 standard hotel rooms and 14 suites for a total of 82 transient hotel units. The hotel will also provide a 2,070 square foot Ultra lounge, a 2,100 square foot restaurant and a 40- seat roof -deck bar and grill, spa and fitness center, ballrooms and conference rooms, and boutique and other limited retail commercial totaling 2,870 square feet. The residential condominium component will include 59 units that will be sold as single or fractional fee -simple ownership; no timeshare sales are proposed. PUBLIC HEARING: Said public hearing will be held before the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday June 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary June 11, 2011 Palm Desert Planning Commission The Desert Sun 750 N Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-778-4578 / Fax 760-778-4731 State Of California ss: County of Riverside Advertiser: OFFICE 2011 MAY I I A1411: 04 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 FRED WARING DR PALM DESERT CA 922602 2000260574 I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United States and not a party to, or have interest in this matter. I hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non pariel) in each and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: Newspaper: The Desert Sun 5/5/2011 I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California Case No. 191236. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 5th day of May, 2011 in Palm Springs, California. Declaran tgn L,ertificate of Publication No 1483 CITY OF PALM DESERT TO ADOPT ATMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: May 3, 2011 T0: Responsible Agencies/Interested Organiza- ,ions and Individuals I FROM : City of Palm Desert RE: Rosewood Hotel/Condominium (Pp/CUP )9-507 & VTTM NO. 3R9aei CEQq, q M`igatedsNegative Declaeratoratio o prepared. This notice constitutes a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopon. t the aforementioned Mit laratiigated Negative Dec- ct Pro ec' __ ProjeLocation/ Descriotion- t _. Other permits : No other permits are required for the development of this project. Toxic Sites: No listed toxic sites are present on the project site. or to the plannngCom' comments at orpp'r" son If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described In this notice or in written correspondence at, or prtor to the Planning Commission or subsequent City Council hearing. 4n opportunity will be given at said hearing for alll Itterested persons to be heard. Questions regard- :ik of Palm D serf att be 760-34F-nQ+'+Tony Bagato, nt Period: Based on CEQq, your respons est possible date. The his project is from May it comments and any r to: calm Desert, CA gyp260C (760)346-o611 ext. 480 Lauri Aylaian, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Published: 5/5/11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - JUNE 21, 2011 ********************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Nancy De Luna, Vice Chair Van Tanner Roger Dash Connor Limont Members Absent: None Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Dave Erwin, City Attorney Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer Spencer Knight, Landscaping Manager Tony Becker, Administrative Secretary III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Dash led the pledge of allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian informed the Planning Commission that the City Council met on June 9, 2011, reviewing only two items that concerned the Planning Commission: Piero's Pizza Vino requested financial assistance for a fagade enhancement on their new El Paseo location —they requested $60,000 and MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21 2011 were granted that amount; the other item was the continuation of the Von's matter to the July 14th City Council meeting. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for approval of the June 7, 2011, meeting minutes. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded the approval of the June 7, 2011 meeting minutes. Commissioner Tanner requested a correction to the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting comments: he wanted to clarify that the BMX course was tentative and hadn't yet been installed. Motion carried 5-0 with corrections. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PP 07-14 Commerce Realty (Jensen's), William Lang, Applicant. Applicant requested a one-year extension for PP 07-14 for an interior remodel and a minor addition to the Jensen's Shopping Center and shops on El Paseo. B. Case No. PMW 11-168, Karen Genoway and Indian Ridge Country Club, Applicants. A request by, the applicant for a lot -line adjustment merging part of 'lot 146' to all of `lot,47' to accommodate construction of a swimming pool at location. Public Works has approved this adjustment. Action: Commissioner De Luna moved and Commissioner Dash seconded approving consent calendar items. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Campbell announced that anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21 2011 raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. DA / PP / CUP 09-507 & TT- 36284, 5-Star Hotel, Applicant. Recommendation to City Council for approval of a Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a proposed 82 room hotel and a 59 unit residential condominium project with ancillary uses and amenities on ± 4.97 gross acres of currently vacant land (±4.27 acres) and to - be -vacated frontage road (± 0.7 acres) located east of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, and south of the Imago Art Gallery. The subject property address is known as 45-640 Highway 74. Chair Campbell instructed the audience about the procedure of the public hearing and asked that the speakers wait until the applicant and staff spoke. The audience then would be allowed to speak and she asked that no one be repetitious and that their comments be brief and to adhere to the `five minute rule'. In the interest of brevity, she also asked that if anyone in the audience was speaking on behalf of a group or an HOA, that they be the spokesperson for the entire group. Principal Planner Tony Bagato orally presented his staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Bagato talked about the site and its location in reference to its neighbors. He mentioned that the site slopes 28' from south to north. The site was originally approved for a hotel [that was built before the City was incorporated and was demolished in 1983]. Another 3-story, 248-room hotel was approved for the site, but was never built. The zoning that has been in place since the 1980's is PC-4/ Resort Commercial. Mr. Bagato briefly showed the landscaping plan. It showed that there would be three driveways; all could be accessed from Highway 74, none from Ocotillo. The driveway to the north (closest to El Paseo) would be for service only. The other two drives would be for guests/residents of the hotel and condominiums. He showed some renderings of the existing property and how it would look with those drives installed. There would be left -in turns permitted from the center lane of Highway 74. Mr. Bagato then talked about the parking for the hotel: much of the parking would be underground in a parking garage. He mentioned that the trash enclosure would also be underground —as approved by Burrtec. The hotel itself would be two buildings in horseshoe shaped configurations. The middle entrance would guide traffic into the complex between the two buildings where the valet service would be for arriving guests. Mr. Bagato showed a rendering of the site with the frontage road missing as designed by the applicants and 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21 2011 endorsed by the City's Public Works Department. Mr. Bagato mentioned that the setbacks for the buildings are between 40' and 50' from Highway 74 (with no frontage road as part of the proposal). The hotel will have 82 rooms and 59 condominiums —that can be sold or rented as part of the hotel package. The condominiums can be rented back to the hotel if they are not in use by the owner. There will also be meeting rooms, an antique shop, a signature restaurant and indoor/outdoor lounges and a pool on the roof (3rd floor) for residents and a pool for guests on the ground floor. The parking proposed will be a total of 376 stalls (underground with two levels both underground). An alternative solution proposed would have been to have one level of underground parking that would hold 233 stalls and off -site parking that would hold up to 210 spaces. The decision was to have the parking be completely on -site including employee parking. Valet parking „would be managed by the hotel and would be available to everyone twenty-four hours per day. Mr. Bagato discussed traffic impacts on the area. He stated that the traffic report showed that the hotel would only add about 72 additionalcars per hour on the road during peak travel time. Staff reviews of the study showed that this is a less -than -significant impact to traffic on Highway 74 and doesn't warrant a traffic signal. Mr. Bagato wanted to state what the zoning ordinance said about height, since there seemed to be an issue with height in that area. He wanted to clarify that the code states that height of a structure is measured vertically from an average grade. The building was purposely designed to have the highest element on its northern end away from the residences at the south end. The average height of the 3rd story roof is 35' which is in compliance with the ordinance. There is a parapet that goes over that by 3'. Part of the 4th story would be permitted under a development agreement at 50'. The overall average height is within the height requirement. This same standard was used to measure Westfield Mall and the El Paseo Gardens (both tiered buildings, like the proposed hotel) as well. View analysis studies were completed to show the impact the structure would have on the neighborhood once built. Balloons and photo studies were used to show what the height would be when the hotel was completed. The landscaping was inserted on some of these simulations in order to show what the view would be from a driving height driving down Highway 74, as well as standing in a courtyard in Sandpiper, and on a nearby sidewalk on El Paseo. The 4th floor of the hotel would be set back 45' from Highway 111 in addition to the setbacks already in place to assure it would be hidden as much as possible. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 Mr. Bagato showed some slides of what the original proposal would have looked like so the Commission could compare it to what was proposed. The hotel use for the property was always supported by staff, but the massing was too great to be endorsed at a staff level. Over time, staff and the applicant received some letters of opposition and considered as many of them as possible in the renderings of the new proposal —the finished product which is being portrayed tonight. The property was reduced in size twice, once by about 30,000 square feet and once again by 12,000 square feet for a total reduction of 42,000 square feet. The ARC approved the new design on July 13, 2010. Mr. Bagato mentioned that there were a few more letters of opposition received just before this meeting for an overall total of about 25 and nearly 350 letters received in favor of the project and one letter from Mr. David Austin of Imago Art Gallery who said that he would no longer oppose the hotel (nor did he say he would support it). In conclusion, staff supports the applicant's request to develop the hotel at this site as it conforms to the zoning. The applicant has also offered to modify their working plan to accommodate as many of the nearby residents with their concerns during the construction of the hotel. The findings for approval and all supporting documentation are included in the packet. Mr. Bagato offered to answer any questions. Commissioner De Luna wanted to state for the record that there were 400 letters in favor of and 40 opposed. She wanted to state that some of the letters' authors were the same —where the same person authored a different letter; thereby reducing the 'opposition' numbers by about 19. Commissioner Tanner asked about the parking. He asked what kind of staffing will be needed for the hotel, since employees will also have to park on -site. Mr. Bagato stated that he contacted other Rosewood hotels around the country and they keep about 100-150 employees on staff. Commissioner Tanner's concern was that there wasn't enough parking for employees and residents and hotel guests. Commissioner Limont stated for the record that she received two phone calls about the hotel. She wanted to ask staff, though, about the height. If she were standing on the north side looking at the building, is that the 60' height calculation or is that the 47' calculation? Mr. Bagato indicated the tallest point by pointing to the map on the screen. Commissioner Dash wanted a brief explanation of the terms 'setback' and `massing'. Mr. Bagato stated that the term massing is the building itself: how much room will it take in existence. The term `setback' is how far the building is G� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 'set back' from the face -of -curb, or a roadway or similar. He pointed to a few renderings on the overhead presentation to illustrate. Hearing no further questions of staff, Chair Campbell asked the applicant to come forward. She declared the public hearing open. Matt Joblon, 9355 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA, 90210, greeted the Commission. He began by giving an overview of the project and how the desert needed its first 5-star hotel. Their research indicated that there is major wealth within a two hour radius of the desert, but currently there is no 5-star retreat for these people to come to, in the Coachella Valley. Mr. Joblon stated that his company has worked diligently with the neighbors to come to a workable agreement that would alleviate their concerns, but also keep the integrity of the 5-star status of the hotel. The applicant held over 200 meetings with City staff, interested members of the community and various businesses. Mr. Joblon introduced the architect for the project, Richard Revere of Rote' Studio, 515 S. Flower 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, began by talking about the site itself. Mr. Revere stated that he visited the desert quite a bit and tried to incorporate the desert elements: the vast sky, the expanse of the sun and etc. into the design of the building. In the project style, he wanted to portray a large `landmark image' while blending in the small, hospitable style of the retreat aspect of the desert. Mr. Revere mentioned that adding much landscaping, shutters, and over -hangs helped to keep a modest and `cool' feel. Also using an 'indoor/outdoor' functionality by opening up the buildings to the courtyards helped keep the space open and beautiful. Mr. Joblon came back to the podium and talked about the grassroots informational program and how the firm went door-to-door to talk with the various HOA's that would immediately be affected. He also mentioned that the applicant employed various methods of media to get the word out and bring interested parties to `the table' to discuss the pros and cons of this project. Their first sets of meetings were with the Ocotillo HOA. The HOA asked for very specific resolutions to their issues: no access to the hotel from Ocotillo, massing had to be oriented away from Ocotillo, landscaping had to be incorporated on the Ocotillo side of the project well and, finally, no nighttime noise from the hotel. These conditions were placed before the applicant and they worked together to incorporate these requests along with the criteria that would make the hotel a 5-star destination: no room could face Highway 74, the rooms had to be over a certain square footage to be considered luxury, and the resort had to be a quiet, artistic retreat. Mr. Joblon, after going door-to-door, discovered that the majority of the Sandpiper community were in favor of the project but weren't sure about certain 0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 aspects of it. The goal was to reach out to as many people as possible to get their input and that was accomplished. Over 10,000 fliers were sent to residents in the area, including Sandpiper, El Paseo, Ocotillo and similar neighborhoods, and COD. Dr. Jerry Patton announced that the Hospitality Program at the college would support this endeavour as long as some of the students would be able to work or intern at the hotel. In the end, the massing was cut down, the parapet was re -oriented and impact to views taken into consideration in order to make it as pleasing to the majority of Palm Desert residents as possible. Mr. Joblon showed some `before -and -after' slides of what the hotel would have looked like with no changes made as it was originally proposed and what it will look like after making all of the changes requested by neighbors. Mr. Joblon also showed statistics of what other entities, had they been approved there, would have impacted the area: A fast , food restaurant would have nearly doubled the traffic counts. Had the hotel that was approved in the late 1980's been built, it would have doubled traffic counts and been slightly taller [based on what was approved at that time]. Mr. Joblon wanted to illustrate how hard the applicant worked with all interested parties to make this a world -class project. Mr. Joblon pointed out that the entrance to the north (toward El Paseo) is for service/freight only. The second entrance is for arriving guests and the final entrance is a private one for the residents. The hotel will have valet parking only and a management company will manage the valet twenty-four hours per day. Mr. Joblon commented that this hotel would probably generate over $2 million in annual revenue and over 250 permanent jobs, nearly 150 non -permanent construction jobs for a $125 million total impact to the community. Mr. Joblon pointed out that each condominium would lease/sell for nearly $2 million and this would significantly impact nearby property values and add foot traffic to El Paseo. The applicant plans to use as many local contractors and as much local talent as practically possible for the construction and operation of this hotel. Rosewood recently partnered with a high -end, luxury Asian hospitality company. Asia is a booming market for high -end travel and travelers and this is a wonderful opportunity to bring those travelers here to the desert via the Rosewood brand. This hotel will differentiate Palm Desert from other cities in the Coachella Valley. Mr. Joblon wanted to point out a typical case study identifying why this hotel would work, when the Ritz Carlton, in Rancho Mirage, did not. The Ritz Carlton has failed three times in the past few years because it is a 240 room hotel in a seasonal market. The fixed overhead drained money during the off-season and firing/hiring staff proved very difficult and unheard of for a luxury hotel. The Ritz had smaller rooms and lower ceilings which gave an unfriendly feel to the space. That project also had a lack of identity; they would tout large, 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 luxurious meeting spaces and offer cheap room -rates during the week and then charge over $400 for the weekend for the same small rooms. The corridors were built in a maze and were not easily negotiable. The key point was that there seemed to be no 'connection' to the desert —the butler service staff were dressed in very formal wear (top hats/tails) in over 100F heat and it just didn't match the desert surroundings. The Rosewood project is different: larger rooms, and meeting spaces, 10' ceilings, clear identity and the building and the staff would match their surroundings. The hotel is designed to be connected to the desert as if it had been there for 100 years without looking old, like it had been there for 100 years. Mr. Joblon mentioned that the team that would be outfitting the design, opening and building of this hotel has done this for other 5-star hotels around the world: in Italy, New York, Beverly Hills, and Chile to name a few. Mr. Joblon summed up by saying that his team has worked very hard to listen to everyone involved: the City, the residents/neighbors and the Rosewood brand in order to bring the first 5-star hotel to the desert. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Limont began by asking if this would be LEED registered. Mr. Joblon stated that they were registered, but they do not know at what level they would be certified. He opined that it would be 'basic'. Commissioner Dash offered his compliments to the applicant and wanted to know about the ingress of the service road and how that might tie up traffic. He noted that semis turning at such a short radius and with valet parking only at the hotel, which would increase the traffic snarl that he envisions, would happen. He wanted to know what the hotel would do about that, especially when there is no frontage road for deceleration into the hotel coming from the south, down the grade, or, from the north turning into the service entrance. Mr. Joblon stated that the hotel would schedule service deliveries very early in the morning or late at night and would not affect traffic as much at those times. Regarding the main entrance, where the valet is located, the rule for any 5-star hotel is: if one must wait longer than one or two minutes, then one would be a VERY dissatisfied client and would not return to that hotel. Therefore, the valet staff would be many and be trained to retrieve and park cars quickly and efficiently. The staffing needs will be anticipated before a large event so as to mitigate any traffic snarls. Mr. Joblon pointed out that if the hotel needed to (for example) have 20 valet staff to handle just one event, then that is what the hotel would do. The hotel management are `experts' in this line of business because they are 5-star and expected to be `experts' at traffic mitigation and efficient parking for their guests. He mentioned that driving from the south, down the grade, there is a curb -cut at the last entrance that will help slow the traffic ingress. The hotel has verbally promised Ocotillo not to use their road for MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 access and that is a promise they intend to keep. As a secondary measure, the residents' entrance (3rd entrance) can be used as a back-up valet entrance should the need arise. He wanted to reiterate to the Commission that a 5-star hotel does not generate the same traffic volumes that a Marriott or a Motel 6 does, and the traffic studies show that traffic would be of very minimal impact. Commissioner De Luna wanted to know more about this secondary valet location. Mr. Joblon stated that if there is an 'issue' in the middle entrance (main entrance), then extra staff and driveway can be used to minimize any problems. The same valet company that manages the hotel guests also will manage the residents' entrance (3rd entrance) and they will have a plan of action in place should this need ever arise. (Spoken words off microphone). Chair Campbell asked for the name of the gentleman speaking since he contributed comments: Dale Yonton with Nadel Architects, 1990 S. Bundy Dr., Los Angeles. Commissioner Tanner asked about signage at the hotel and if the applicant had talked with the City about their requirements. Mr. Joblon stated that many conversations have taken place and a modest sign toward El Paseo would be placed alerting potential guests to the location. Commissioner Tanner asked if there would be signalization for any of the drives. Mr. Joblon stated that the City decided that no signalization would be justified due to such minimal traffic impacts. Commissioner Limont asked what the two tall objects were in the courtyards at the hotel, what are the materials that they are made of? Mr. Revere stated that they are columnar water features -a quasi -artistic experience designed to combine concrete, water and other materials that can add to the entrance. Commissioner Limont wanted to know how the hotel will be lit. Would there be up -lighting or landscaping lighting? Mr. Revere stated that all lighting would be muted: landscaping light, fountain light and any facade lighting would be subdued and indirect. Commissioner Limont also wanted to know about the westerly facing windows and how the hotel would minimize the sun impact to keep the building cool and not reflect the sun into the neighbors' yards. Mr. Revere stated that they studied this intensively and found that the shutters, the overhang (nearly a 12' overhang), tinted glass, and landscaping will keep the reflectivity to a minimum. Commissioner Dash wanted to know more about the pool on the roof. He wanted to know if that was going to be a huge noise problem. Mr. Joblon stated that Palm Desert has a very strict noise ordinance and the hotel will abide by those codes. He also stated that the residents that live in the $2million residences are not there to have parties, but are there to relax and enjoy serenity of a 5-star experience. He alluded to these residents not permitting that kind of noise themselves. P MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 Hearing no other questions, Chair Campbell asked the applicant if he had anyone else he wanted to present to the Commission. Seeing none, she began the open forum and asked only those individuals who were in favor of the project to come forward to speak. Mr. David Fletcher and Mr. Fred Fern came forward. Mr. Fletcher, Chartwell Properties and a businessman on El Paseo, 73061 El Paseo Ste. 200, stated that he had high expectations for El Paseo and introduced Fred Fern who also strongly supports the project. He stated that El Paseo strongly needs an influx of new customers and a 5-star hotel will deliver that, while delivering increase in sales dollars and tax dollars for the City. He wanted all people of Palm Desert, even those opposed, to look at this hotel through `rose colored glasses'. Mr. Wayne Sharp, 73920 Grapevine, has been here for over 50 years and has seen many changes to the desert. He stated that property is perfect for a hotel because most other types of businesses wouldn't work due to trafficpatterns, but a hotel would be great. He also is semi -representing Monterey Country Club after talking with many of his friends there and they are all in favor of this project. Ms. Barbara DeBoom, Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce CEO, stated that the Board of Directors who represents merchants and restaurants alike voted unanimously in favor of this project. Mrs. Mary Helen Kelly, 56800 Burroweed Ln, stated that her and her late husband moved to the desert in the late 1950's and it has been home ever since. He used to say that you can either move forward or backward but never just stay still and she wants Palm Desert to move forward. She noted that this hotel will make that happen and will help support our City services that we hold dear. Mr. Maurice Levenoff, 45325 Sage Ln, said he read about the hotel in the news paper. He listened` and was `wowed' by the project. He owns condominiums nearby and has heard all of his concerns alleviated about traffic and design and hopes that the Commission will vote in favor of this project. Mr. Cal Butler, General Manager of Marrakesh Country Club, spoke in favor of the project. He has stayed at a Rosewood Hotel before and spoke very highly of the experience. He speaks for Marrakesh and asks for a vote in favor of the project. Ms. Nancy Biles, 45830 Ocotillo, spoke in favor of the project. She and her fellow members have been told and had their concerns alleviated about the use of their road and the noise issues and are in favor of the project. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21. 2011 Mr. Engin Onural, 73111 Ste. 103, El Paseo, a shop owner/sushi bar owner wanted to say that he wanted to start construction as soon as possible to bring new people to walk El Paseo and enhance Palm Desert. El Paseo has quite a few empty shops and this would be a great way to bring in more business. Ms. Lois Haskell, 72825 Laurel St. spoke saying that she and her family have lived here for 40 years and just recently she retired from over 31 years of service at the Marriott Corporation in Rancho Mirage. She said that this would be a great opportunity to bring the desert its first 5-star hotel. Ms. Mimi Jones, President of Desert Contractors Association, spoke in favor of the project since it means local jobs for local contractors. She urged the applicant to hire local contractors. Ms. Deborah Quinn, Owner of Pastry Swan Bakery, 73580 El Paseo, spoke in favor of the project as a 5-star hotel will certainly help El Paseo through the lean summer months for foot traffic. Mr. Doug Ballog, 73200 El Paseo-Real Estate developer, spoke highly in favor of the project. It would be great for the city: merchants and homeowners alike. Mr. Ed 011mann, General Manager of Westfield Palm Desert. voiced his support of this project. Seeing no one else wanting to speak in favor of the project, Chair Campbell asked those opposed to the project to come forward. Ms. Bridget Zappia, 40686 Via Fonda, came up to the lectern and spoke against the project. She applauded the standards that City officials have set and urged them to uphold those standards already in place and she didn't feel that this hotel met those standards. Ms. Jan Coffman, 363 Sandpiper, stated that she came with an intention to be in support of the project, but after hearing the presentation about the height and mass, she is now against it. She is mainly opposed to the 0 story. Mr. Bob Barton, 243 Sandpiper, spoke neutral to the project saying that his biggest and only concern was the outdoor swimming pool and that the hours should be very limited to keep the noise to a minimum. Ms. Kim Housken, 73237 Samarra, asked question of the applicant about the garage access, and will there be any self -parking allowed, and regarding setbacks of the building and why the hotel has smaller setbacks than her private residence. Her final question was about the Scenic Preservation Zone and why that wasn't given attention in the staff report. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 Mr. Neal Mays, 212 Sandpiper, is a board member of their HOA and he spoke against the project. He was concerned about the water usage and sustainability of the project. He indicated that he would like to keep Palm Desert small and a retreat, not a large destination. Ms. Gail Steinart, 45480 Ocotillo, spoke as in favor of the project, but wanted the applicant to contact her directly to show her exactly what the project will look like from her front door and asked if the power lines[currently at the site] would be undergrounded. She is confident that the traffic issue has been handled. Mr. Joblon stated that he would contact her sometime that week and discuss these issues. Ms. Heidi Hanskins, 211 Sandpiper, spoke briefly about how Palm Desert is more than just El Paseo and that once this building is built it will be there forever and wants the Commission to take that into account. Mr. Craig Armstrong, 72748 Beavertail St, spoke neutrally on the project but to reiterate to the Commission that not everything about Palm Desert is Gucci, it's the weather and the quiet and desert beauty. Seeing no one else, Chair Campbell asked Mr. Joblon to come up once more to rebut anything said tonight. Mr. Joblon said that the most efficient way was to briefly answer some of the questions raised and afterward, have people talk privately with him or his firm about specifics. He mentioned that the construction process would take about 24 months. They will adhere to all codes and ordnances to keep the neighbors from being disturbed. He wanted to let people know that recently, upon receiving a call from Mr. Bagato regarding dust issues, Mr. Joblon had a contractor go to the site and sprayed a sealant on the dirt to hold it in place, exemplifying that they were actively working to take care of issues as they arose. The traffic report stands for itself and doesn't need to be rehashed, the numbers are stated in the report. Mr. Joblon stated that there is no glass that will be reflective at driving level on Highway 74, and there will be a multitude of landscape to help keep the sun from being an issue to drivers and neighbors. A parking study was done and compared to other hotels of this caliber in similar zones and the results were that they will be very much `over parked':they have more parking than they are required to have. Finally, he reiterated that in order to get some approvals from nearby neighbors and STILL keep the 5-star rating for this hotel, many of the sacrifices that could be made were made in order not to deny the integrity of either side, and keep the 5-star rating. Commissioner Tanner asked how many rooms are in the 4ch story. Mr. Joblon stated that those are the duplex units as part of the suites of the hotel. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 Chair Campbell asked if there was anything further to add. Mr. Joblon said that his presentation was complete. With that, Chair Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Limont asked staff how many rooms there are at the Marriott Desert Springs. Mr. Bagato didn't know, and Ms. Aylaian estimated that there were about 900. Commissioner Limont wanted to know what the occupancy was on those rooms. Ms. Aylaian stated that she knew the year-round occupancy, but not off-season. For the entire valley the number is about 60% and for the Marriott it was closer to the `mid sixties'.; Commissioner Tanner commented that after weighing the pros and the cons and after having lived here for over 30 years, he has seen many changes in the City. He wanted to comment that the City takes the desert very seriously and complimented the applicant on working so closely with the City and the neighbors to where the hotel would be built. He is pleased to see that this will bring jobs and wants to see the hotel use local hires, not only for construction, but also for mid -management staff at the hotel. He motioned for approval. Commissioner De Luna seconded and expanded her motion by saying that the Planning Commission's task is mainly to verify that a project's use is compatible with the zone it's going into. This parcel of land was always zoned for a hotel and this conforms to that zone. She is very pleased to see such attempts on the part of the applicant to work with the neighbors to make this as pleasing as possible, but she also realizes that you can't please everyone. She realizes that partial views will be lost, but that is not a requirement of the Planning Commission nor of the City, to preserve a view. Nonetheless, the developer has worked very hard to preserve as much of the desert and its character. She said she agreed with Mary Helen Kelly and voted to move the City forward with this project. Commissioner Limont stated that she was in agreement with her colleagues on most all points. She indicated that she felt that no matter the project, the Commission should look at the use of the project and remember that Palm Desert is a destination and what causes that: not Gucci, not El Paseo, but it's the desert —the natural setting —and the Commission would be foolish to forget that with a project of this magnitude. She felt that the hotel was too large for this area. She wanted to emphasize that if this project does go forward, that Rosewood build it because it truly is a wonderful company to have here. She indicated that this project is too large for this area and will cause too much traffic and will not vote for it, unless it were to be downsized. Commissioner Dash spoke about his delight that Palm Desert keep strict codes to make it the beautiful place it is today. He indicated that his fears have been alleviated by hearing tonight's presentation about traffic and massing and noise, 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 and he reiterated that the applicant has been working well with the neighbors and does not wish to see that cooperation end. The hotel will bring so many advantages to Palm Desert in the form of jobs and service and was most pleased to see that Dr. Jerry Patton, President of COD indicated in a letter that this hotel could partner with COD's Hospitality program to place more qualified students in better jobs, locally. He is looking at this project for its merit to the city as a whole and sees this as a benefit and will therefore, vote in favor of it. Chair Campbell concurred with her colleagues and stated that she is in favor of this project and reminded everyone that many years ago a much larger hotel and restaurant was slated to be built on this same site and were never built, and to please imagine what kind of traffic that would have created for Highways 74. So having a smaller, 5-star hotel on the same site is certainly an asset to the City. This hotel will add revenues to the City through TOT for things that a city needs: police, fire and schools since redevelopment monies are being taken away. This hotel is a good thing and is good for the city as a whole and she, therefore, will be voting in favor of the project. Action: Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded approving DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and TT 36284, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voting NO). Commissioner Tanner moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2554 approving DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and TT 36284, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Limont voting NO). Chair Campbell called a five minute recess. IX. MISCELLANEOUS Villa Portofino That the Planning Commission direct staff to work with the property owners to modify the Villa Portofino Senior Housing Agreement and to develop a work program that identifies specific actions to resolve each outstanding non-compliance issue. Commissioners De Luna and Tanner recused themselves from the proceedings and exited the Council Chamber. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, orally presented a brief staff report to the Commission. On June 10, 2011, Family Development closed escrow with City National Bank on the remaining parcels at Villa Portofino. Staff recommends that the owners continue to work with City staff on a work program that would identify and resolve outlying non-compliance issues. If the work program is not followed in a timely manner, staff will then recommend a revocation of the entitlements of the Development Agreement. Mr. Swartz offered to answer any questions. Hearing none, Chair Campbell called for a motion. Action: Commissioner Limont moved and Commissioner Dash seconded directing staff to work with the property owners to modify the Villa Portofino Senior Housing Agreement and to develop a work program that identifies specific actions to resolve each outstanding non-compliance issue. Motion carried 3-0-0-2 (Commissioners Tanner and De Luna ABSENT). Commissioners Tanner and De Luna re-entered the Council Chamber. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMISSION Commissioner Campbell stated that there was no meeting last week; the meeting was moved to tomorrow. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont mentioned that there was no meeting; the next meeting will be in July. C. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner said that the Aquatic Center grand opening would be held Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 10 a.m. and said it would be a `splash'. D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Dash indicated that the meeting was Monday, June 20, 2011, and reviewed a video of the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. He stated that it had fallen out of escrow and was now on the open market. There were some questions about what the City of Palm Desert could do, if anything. The other item discussed was Carlos Ortega Villas. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2011 XI. COMMENTS Ms. Aylaian informed the Commissioners that the next meeting is slated for July 5, 2011, and asked if the Commissioners were going to be present. Commissioner Limont stated that she would not be present for that meeting but would be available for July 19, 2011. Commissioner Tanner said he thought he might not be in town, but would check his calendar. He stated that he thought it might be better to hold things over until the 19t" if that were possible. Mr. Bagato stated that there were just a few CUP's that would be on the agenda for July. Chair Campbell stated that she would be here (as did Commissioners Dash and De Luna) but that there would be a quorum and the 5t" would be ok with her. Mr. Bagato said that word would be sent to the Commission about whether or not there would be a meeting for July 5m XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Campbell motioned for adjournment of the meeting, Commissioner De Luna seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 8:24 pm. ATTEST: SONIA CAMPBELL, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tb 16 LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary K -C K �K •< •< K K K 1. K K K 1-1- a - w N W ..a •" V n n n n n n n n n n •a v v rn n n n v n n n n n n n n n j n n n n v �, r a a a a �: .`do o a ro n n, a D- a g n n a n r �. n; a c a o H C n� ; - r R e n n � � W N •y� P A W N+ w N+ mot- W N++ � OD v V P P tl� tT A d a. A W N �. p W G N ry 7 C 7'• G O�i O a m a faG r�•e O ? O m o 0 3 o r+ ,+ s w D m m m m m m < m° m 37 o, L, Q, a fl. m< m N eD, m O m Q. v m ro m FT a c c m c O c a w o� << °: ^�•• °'• °: o vo m N m ,, m o 0 0 o m m m m m o O N N;. A IDm o m ° ^ N mN ~ Co m m O O y �. N w w n v C o u N N 3 N rqD s Z iD -Oi o m 3 Q K -m* <° n m r n n va' CFO' °. .o+ 3 M o vAi j, o ID a N. O ° j rt o o p ,O n, o m a K w; qQ u sm� M v o o° 3 n o 0 0 0 n O 3 S¢ ZR n 0 o MA a n w ° c o o m z ? 3 v 1 ID M ra •• N o v+$w 3 -I m enr m m � o •p w z m m Q. W W V g 7 m 0 m P+ y n a cp .tn •v -o m n � ,� -v IN, n iv w N a• n m O o G _ m ro A cD CD W N N W. N N N -- — — — — — — — N W .+ p. � Vf � W 0 0 O •A' O O O O �- N N W A. A K K K < 3 3 7 7 7 J :J 7 3 O = N.D .a _N •. '�aro7',�O, ..:.-. . :m?rnmc_1NDi.. r>amB+N+ a+A>m 0rmc+W�r w0rma+Ns w-ma• -����77Gy3 ;_ y.- ■*aNd�o<NWa^ ogaM0o<v�D o ■D■ CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner APR 01 2010 From: Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer 'OMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C Date: April 2, 2010 ITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: PP 09-507/77M 36284 Conditions of Approval for Rosewood Desert Club Hotel & Residence Public Works has reviewed the plans for the Rosewood Desert Club Hotel and Residence dated February 15, 2010. The preliminary conditions of approval are as follows: Prior to recordation of the Tract Map and any permits: 1. The tract map shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 2. The tract map shall record before the condominium plan. The map recording information shall be referenced on the condo plan. A copy of the grant deeds relative to the conveyance of the units shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to recording the condominium plan and deeds. 3. The applicant shall submit CC&R's concurrently with the map for review and approval by the City. Once approved by the City the CC&R's shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office. 4. The map shall accommodate for 59' of half street of right-of-way along Highway 74. 5. Reciprocal access easement and drainage easement between the two lots shall be provided for on the tract map. 6. A drainage easement for the benefit of the public to accommodate northerly flows on the frontage road shall be included on the map. 7. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include: a. The installation of a deceleration lane. Design shall be per the approved site plan. b. The installation of an 8' ADA compliant sidewalk and curb ramps on Highway 74. Design shall be per the approved site plan. c. All overhead utility lines shall be placed underground. 8. The frontage road shall be accessible on the north and south sides per the design of the approved site plan. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 10. This map may include existing survey monuments that may be disturbed through construction activities. Certain existing survey monumentation may be deemed necessary for preservation and perpetuation subsequent to final construction improvements associated with this project. All survey monuments deemed necessary for perpetuation as recommended by the design civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be identified and shown on the final map for perpetuation. Such survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and if disturbed replaced after construction pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a statement noting whether any monuments will be disturbed and submit monumentation security as determined by the Public Works Department. 11. The applicant shall submit clearance letters from all utility companies. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 12. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 13. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. 14. Submit, and the Department of Public Works shall approve a PM10 application. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. Submit a site -specific geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist. 16. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. Submit a landscape plan concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of utilities. c. Must meet the Parking Lot Shade Tree Ordinance. d. Must match approved civil plans. e. All specs and details must be site specific. f. Applicants must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. g. Applicants must have a stamp or signature from the Agricultural Commissioners before City approval. 18. Any changes to the civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 19. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement is required to maintain landscaping as installed per the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. The following are comments regarding the landscape plans: Sheet LS — 105: • The Civil plan does not indicate an 8 foot stone property wall, but the landscape plan calls it out. These need to be consistent. • Pedestrian is misspelled • Is the sidewalk on Ocotillo changing to meandering? I don't know that a 4 foot sidewalk will be allowed this needs to be clarified Sheet LS — 401: • The word ceiling is misspelled Sheet LS — 402: • Provide a detail on how the grand stair and the palm trees that are coming out of those stairs will be constructed. Is there a planter? How will these be watered? Sheet LP — 001: • In the General Planting notes, item 30 was commented on previously. The plant count is important and needs to be accurate. Your sentence suggests otherwise. • Item 31, fertilizers, amendments must be based upon the recommendation from the soil test results. Until the contractor knows that it is difficult to estimate what will be used and in what quantities. • Item 34, be specific as to what the soil test is for. We suggest they test for Agricultural Suitability. A local soil lab is also suggested. • In the Plant Legend, the Gleditsia triancanthos is not "thornless olive" it is a Honey Locust. • The genus Wedelia is now changed to Sphagneticola Sheet LTP — 100: • The following are not in the plant schedule or legend; T-ACFA, T-FRVL, T- PAFL. Please include these in the plant legend. Sheet LTP — 101: • The boulders look as though they have been cut off or are jutting out into hardscape. Is this a CAD problem? • Are the planters in the courtyard/entry/spa garden flush or are they raised? Sheet LTP — 103: • Caution you on the boulder sizes, they can overwhelm an area. I also suggest that you consider adding some mounding or swales for movement which will provide interest in the landscape (where possible). Sheet LTP — 106: • There is a concern with the north side property line and the existing landscape on the adjacent property. How will the existing wall and existing landscape be protected during construction? There is the possibility of damaging tree roots during grading which will impact the existing trees. How will this be addressed? • The trees you intend to add on the Rosewood project will grow into the existing trees on the other property (both north and south). Your trees should not encroach onto adjacent property. Choose trees that can grow within the space provided. • There is an existing wall on the south street scape that is not called out on your plan. What happens to the wall? • The trees shown on Ocotillo are shown in planters that are too narrow for any tree. You will need to remove some of the trees. Break up the tree species along to the road no single species planting. Sheet LSP — 100: In previous discussions we urged you not to use the Penstemon as a stand alone plant. Use in combination with other "perenninals". This is along the Highway 74 frontage landscape Sheet LSP — 104: • The following shrubs are called out but are not in the plant legend/schedule. S-JUUN, G-RUBK, P-RUBK. Sheet LSP — 105: • The "inorganics" need to be called out as to color, size, type. Overall, the changes that have been made give this project a more "desert" appropriate look and feel. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments pertaining to this landscape review summary. I can be reached at extension 444. ESIuJiished in 1918 as a public agency Coachella Valley Water District Directors: Patricia A. Larson, President Peter Nelson, Vice President Tellis Codekas John W McFadden Russell Kitahara Missy Grisa Department of Community Development City ol'Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ms. Grisa: Officers: Steven B. Robbins, General Manager -Chief Engineer Julia Fernandez, Secretary Dan Parks, Asst. General Manager January 12, 2010 Redwine and Sherrill, Attorneys File: 0163.1 RECEIVED 0421.1 i�"IN 19 L"M ,,OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: PP/CUP 09-507 and a Tentative Tract Man for Condominium Purposes This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe fi-om regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps, which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Since the stormwater issues of this development are local drainage, the District does not need to review drainage design further. This project lies within the Study Area Boundary of the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (September 2002). The District will provide domestic water and sanitation service to this area and such service will be subject to the satisfaction of terms and conditions established by the District and exercised from time to time, including but not limited to fees and charges, water conservation measures, etc. The proposed hotel conflicts with an existing District domestic water service line. The water service line will need to be abandoned in accordance with District regulations. The District may need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include pipelines, wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations, lift stations and other facilities. The developer may be required to install these facilities and provide land and/or easements on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots and/or easements to be deeded to the District for such put -pose. This notice of domestic water and sanitation service availability can only be used and relied upon for the specific property for which it was issued and shall expire three (3) years from date of issuance. Missy Grisa City of Palm Desert .January 12, 2010 Domestic water and sanitation service remains at all times subject to changes in regulations adopted by the District's Board of Directors including reductions in or suspensions of service. The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the interceptor will be inspected by the District. The District requires detail, repair and lube auto shops and car washes to install an oil and sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be inspected by the District. The District requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined and approved by the District. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the District. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. The project lies within the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. Groundwater production within the area of benefit is subject to a replenishment assessment in accordance with the State Water Code. All water wells owned or operated by an entity producing more than 25 acre-feet of water during any year must be equipped with a water -measuring device. A District Water Production Metering Agreement is required to ensure District staff regularly read and maintain this water -measuring device. If you have any questions, please call Tesfaye Demissie, Stonnwater Engineer, extension 2605. u vVhn ,Mark L Director of Engineering cc: PDH Partners, LLC c/o Firedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Michael Mistica Department of Environmental Health Post Office Box 1280 Riverside, CA 92502 TD:ch\eng\sss\ 10\.1an\PP/CUP 09-507 Cen 050619-4 and 050620-3 Min s�e�•t 'ire art' ' ent Fire Prevention Bureau In cooperation +pith Rkerside C ountc Fire Department -'-10 Fled 1L;inn_ 131 ;mite lag PaIm Ike crt Ca 1)?26i1 '(;ti_;-J()_I Date: January 13, 2010 To: Missy Grisa Ref: CUP 09-507 / Conditioins-10-001 Project Name: Palm Desert Hotel & Residences Address: 45-640 Highway 74 If circled/highlighted, The following conditions apply to the above named project. 1. The fire department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other Nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per California Fire Code - Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fire Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The applicant shall provide proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm flow for the following: A. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings B. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings C. 3000 gpm for commercial buildings Prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-2 discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than: A. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way B. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way C. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured along a vehicular travel way Prior to any building permit approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Dept. Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25' of a building and all Fire Dept. Connections shall be within 50' of a Fire Hydrant. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/ Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1- 2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 Sq. Feet, 3'-5' above grade with no more than 751walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single family residence. 11. The applicant shall install a dust collection system per the California Fire Code if conducting an operation that produces airborne articles. 12. The applicant shall install an all weather fire dept. accessible roadway extending to any portion of a building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf Block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway i minimum width is 201and height clearance is 1316". Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. 13. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: A) A Knox Key Switch for every motorized gated entrance. B) A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. C) A Knox Box for each individual commercial building. Minimum gate width shall be 16' and minimum apparatus height clearance shall be 13' 6" for gated entrances. 14. The applicant shall provide secondary access for a dead end single access roadways exceeding 5001and or mitigate with sprinklers or other means approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances, shall dead end roadways over 1,300' be accepted. Secondary access can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or a emergency gate from an adjoining development. 15. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent to the Fire Marshals Office detailing the proposed usage of your property in order to determine occupancy type and to facilitate plan review. This project may require licensing by either State or County agencies. 16. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 17. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: A) Fire Alarm System B) Sprinkler System C) Fire Main Underground D) Med-Gas System E) Hood Suppression System P) Site Plan to Scale G) Above Ground Tank H) Underground Tank I) Emergency Generator J) Spray Booth 18. Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 19. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size. Comments: Additional conditions will be addressed at formal review of the building construction plans. These conditions can only respond to the preliminary plans reviewed. Shall provide a Master Site Plan to include all Fencing, Fire Lanes and Fire Mains with Appliances for review and approval * # 10 shall only apply when kitchen is installed Sincerely, &C ---- Neal Stephenson Fire Safety Specialist CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORAND_NEr7D TO: MISSY GRISA; ASSISTANT PLANNER 'OMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS CITY OF PALM DESERT DATE: JANUARY 4, 2010 SUBJECT: CASE NUMBER PP/CUP 09-507 The submitted plans have been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the Precise Plan it has been determined that this project will not be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. Trash Enclosures: The plan does appear to address trash enclosures. However, per the Development Services meeting wherein this project was discussed, the following criteria shall apply to this project: The company is required to contact Burrtec Waste and Recycling, Inc. to provide trash and recycling services that includes the provision of and operation of a stinger/bin truck to maneuver bins to collection area above ground from within underground garage and return to underground garage. Depending on the actual location of trash and recycle bins, trash enclosures may be required and shall be consistent with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and other conditions, i.e., number, size, and location of enclosures to accommodate required number of bins. As an alternative, the company may consider the installation of two compactors, one for trash and one for recyclables, or a split system one compactor for recyclables and bins for trash. The company again would need to contact Burrtec to ensure that there is sufficient height clearance for its trucks to service compactor(s). The company shall be required to provide a letter from Burrtec stating the proposed services to be provided and how the trash system will be operated. The applicant may contact Jennifer Salciccioli with Burrtec at (760) 324-6918 regarding this issue. FRAN IE RI DLE DIRECTO OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Russell Grance, Director of Building and Safety Southern California Gas Company The Gas �1 �'1 19l d Lua923 Avenue Company E (J 71 . i Redlands, Ca 92374-9720 �J Mailing Address: A �Sempra Energy"company � PO Box 3003, SC6031 ;i LU Redlands, CA 92373-0306 ,OMUUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 12/30/2009 City of Palm Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT Subject: Case No:PP/CUP 09-507 TTM For Condominium Location 45-640 Highway 74 Thank you for the opportunity to review your plans ahead of construction. We have facilities within the limits of the proposed project however it appears we have no apparent interference with your project and currently plan no new installations within the limits of the proposed construction. We will inspect our facilities, any maintenance or repairs will be completed prior to the start of your project. We would request that you protect the existing gas facilities in place during construction. In the event you revise your plans or increase the limits of the project please provide us with the information as soon as it becomes available. A minimum of twelve (12) weeks is required to analyze the plans and to design alterations for any conflicting facilities. Depending on the magnitude of the work involved, additional time may then be needed to clear any conflicts. Please keep us informed of construction schedules, pre -construction meetings, etc., so that we can schedule our work accordingly. Upon request, at lease two (2) working days prior to the start of construction, we will locate and mark our active underground facilities for the contractor at no cost. Please call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1(800)422-4133. We will also provide slip cans and lids for our valve casings as needed by the contractor, please contact the Gas Company District Office at 909-335-7623 for materials or immediate concerns during construction. Concerning further questions regarding Gas Company Facilities, maps, potential conflicts, concerns relating to your project or additional information, please contact me. Thanks, Dean Lezvis Planning Associate -Desert Region The Gas Company (909)335-7716 (909)335-7527 fax dlezvis@semprautilities.com CITY OF PALM DESERT ART IN PUBLIC PLACES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator Date: 01 /07/10 Subject: Case No. PP / CUP 09-5077 The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for case number PP / CUP 09-507, an 81 hotel room resort hotel project located at 45-640 Highway 74 be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate that the total fee will be an appropriate amount to allow for a significant public art project. RECEIVED U l 2WO ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / PLANNING REQUEST FOR COMMENTS/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: 12.16.09 TO: X PUBLIC WORKS (Bo Chen,Christina Canales) X BUILDING & SAFETY (Sam Szymanski) X FIRE MARSHAL (Neal Stephenson) X LANDSCAPING (Diane Hollinger) X COMMUNITY SERVICES (Frankie Riddle) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES X REDEVELOPMENT (Martin Alvarez) X SHERIFF (Lieutenant Andrew Shouse) PARKS & RECREATION HOUSING X BUSINESS SUPPORT (Ruth Ann Moore) OFFICE OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT X CVWD X BURRTEC (Rolanda Garibay) X SCE X TIME WARNER X VERIZON X SO. CAL. GAS COMPANY APPLICANT: PDH Partners LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310.734.2018 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(s): 627-281-011, 627-281-013, 627-281-015,627-281-017, 627-281-018, 627-281-014-3 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 45-640 Highway 74 CASE NO(s): PP / CUP 09-507 and a Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C-C, R - H ZONING: P.C. - 4 PROJECT REQUEST: Precise Plan approval for an 81 hotel room resort hotel project and related ancillary support uses. Conditional use permit and tentative tract map approval for 67 condominium residential units. ,The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments nd recommended conditions of approval. The City is interested in the probable impacts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and or recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. ALL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE r1, SUBMITTED T THIS OFFICE PRIG TO 5:00 P.M. ON January20 2010 U P(M 5C (e�u�n all (�, 0cvmM13 Tod cow Should you have any questions regarding tprotect, phase contact th(Yproject planner for the case described above. Project Planner: Missy Grisa Phone: _ (760) 346-0611 x.384 Email: marisa@citvofi)almdesert.org Fax: _ (760) 776-6481 City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 GAPlanning\Missy Grisa\PP\Rosewood Hotel\Request for Comments and Conditions. DOC t CITY OF PALM DESERT BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Missy Grisa, Project Planner From: Sam Szymanski, Plan Check Manager RECEIVED MAR -,-$' 1 20'0 Date: March 30, 2010 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: PP/CUP 09-507 CITY OF PALM DESERT I have reviewed the information provided and have the following comments: Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC) 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC) 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards) 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1173. 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2007 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 4. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 113313.8 and 112713.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where Documentt an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 6. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and Safety. 7. Please note all residential units are required to comply with CBC Chapter 11 A and hotel units must meet requirements of CBC Chapter 11 B. 8. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Dept of Environmental Health and then submitted to Dept of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 9. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 10. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 11. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1173 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1173 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1173 or Municipal Code Section 15.15 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. 12. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. Documentl P a..: ,! Desert Fire a ! l i! . _ a;n i. 1EF1.H1lEd FGdF1' �dNR1EhT P991E6bppI Fire Prevention Bureau � of In rnoperstion °;%ith Ricrrcide Gmnh fire Dep-artment 7,71n Fred wollou, O tithe 1112 �, )„ 7 k .�Im Lc.�rt Ca' (>�� "''�i-;J(f-l!t�u I.�s ;(;U-7„�-I`>>`1 Date: March 18, 2010 To: Missy Grisa, Project Planner Ref: Palm Desert Hotel & Apartments 45-640 Highway 74 Palm Desert CA 92260 Project Name: PP/CUP 09-507 -RP CEIVED a,i n 2O10 'OMML'NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Address: 45-640 Highway 74 Palm Desert Ca. 92260 If circled/highlighted, The following conditions apply to the above named project. 1. The fire department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other Nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per California Fire Code - Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fire Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site 3. The applicant shall provide proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm flow for the following: A. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings B. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings ". 3000 gpm for commercial buildings Prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-2 � " discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than: A. 200, from any portion of a single family dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way B. 165, from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way C. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured along a vehicular travel way Prior to any building permit approvals 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Dept. Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25' of a building and all Fire Dept. Connections_ shall be within 50, of a Fire Hydrant 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/ Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1- 2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 Sq. Feet, 3'-5' above grade with no more than 751walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single family residence. 11. The applicant shall install a dust collection system per the California Fire Code if conducting an operation that produces airborne articles. 12. The applicant shall install an all weather fire dept. accessible roadway extending to any portion of a building where as a 150, hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. a Turf Block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 241and height clearance is 1316". Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions 13. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: A) A Knox Key Switch for every motorized gated entrance. B) A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. C) A Knox Box for each individual commercial building. Minimum gate width shall be 16' and minimum apparatus height clearance shall be 13' 6" for gated entrances 14. The applicant shall provide secondary access for a dead end single access roadways exceeding 5001and or mitigate with sprinklers or other means approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances, shall dead end roadways over 1,300' be accepted. Secondary access can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or a emergency gate from an adjoining development. 15. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent to the Fire Marshals Office detailing the proposed usage of your property in order to determine occupancy type and to facilitate plan review. This project may require licensing by either State or County agencies. 16. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 17. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: A) Fire Alarm System B) Sprinkler System C) Fire Main Underground D) Med-Gas System E) Hood Suppression System F) Site Plan to Scale G) Above Ground Tank H) Underground Tank I) Emergency Generator J) Spray Booth 18. Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 19. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size Comments: Additional conditions will be addressed at formal review of the building construction plans. These conditions can only respond to the preliminary plans reviewed. Shall provide a Master Site Plan to include all Fencing, Fire Lanes and Fire Mains with Appliances for review and approval. Sincerely, Neal Stephenson Fire Safety Specialist CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MISSY GRISA, ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS DATE: MARCH 18, 2010 SUBJECT: CASE NUMBER PP/CUP 09-507 The submitted plans have been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each project. Bus Shelter: After reviewing the Precise Plan it has been determined that this project will not be conditioned with a requirement for a bus shelter and turnout. Trash Enclosures: The plan appears to address trash enclosures. However, per the Development Services meeting wherein this project was discussed, the following criteria shall apply to this project: The company is required to contact Burrtec Waste and Recycling, Inc. to provide trash and recycling services that includes the provision of and operation of a stinger/bin truck to maneuver bins to a collection area above ground from within underground garage and return to underground garage. Depending on the actual location of trash and recycle bins, trash enclosures may be required and shall be consistent with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and other conditions, i.e., number, size, and location of enclosures to accommodate required number of bins. As an alternative, the company may consider the installation of two compactors, one for trash and one for recyclables, or a split system, i.e. one compactor for recyclables and bins for trash. The company again would need to contact Burrtec to ensure that there is sufficient height clearance for its trucks to service compactor(s). The company shall be required to provide a letter from Burrtec stating the proposed services to be provided and how the trash system will be operated. The applicant may contact Jennifer Salciccioli with Burrtec at (760) 324-6918 regarding this issue. Per the latest plans, staff requires clarification and has provided additional conditions as follows: • Provide the location, size, and number of trash/recycle enclosures in outside parking area and underground garage area. (Where ever bins are planned to be placed trash/recycle enclosures must be provided.) • There should be a cement pad wherever the bins will be deposited for collection. Bins must not be set out more than 1 hour prior to and after collection. CASE NUMBER PP/CUP v4-507 MARCH 18, 2010 PAGE 2 • What type of set up for internal and external trash/recycle collection system (i.e., are there trash/recycle chutes internally and who will pull bins from underground garage area, etc.)? • What type of service is being provided internally in the general location of the stair wells? • Kitchens within the condominiums should accommodate trash and recycle containers. • Kitchen in restaurant and/or other eating/cooking areas should provide trash and recycle setups. • Question: The underground garage area reflects trash bins; however, it appears as though the bins will be stacked inside the enclosure, is this accurate? If so, how will bins be removed and by whom? The applicant may contact me directly at (760) 346-0611, ext. 331, if they have questions regarding the conditions of approval and clarification on the aforementioned items. FRANKIE RIDDLE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS cc: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Russell Grance, Director of Building and Safety Pann Desert Fire De artinent Fire Prevention bureau In cooperation %%ith Riverside CormtN Fire Department 73710 Field Waring I)r Suite 102 Palm Desert Ca')'_'F0 00-340-18-10 F v. 74)0-7719-1169 Date: January 13, 2010 To: Missy Grisa Ref: CUP 09-507 / Conditioins-10-001 Project Name: Palm Desert Hotel & Residences Address: 45-640 Highway 74 If circled/highlighted, The following conditions apply to the above named project. 1. The fire department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other Nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per California Fire Code - Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fire Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The applicant shall provide proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm flow for the following: A. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings B. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings C. 3000 gpm for commercial buildings Prior to any project approvals. 4. The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-2 discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than: A. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way B. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured along a vehicular travel way C. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured along a vehicular travel way Prior to any building permit approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Dept. Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25' of a building and all Fire Dept. Connections shall be within 50' of a Fire Hydrant. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/ Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1- 2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 Sq. Feet, 31-5' above grade with no more than 751walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a "K" class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single family residence. 11. The applicant shall install a dust collection system per the California Fire Code if conducting an operation that produces airborne articles. 12. The applicant shall install an all weather fire dept. accessible roadway extending to any portion of a building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf Block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 20'and height clearance is 1316". Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. 13. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: A) A Knox Key Switch for every motorized gated entrance. B) A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. C) A Knox Box for each individual commercial building. Minimum gate width shall be 16, and minimum apparatus height clearance shall be 13' 6" for gated entrances. 14. The applicant shall provide secondary access for a dead end single access roadways exceeding 500'and or mitigate with sprinklers or other means approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances, shall dead end roadways over 1,300' be accepted. Secondary access can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or a emergency gate from an adjoining development. 15. The applicant shall submit a letter of intent to the Fire Marshals Office detailing the proposed usage of your property in order to determine occupancy type and to facilitate plan review. This project may require licensing by either State or County agencies. 16. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 17. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: A) Fire Alarm System B) Sprinkler System C) Fire Main Underground D) Med-Gas System E) Hood Suppression System F) Site Plan to Scale G) Above Ground Tank H) Underground Tank I) Emergency Generator J) Spray Booth . 18. Conditions are subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 19. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size. Comments: Additional conditions will be addressed at formal review of the building construction plans. These conditions can only respond to the preliminary plans reviewed. Shall provide a Master Site Plan to include all Fencing, Fire Lanes and Fire Mains with Appliances for review and approval. * # 10 shall only apply when kitchen is installed Sincerely, Neal Stephenson Fire Safety Specialist PDH PARTNERS LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (310) 734-2018 December 15, 2009 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY City of Palm Desert Planning Department City Hall 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Re: Application for Palm Desert Hotel and Residence Project; 45-640 Highway 74 Dear Mr. Bagato: Enclosed herewith, please find PDH Partners LLC's Precise Plan Application and Conditional Use Permit Application, including the required initial submittal materials, for the proposed Palm Desert Hotel and Residence Project located at 45-640 Highway 74. Within approximately the next week, PDH Partners intends to also submit an application for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, an initial study prepared by Tera Nova Planning and Research and a Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads. We are excited to submit the Project for the City's review and look forward to developing a world class destination hotel resort in your City. Enclosures 57394\1438798vl Thank you in advance for your consideration and review of the Project. RECEIVED DEC 15 2009 ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT N ilklk . E _— cZ 1 73-5 10 FRED WARING DRIVE RUM DESERT, CA[AFI)RNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i into(<+'cipv>fpalmde�ert.org July 15, 2010 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multi -family residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted approval subject to ARC reviewing and approving the design development plans. Date of Action: July 13, 2010 Vote: Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Van Vliet absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. ARCHITECTURAL RE =W COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 changing their letters from white to the Lucky Brand blue,, dropping their blue jeans logo and going with an off white finish"with blue awnings. There is only one other building that has a lot of white and that is Janie and Jack, which is not right- rfext door to Lucky's so it shouldn't be too bad with the overall shell of the building being more desert scheme. He recommended approval. Commissioner Touschner stated that she liked the previous frame around the windows that was darker and thought it gave it a punch but felt there will bea- lot of color when there is something in the windows. / ACTION: It was rr 0 ed by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to grant approval. Motion carried 6-0-1-1, with C missioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC, Matt Joblon, 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multi -family residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated there has been a lot of discussions and today they will be discussing the new changes. He informed the public that this Commission does not address traffic, noise, lighting and environmental, which will be discussed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Matt Joblon, developer stated that they have gone through four major concessions, and on this particular revision they have lost another 7,000 square feet for a total loss of 37,000 square feet off the actual mass above the grade. This one stung the most because it was the most valuable to the whole project. They have G \Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\201MAR100713min doc Page 19 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL F, IIEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 gone from 92 rooms down to 90 rooms and lost 7,000 square feet. Rosewood is acquiring a certain amount of hotel piece for them to commit to the project so they had to go back and re -plan, re -layout all the rooms and lower the suite count significantly by 20% to make sure they hit the room count. Mr. Joblon stated again that they have made four significant compromises from the beginning and they have come to a point where they have to draw the line in order to make sure they can fulfill their promise of building a five-star hotel. Today they are asking for a decision and hopefully over the past couple of months that they have been going through this, the Commission has seen compromises in response to the community to try and create something that will fit into the neighborhood. He believes that all of the changes they have made from an architectural standpoint have made it a better project. Mr. Joblon went through all the changes that have occurred. They took off the fourth floor along Highway 74 in its entirety to cut it down to the height limit. In the second revision they pushed the fourth story back 45' off Highway 74. With the most recent revision they cut the entire half off the fourth story along Imago Gallery and the only fourth story on the most northern wing that abuts Imago Gallery is setback 45'. On the Imago Gallery side they also stepped back the building in its entirety on every single level. On the front fagade they created two big receptors where you can view the courtyard to try to create a real breakup in the fagade. They spent a lot of time and money to try and come up with better solutions that made this a better project. Mr. Joblon said that the one thing they have heard over and over again is that the height should be from the middle of each lot even though this is one property. They have merely shifted the impact of their building height away from the adjacent property from the north that is commercial and the south that is residential. He feels that by adhering to the code on both sides of the property it was better to have that mass towards the commercial part of El Paseo than the actual neighborhood. They looked at that from the very beginning and decided that this would be less of an impact and more appropriate for this site. In reference to the massing along Highway 74, they addressed that head on in one of their first revisions by taking off the entire fourth floor along Highway 74 and stepping it back at least 45', and in some instances not having a fourth floor on the middle wing. He said that traffic and noise will be addressed in &'Planning\JanineJudylWord FilesW Minutes\2010\AR100713min.dcc Page 20 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES °i July 13, 2010 the Mitigated Negative Declaration and will be addressed in other forums. They want to move forward from this meeting and are hoping that everyone has seen the compromises they have made and are focused on the design today and the positive this brings. Mr. Joblon stated that it is not just about the architecture. It's two million dollars a year direct revenue to the city, it is 250 to 300 permanent jobs, it's 150 non -permanent construction jobs, it's all the trades that get work, all the local subs, and all the additional pedestrian traffic on El Paseo. This will increase revenue sales, sales tax revenue, and increase property values all around. He concluded by saying that they have done a great job of listening to their neighbors to come up with a solution that will work. Commissioner Gregory suggested dropping the north end of the building which he thought wouldn't reduce the four stories, splitting the middle and dropping the north end so that it comes closer to the spirit of the 35' maximum height. Mr. Joblon stated that all the trucks go underground and they have to maintain a 14' height limit and above that there isn't an ounce of square footage that is not being fully utilized. Commissioner Gregory stated that he is looking at all the ways to make this more palatable. He stated that they are not that far off from having a building that could be approvable, but they are still fighting the maximum height problem. Mr. Joblon referred to one of the renderings and stated that the impact has been dramatically reduced from El Paseo and Highway 74 and said that the third floor at the 49' line is actually to code. He thought they honored the code because if you try doing it lot by lot you end up with much more of a problem in a residential area; which is a lot less palatable for a lot more people. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a point, and said that this is such a small space and so close to adjoining properties as opposed to say the mall that is greatly setback as are all the other tall buildings that exist in the desert. Mr. Bagato stated that when they initially came in staff looked at stepping parcels but then when we go from one condominium to the next it would be much more intrusive on the south side of the project. Commissioner Touschner discussed how the building wraps around the corner and how the fourth floor steps back 15' from Imago. She felt that was a big piece to start stepping back. She applauds them for doing that because it helps give it a little more space between the buildings. She asked if there was any opportunity to give that a little more relief. Mr. Joblon stated that they have looked at that in GAPlanningVanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010WR100713min.doc Page 21 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL A IEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 every way possible, but they started losing more rooms. He also stated that from an architectural and design standpoint the more setbacks they have you are dealing with the balcony window and the shutter fagade design which breaks up the building and the corner. He also stated that there is a tremendous amount of landscape that will soften that corner all the way down. He understands that they shouldn't focus on the landscape, but it does play a role on the visual impact. Commissioner Stendell asked if the fourth story wasn't there would they be in compliance and Mr. Joblon answered yes they would be. Commissioner Stendell asked what the setback was on Highway 74 and Mr. Bagato said it was 50' total and that is what the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Stendell asked if there was something different with the setback when Imago was built. Mr. Bagato stated that Imago's setback was based on 32' from the frontage road. When this project came in they talked to Public Works because they wanted to encompass and take over the frontage road. One of the reason they entertained that was because they talked to another developer, Fred Fern who also has a plan to encompass the frontage road. There is now intent from the City and other commercial builders to eliminate the frontage road. Commissioner Vuksic mentioned that it was important that everyone understood where Imago was located and pointed it out on the rendering. Mr. Joblon feels that the one person who will benefit the most in the whole city will be the Imago Gallery. That is because you have a high end hotel filled with qualified guests who would otherwise not be here who will be walking by the gallery to get to El Paseo. This will be a boon to his business. Commissioner Touschner asked what will happen if the frontage road goes away farther down closer to St. John's and who will be taking care of that to make sure that it will look nice and be a good connection between the two. Mr. Bagato stated that Public Works is looking at that and would entertain that to the City Council to see if they want to ban the frontage road. It is something staff would have to look at and develop further. Mr. Joblon stated that the conversation he had with Mr. Fern was that he was going to do retail and a restaurant there. Mr. Fern would bring his side up, the city would bring their side up and Mr. David Austin, owner of Imago Gallery would create a sculpture garden to bring the people in and the sidewalk would continue straight. G.\Planning\Janine JudyMord FilesW Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 22 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RE "W COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 Commissioner Touschner stated that she knows in some ways this has been a painful process for everybody, but out of this is a much nicer building than when first proposed. Not that the other wasn't nice architecture, it just wasn't appropriate for this spot and now it is much more community based. It is unfortunate that there is a height piece that absolutely doesn't fit but that is not for this Commission to solve; it is for the Planning Commission to solve. She stated that she can support this as a good piece of architecture that will be a part of our community and made a motion to approve. Commissioner Vuksic reminded her that the public has a chance to speak before making a motion. Mr. Bagato addressed the public and asked them to address the new architectural changes only. Mr. Mark Homme, attorney for Imago Gallery stated that the developer mentioned all the benefits to the city and to the neighbors, but didn't talk about the architecture. He totally disagrees with staff about the averaging on the lot. The City's requirement for architecture is vague and there should have been a standard and there isn't. He thinks where there is a problem for Imago is the frontage road in front of the gallery. The City wanted the frontage road there and they set back Imago 35'. Now this project comes in and the city abandons the frontage road, pulling this building up closer to the street. The problem is 49', which doesn't even conform to the architectural requirement at all. His client's problem is that when you are driving south on Highway 74, his building is totally hidden with this massive building and landscaping that will hide it even further. According to his client, the developer made a comment that when they go into a project they ask for twice as much as they think they can get so then they compromise by bringing it down. Mr. Joblon spoke up and said that is not, true. Mr. Homme said that it might not be true, but it is funny that after the four or five times we now have a project that the Commission says looks better. It is too bad that it didn't come in this way the first time. Architecturally it is better, but it isn't the same standards you have forced other people to have. The other problem is that the Imago is a contemporary block style building, an art building with a lot of different values. Artistically the Imago is a piece of art, but this proposed building is an institutional type building. There is nothing in Palm Desert within three miles except the mall that approaches this architecturally. He asked what is going to happen to the frontage road in front of his client's building, who will pay for that and who will put the sculpture garden out GAPlanning\Janine Judy0ord Files\A Minutes\2010 AR100713min.doc Page 23 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL R , IEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 there. He said not to assume that his client wants to spend a lot of money doing that. This building does not conform to the architectural standards that the city needs and even though it is a nice project, it just doesn't belong where it is proposed. Mr. Bob Pippin stated that he is in support of the project. His office is in the Galleria and has been there for about six years. He lives up Highway 74 and has been driving by that piece of property since it has been vacant. His business is buying distressed properties and started looking at that vacant lot as an opportunity. He found out that it wasn't a distressed piece of property and that something was being done with it. Mr. Joblon probably looked at it and thought what a spectacular project for that area and for this city. This is a 125 million dollar project and Rosewood will come here but if you make it too difficult for them they will go somewhere else. He said he would like to see the project. He asked will he make money out of this project. No, but he can go there. He asked is it an improvement to the city, absolutely. About 30 years ago the center of this valley was Palm Springs not Palm Desert and he said that what happened in Palm Springs was the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Committee got too difficult to deal with and Mr. Hahn came down to Palm Desert and made this area. This is a great project and will be the best looking building in this town and the Commission would be foolish to drive it to another town. Ms. Heidi Hanskin — Sandpiper. She asked Mr. Joblon if he was absolutely certain that Rosewood will be handling this property and Mr. Joblon stated that was correct. She asked if there would be a possibly of it going bankrupt and becoming another Ritz Carlton. Mr. Joblon stated that there is a possibility for anything, but said that they don't take certain development risks; they raise all the money first before getting started. They already have bonding, insurance, and guaranteed national contracts. He said that when you talk about commitment to the community this is serious, so you can bet there is no way they will take a risk with that amount of money. Mr. Alibaba Farzaneh, business owner stated that in 1982 Radisson hotel approached the city to build a 200 room hotel and since that time, hotels have come and gone. He thinks this is a good idea to let this developer do the hotel. Modify anyway you need to, but the concept of this hotel is very suitable on Highway 74. He hopes that the Commission approves it. GAPlanningWanine JudyMord Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 24 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RE cW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 Ms. Jan Coffyn — Sandpiper. She stated that she is having a hard time with the developer saying that he has made concessions. She said that he may be accommodating what the Commission has asked for, but he is making it sound like he had to cut off his arm in order to make the residents happy. She knows he had to have researched this site in order to know what the rules were for the city with the 35' height limits. She is not enamored with the Rosewood name and would hate to see this committee and the city give up so much to bring in the Rosewood name. She doesn't care about Rosewood; she cares about her town and her neighbors. She also said that the developer talked to residents on Ocotillo and they were applauding this, but she wondered if he talked to the owners. She said that if she were an owner there, she would not want a structure across the street that was five times the height, of her house. Her view of the mountains has been a joy and a blessing for all these years and knows it wasn't anything she was entitled to because it was a vacant lot. She could go with 35' to 45', but not 60'. She can't imagine that the owners would applaud that type of thing. So many people have said you have 72 keys to make it a success but if you cannot bring it down to fit the regulations of the city, then maybe you need to find a smaller investor or down scale your desires. All these things are too huge to put on this space. Each lot is a separate parcel, and the north end has to come down, it is too massive. Commissioner Lambell reminded the public that they are here to discuss the new architectural changes only. Mr. Bob Roarke - 45875 Ocotillo. He stated there is a lot of people that want to break the tyranny and status quo that we have in this community that makes it so difficult to bring worldwide perfection into our community. It reminds him of when the city wanted a new college for the east end of the valley and needed a way for the people to get to that college quickly. So a four lane highway was created to give people access. He said that Palm Desert will face the same kind of issues in the future because what is right now is not what the voters are going to settle on forever. The voters will want more perfection coming into the city and will want the finest standards that are available in the world, and in order to make that happen we're going to have to break the status quo to reach for the perfection that is there. We did it and got a college, we did it and got a roadway and we can do it here too because these men are bringing you absolute perfection in terms of the appearance of this GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20101AR100713min doc Page 25 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RL EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 building and anyone from any other community would be thrilled to have this there. Mr. Robert Clark - Sandpiper. He asked if the plan as presented with the 49' at the north end requires a variance for the height restriction. Mr. Bagato stated that it doesn't require a variance, the ordinance has an exception process written in the district and that is what they are requesting. Basically the precise plan will have a development agreement and can be approved. Ms. Tess Miller — Sandpiper. She appreciates the concessions the developer has made and feels that a lot of the residents will also have to make some concessions. She asked that before this is approved they put up markings at the height, length, elevations and interior so everyone will have time to sit and look at the mass and make a decision on whether this is something we can live with as property owners and residents of the city or is it totally something outside the scope of what we are willing to accept. Commissioner Gregory closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gregory said that the Commission's major charge is looking at design; such as height limits, setbacks, etc., the overall picture of what the project is all about and how it fits within its location. He thought that looking at the style and architecture of this proposed development should be their major focus at this time. The developer has made a lot of changes in the course of five presentations and he feels there are still some compromises that have to be made, but some of those decisions will be addressed by a different body. He thought the suggestion of story poles was a very good suggestion. Again he stated that the ARCs charge is to look at the architectural style and how it relates to the neighbors. The developer has made a very serious effort at bringing down the mass and scale of the building with respect to its impact on the neighbors, but it is not perfect. He stated that most of his concerns have been addressed and he would support it. He would like to see this project go on to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it has to do with determining if a project is in harmony with the neighborhood, which normally you don't seem to have to look at that hard, but in this case it is very appropriate. Mr. Pippen's comments were very good, but we have to be careful that we don't make things too difficult for quality developers. He said that as much as he likes the architecture he is G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2010WR100713min.doc Page 26 of 29 , ARCHITECTURAL I; AEW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 Commissioner Stendell tends to agree with both sides and he feels that he can support this project in a manner in which it has been presented. He stated that Imago's frontage road has been here for the 26 plus years he's been here and didn't know why. In some areas they have been massaged and some areas they have tried to eliminate them. He thought that if done properly the frontage road from this project all the way down to El Paseo will be handled very well and with the contributions coming from Churchill Management, Fred Fern's side with the hotel will probably absorb whatever has to be done to the face of Imago. This is an infill project and surrounded by numerous pieces of projects zoned in different venues and it's a difficult one to try to shoehorn in. He agrees that the developer and his crew have done a very good job of listening to what has been discussed. From the height standpoint he still has the same feeling, but he knows that it's probably time to move it on. Architecturally he likes it and thinks that it fits. El Paseo is a wonderful menagerie of different architecture and styles. He stated that he would support it and would like to move it forward. He feels that the concessions that have been made are challenging, but they can work through them. Commissioner Lambell remembers when there was an old fashioned U-shaped hotel on this property and remembers when it was torn down, yet it has always stayed in everyone's mind as a commercial strip of land; it was never designated as residential. She also agrees that we have to break the tyranny of the status quo but it has to happen or we don't continue to grow or mature; not only as a group, but as an organization, a commission and certainly as a city. She is behind this project and feels that the developer has done what he has needed to do to get it to this point and said that the next round will be much more difficult. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve and Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Vuksic made the suggestion that this be approved with the condition that it be brought back in the design development stage. Commissioners Touschner and Levin both agreed and the motion was amended. Commissioner Levin asked if there were other elements that would be coming back to this Commission. Mr. Bagato stated that whatever the Planning Commission and City Council approves the ARC will see the plans at the construction level when they are ready for plan check. Commissioner Levin asked about signage and Mr. Bagato said it will be reviewed by the ARC when it comes back. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 28 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RE :W COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 concerned of it meeting the spirit of the ordinance. He feels the averaging ordinance wasn't written for such a long piece of property so that is a real problem. He mentioned precedence and asked what will this do in the future when you get similar types of masses proposed on sites this close to a street. He is concerned with how it will appear as you go up the hill and thought its location makes this too high. For this to be approvable it has to observe the average height limit in steps as it goes down the hill. Stepping it would start to break down the mass of the long parapet. If this is approved, we need to add a condition that the project be reviewed at the design development stage because the detailing of that transparent wall as we have come to think of it is going to be critically important to pull this thing off. Commissioner Levin understood what was said, but on the other hand he thought the point was well made that if you start looking at the 35' on an individual basis rather than the entire project, you take the south end of the project and it would be well within the standards for 35'. Based on the site that the developer has had to work with and what they have presented they have given the best possible solution and he applauds their efforts from when this was first submitted. The way it is presented now he can support it. Commissioner Touschner stated that it has a much better sense of scale and massing with architectural components that work well with our community. One individual who spoke earlier said that it didn't fit architecturally into our community, but she thought it did. When you look at the pieces and parts of the project, they do match our community. Is it more than most of the other buildings within our community? Yes, but it is a sign of the times and it is a bigger project. She said that we have evolved and decisions that were made ten years ago are going to change. She does feel their pain about the Imago Gallery and thought that it was a lovely building and hopes that this building will be an extension of that block and that the Imago will now share its environment with other buildings; buildings that will all enhance each other and start to give the fabric of a changing community. She also hopes that it will be supported by that walkway. She is hopeful that between the developer and the city they will take care of the frontage road. There are still some issues with the height, but the architectural components is something that she can support and feels that it is something good for the community. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100713min.doc Page 27 of 29 ARCHITECTURAL RE EW COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2010 Commissioner Gregory asked if there were any further questions or comments, none were noted and he called for the vote. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant preliminary approval subject to Architectural Review Commission reviewing and approving the design development plans. Motion carried 5-1-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Van Vliet absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None V. COMMENTS Mr. Jim Cross, Best Signs addressed the Commission regarding signage in Palm Desert. He asked that the Commission hold their industry to the highest standard possible. He has come to know that in the City of Palm Desert, as well as many of the other cities, to present the Commission with tasteful designs and to make sure they get permits. It was difficult for him to sit here and listen to Mr. Shah because the reason those signs where not represented by Best Signs was because his company refused to do them without permits. This is not the only city that Mr. Shah's signs were installed without permits. For Mr. Shah to walk away after clearly violating the ordinance and practically being rewarded for his efforts was somewhat disappointing. He once again asked the Commission to continue to hold the sign industry to the highest standard. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Stendell, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:TlanningWanine Judy\Ward Res\A Mlnutes\20MAR100713min.doc Page 29 of 29 June 23, 2010 73-5to FRED W%KING DRIVE Rum DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 26o-2578 TEL:76o 346-o6ii inhWn cityofpalnulcsert.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multi -family residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Upon ' reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case PP 09-507. Date of Action: June 22, 2010 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL R!SEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 59 multi- family residential units and 92 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that approval of staff's recommendation will grant preliminary approval of architectural and landscaping design for a new condominium and resort hotel located on Highway 74. The project includes 91 hotel rooms, 59 resident units, and related ancillary uses. The applicant redesigned the project to minimize the impacts and provide a project that would be more compatible to the surrounding area. The new design creates a three story hotel along Highway 74 with a partial 4t" story set back 95' from the street, and approximately 225' from the Sandpiper perimeter wall. In addition, the building has been stepped backed along Ocotillo Drive, lessening the massing to the residents there as well. The front elevation along Highway 74 has been broken up by providing deep recessed pockets of glass with natural lighting, improving the overall design and massing scheme along the Highway 74 frontage. Staff has included all the letters in favor or opposition to the project that were received. Staff has been very cautious with this project due to concerns with the scale and massing that would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has been very responsive to the concerns of staff and neighbors by modifying the project repeatedly to create a more attractive development that has lessened the visual impacts by stepping back the building on both street frontages. The new design provides a shorter building frontage along Highway 74 than the height study photos indicate. Staff is recommending that that Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval of the building and landscaping design as proposed. GAPIanning\Janine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\20101AR100622min.doc Page 3 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL Rr. °EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 Mr. Matt Joblon, PDH Partners, Inc. mentioned that he met with the Sandpiper residents and listened to their concerns to figure out a compromise and try to reach their goals and move forward. He stated that they need to have some kind of partial fourth floor to make this project work and get a truly five-star hotel. They did a lot of different studies to get around the massing to make the impact far less for everyone. What they came up with was to remove the massing along Highway 74 completely; making it on the three legs and have it set back significantly. He explained that the fourth story is now on the three wings set back 45' from the building and 50' from Highway 74 for a total of 95' from the street. To make the architecture a little more interesting and less impactful on the Ocotillo side they stepped it back on two different levels on every single wing. He pointed out that they lost a total of 30,000 square feet, which was their prime square footage. However by losing that square footage they created several large two -level duplex suites which are fun and interesting and the overall residential units were reduced dramatically. He stated that they reached out to the community by sharing their ideas with everyone. There is still a lot of opposition but they are receiving more support every day. They made a compromise by removing a big chunk of the project to show the community that they are trying to work with them and meet their needs. He felt these new revisions will work with everyone. Mr. Richard Riveire, Architect said they were looking for opportunities that not only would affect massing, but also to extend some of the design concepts on previous plans submitted. The plans presented today keeps a lot of the same ideas; the shutters, layering of the fagade, the natural materials at the base, and a reduction of the overall height of the building by grounding the building into the grade. By re -massing the building they took the fourth floor and pushed it more towards the center of the site and reconfigured how that works underneath. They are still going with the idea of the shutter fagade being highly random and trying to get some variation of the fagade there. The fourth floor with the overhang elements is pushed back giving the horizontal appeal. He stated that they have also created light ports that will play with some shadow and light to give it some depth and texture. Even though the fagade still has some strength to hold the Highway 74 elevation you will get the light and shadow happening down below. He presented photos of the old and new view studies and described each one. He stated that by pushing the fourth floor back that far it really gets out of the view angle from an eye height of a person standing outside of the property. Mr. Joblon referred back to the light ports and stated that they created corridors out to G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.dcc Page 4 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RIF 'EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 the courtyard so there is some transparency going all the way through which will create an interesting element. Mr. Riveire said that by opening the light ports in four places they are open all the way back into the courtyards. When you are driving you actually get view angles through the building to see light and landscape happening there in all four locations. Commissioner Lambell stated that what the applicant has done by stepping the product back gives it some interesting angles and takes it out of the box car look that was previously presented. By stepping back the upper floors and moving it back from Highway 74 it is by far a better project and visually speaks of elegance. She went through each view study and made comments on each. She felt the building is far better looking with steps and movements and was pleased to see the box gone. The views from within the Sandpiper are vastly improved. It is not perfect, but far better than the past plans. Commissioner Lambell excused herself from the meeting. Commissioner Gregory referred to one of the letters received from a concerned citizen stating that their fear was additional traffic. He asked about a deceleration lane. Mr. Joblon said there will be a deceleration lane and stated that a traffic study was performed and the lane was approved by traffic. The Commission reviewed the view study photos and discussed how pulling back the fourth floor to 95' might help the view from the Sandpiper. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the setback and pulling it back 95' but he referred to the view study of the hotel and Sandpiper and said that you will see this project by the time you are on the other side of Highway 74. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the balloon study was still relevant and Ms. Grisa stated that it was no longer accurate since the submittal of this new design. Commissioner Vuksic asked what the height of the orange balloon was from the grade and Mr. Joblon said around 49'. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the overall height was on the north end of the building and Mr. Joblon stated that the front is 49' and the recessed fourth story is 59'. Commissioner Stendell asked about mounting of roof top equipment. Mr. Riveire stated that they are as sensitive to that as the Commission and stated that they won't have the same roof top problems as other hotels. They will have elevators and packaged fan core units. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR100622min,doc Page 5 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL Rr EW COMMISSION MINUTES{ June 22, 2010 Commissioner Gregory opened the Public Hearing. Mr. David Austin - Imago Gallery. He stated that he and his wife own the Imago Gallery and they are trying to be open-minded about this project. They were told by the developers that they would look at different options for the scale of the building. He said that they are absolutely against the building as it is designed. When he and his wife went through the approval process for their building at 35' in height there was quite the uproar. He stated that he keeps hearing that this is 35' per code and it is not. The reality is that on the north side of the building it is 59' and it steps down to 35'. He pointed out that his building is 35' tall and this building is almost half again larger with the grade. He stated that they would love to have a high quality hotel here someday but there is absolutely no way that this is in keeping with the City. They were told that they could not be any closer to Highway 74; however the hotel pushes its way all the way out 20 plus feet. He said just imagine as you are driving down Highway 74, his building will be gone. He stated that the developer agreed to his statement and said they thought the Imago Gallery was a destination, they didn't think visibility was important. Mr. Austin said that when they first presented their plans for the Gallery, they considered the residents in Sandpiper and Ocotillo and met with them while developing their building. They decided to poke holes in the sculpture garden wall and decided to never have a solid wall on Ocotillo. It took everything they had to build their building knowing what the rules were in Palm Desert. This hotel will be so far beyond anything imaginable particularly after it is built and everyone says this building is big. He stated that they will be the most impacted and pointed out that the building is 15' from his parking lot and 59' high. They designed their building with light in mind and the entire dynamic of the art gallery will change because they will be in shadow all day. Ms. Karen Prinzmittal - 361 Sandpiper. In theory she concurs with Mr. Austin. She is in support of having a really high -end hotel in that property. She likes a lot of the aspects of the new design, but is concerned about averaging height. She feels that one of the things that makes Palm Desert important and highly regarded in this valley is a real sense of proportion. She stated that the renowned architectural historian photographer Julius Shulman took every photograph of the Sandpiper and his photographs capture a man-made development fitting into the natural environments. Several images of the Sandpiper are now in the architectural photography collection of the Palm Springs Art Museum and part of the collection at the Getty Museum. She stated that they all want G.\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVA Minutes\201 TAR 100622min.dcc Page 6 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RE .W COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 something that will add to El Paseo and said that the Commission needs to think hard about their decision before it impacts the Sandpiper and the Imago Gallery. Mr. Mark Homme - 73461 Highway 111. He stated that he has been in the desert since the early 1960s and has been a practicing attorney in Palm Desert for probably 25 years. He is representing Mr. and Mrs. Austin in this matter. He mentioned that he does a lot of real estate work and is sure that the Planning Commission realizes that this building is kind of forever when you build on this site. You can't change your mind, it's there. It's nice to say that the Rosewood has signed up but ask the people at the Ritz Carlton in Rancho Mirage about the hotel business and what could happen to a hotel. If something happens to this hotel or the operator walks out, the hotel will just be sitting there unoccupied. From his client's perspective it isn't just that his building is 35' versus 50'. Think of this, the service entry for the hotel comes right next to his client's art gallery, and the gallery is right next to a wall that is 59' tall. He pointed out that the building has been pushed way out to the street because the city is eliminating the frontage road. From a planning standpoint his client's building is set way back from the street. He pointed to one of the images provided and said that it doesn't look like a 25' differential in height. As you are driving up Highway 74 all of a sudden you will see this big institutional looking building that is jutting right out on the street. It may be 35' per the ordinance from the center of the lot, but now you have combined four lots. He felt that the intent of the ordinance is to be 35' for relatively small lots in a small area, not this kind of mass. He reminded the Commission of the opposition that happened with his client's gallery when it first came into the city. This gallery has been a real asset to the City and is a beautiful building; it has style, form and has brought business to the City. He stated that the proposed hotel really diminishes the art gallery and is done in a way that will destroy its light and visibility. Once the landscape goes in between the buildings and on the frontage it will destroy it even more. He asked about the frontage road in front of his client's building; who will tear it out and who will pay for the landscape. He understands that the city is anxious to put a hotel there, but the city also has a lot of opportunity to place a hotel there that should be there. Ms. Grisa clarified that the hotel is not moving closer to Highway 74. The applicant requested to vacate the frontage road, but is not pulling the building closer. She stated that the setback remains the same; the applicant is only requesting to landscape that area. Mr. Homme asked if someone were looking up Highway 74, will the GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResUA Minutes\20101AR100622min.doc Page 7 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL Rr ,EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 Gallery be exactly even with the hotel. Ms. Grisa wasn't familiar with what Imago developed so she couldn't say for sure, but the hotel is building within the setback range. They can go farther back or they can go right at the setback. Mr. Austin stated that with his gallery they couldn't go farther back. He didn't know what has changed from then to now, but it has definitely changed. He stated that they weren't even allowed to have parking in the front of the building. The Commission discussed the setbacks. Ms. Jan Coffyn - 363 Sandpiper. She stated that this project is far too massive for Palm Desert. Palm Desert overall is like a quaint village. We are subdued, quiet, we don't razzmatazz, and we are sophistication in a quiet manner. This project will be on four lots and the portion that sits on each of these lots should be required to stay within Palm Desert's regulation of a 35' height limit. This shouldn't be allowed to be dramatically higher. If these were individual shops or restaurants, they wouldn't have been allowed to go up to 59' on their little lot. It is very important that you think about it. A five-star hotel might be right for Palm Desert, but is it right for this situation on this particular lot. If the developer can't build within the City's requirements, the City should not have to make concessions to them. If they want to be here, they should have done their research to know that there are restrictions and not submit a proposal that was just massively beyond anything in Palm Desert. She indicated that the developer came to the Sandpiper and said if this is going to work this is what they needed to have in order to get a five-star hotel. She requested that the City think about the residents, how much love they have for the desert, and how much they want to keep their tranquility. She requested that a 3-D rendering of this plan be submitted prior to approval. Ms. Tess Miller - 231 Sandpiper. She applauded the developer on a good job but it's still like placing an aircraft carrier on that side of the street. Palm Desert is a village and they want to keep it that way. They want to keep it quaint where people want to live and visit and not have the towering buildings, the congestion, and the urban sprawl. She felt that they could build a five-star hotel at two stories or less. She suggested that they create something new, different and innovative. This project is too massive for this site and stated that this would be beautiful on a flat lot somewhere else in Palm Desert, but not El Paseo. This will impact the history of the Sandpiper and will dominate all of Palm Desert because it will be the one thing you see when you are traveling on Highway 111. This proposed hotel will look like a battleship. It is thick, heavy and too much mass for the city. Read the General Plan to see what the GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Rles\A Minutes\2010\AF100622min.doc Page 8 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL R 'EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 intent was of the 21 people who spent two years of their lives drafting the documents for the future of our city. We want to keep it an urban village, a small city where people can come and get away from the big cities. Let's create the boutique hotels like the Mojave, which is a beautiful 24 room hotel. They don't need all the condos. The Sandpiper can't even sell the ones it has right now; the economy is that bad. In reference to the traffic study, she asked them to come out there in January through April and listen to the motorcycles, trucks, cars and all the traffic accidents. She is concerned about building a deflection wall and doesn't want to lose her view. That is what makes our city beautiful and we need to protect ourselves. She stated that if they still choose to go through with the project, she asked if they could put up the orange netting instead of the balloon study at the height of the building along Highway 74. That way everyone can visualize the mass of the project and everyone can then get a sense of what they will be driving past every day. Ms. Heidi Hanskin - 211 Sandpiper. She stated that this would look like the Queen Mary in her backyard. She appreciates how the developers worked with the residents. She likes the new renderings and stated that they did a great job in redesigning it. However, it is still very large. We have an ordinance that says 35' and why you would even think of going any higher is beyond her. Her main concern is the traffic. She understands that a traffic study was done which informed them that the area would not be impacted; she begs to differ. She stated that she lives on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 74 and said just with J. Russell moving across the street has impacted the traffic. She can only extrapolate the coming of the hotel with staff, vendors, residents, hotel guests, and truck delivery; it will be huge. Her condo faces Highway 74 and it's already a nightmare; she is really concerned. She has lived here all her life and this is her daughter's legacy and she would like to protect it as much as possible. Mr. Mel Mays, 212 Sandpiper. He understands the need for revenue, but stated that he lives about 20' from the wall and is concerned with the density. He moved out here from Pasadena because he wanted a lower density environment. This is 4.5 acres and the average Sandpiper circle is 3.5 acres. The density in Sandpiper during high season averages about 65 people in 3.5 acres. The developer is trying to put about 300-400 people at this hotel during season. He understands that the hotel will pay sales tax to the City to support a lot of the things that he enjoys about Palm Desert. He doesn't know that they have to build this project WPlanning\Janine JudylWord Files\A Minutes\20101AR100622min.doc Page 9 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL R' "EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 at this size to make money. There are on 4.5 acres and they are trying to pump the value of those acres like it is New York City, and it's not. It is too much density. The Marriott was built in Palm Desert but it has a lot of land around it as well as a golf course. This isn't big enough for something like that. Ms. Diane Oliver — Sandpiper. She requested a 3-D model of this project. Commissioner Gregory closed the Public Hearing Mr. Joblon stated that he met with everyone here and stated that the traffic in all due respect... Mr. Austin interrupted and said that the traffic is huge and the developer made a comment to him that it's not that much. When people exit their art gallery to go up to Bighorn they can wait a minute and a half for the traffic coming down Highway 74. When the developer came to his building they took him up to the second floor to show him the height and he made a comment about hearing the traffic. With all due respect to the traffic studies, he doesn't think they are accurate. Mr. Mays made a comment about the traffic again and stated that it will get a heck of a lot nosier. Commissioner Gregory informed him that this Commission was a design review body and what he was referring to would be covered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development addressed the public and informed them of the role of the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) verses the Planning Commission. The ARC primarily looks at aesthetics; the design, the nuances and the articulation of the shutters. They do look some at how it fits into the community, but generally they are looking at the details and architecture that is put before them. Issues such as density, height, setbacks, open space, circulation, and traffic are addressed by the Planning Commission. In turn, the Planning Commission doesn't address the aesthetic or the architecture itself. This project when and if it goes forward will go to the Planning Commission who will hold a public hearing that will address many of the concerns that have been addressed here today. If the Architectural Review Commission is focused on issues other than what you have mentioned today, please forgive them; that is not their fault. Their charge is to look at the details of the architecture and how it fits in the city. G,\Planning\JanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010WR100622min.dcc Page 10 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL Rf .IEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was glad that this has taken a while because this is quite a lot to digest. He mentioned that he read through all the letters and there are several compelling arguments. He didn't notice any objections to the use; generally everyone is okay with the use. Personally the view argument has never affected him much when a proposal comes in and the developer is staying within the guidelines. He said we've all heard that no one is entitled to a view. The vision of a project like Sandpiper is beautiful and is appreciated but it is not fair to prohibit a developer from using their site because of it. That being said, this is different because the developer is asking to build significantly over the height limit. He believes that property owners have a right to expect that the City will uphold the ordinance that will protect their views and property values when a developer is asking for an exception. He does think that it is a tough one with being harmonious with the neighborhood. He doesn't have a difficult time with heights, but some people are extremely sensitive to that. To him it has not been a significant factor. The Commission has approved many things that were over the height limit and have made height exceptions. He mentioned that he was involved in a presentation to the Planning Commission about why exceptions to the height can be beneficial. The argument presented involved small portions of a building that can be higher for artistic effect in the overall building mass. In that respect when we are talking about small portions of the building for artistic effect the spirit of the ordinance is preserved. We have approved some projects that have been well above height limit, but the difference is they are not impacting anyone. They are set back quite far and no one knows they are over the height limit. He expressed that when he is driving up Highway 74 and sees the Imago Gallery which is a big mass, then imagines the height of the hotel higher up the grade, he has a hard time with that and feels that it would not follow the spirit of the ordinance. He is worried that if this is approved what kind of precedent does that set for the next project. The averaging is not intended for something that is the length of two football fields because if you use that argument you are talking about a super long site. He likes the style of the architecture and everyone likes the use, but feels strongly that this is too much. In ten years, he has never really scrutinized the height of a project or thought the scale was too great. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FileslA Minutes\20MAR100622min.doc Page 11 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL RI FEW COMMISSION MINUTES � June 22, 2010 Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and said that height is an issue. He has always had a concern with the north corner and the height is what he has focused on. He thinks it is just substantially too tall down there. The developer has talked about stepping it down but it has to be substantially revised on that corner to get it down closer to 35' or stair step it back. He thought that maybe the whole tower element and the fourth story should move further down, or just get the whole building to come down. At previous meetings it was discussed that both buildings can be the same elevation with parapets or both buildings can be different heights. It will take substantial revisions to get that north building down to fit in more. Commissioner Stendell stated he is somewhat sensitive with what has been said. The General Plan is reviewed and updated every ten years and maybe in the next review it will increase the height limitations the Commission looks at. Nobody should deny the land owner the right to develop but there are a certain set of guidelines set forth. Height limitations have been superseded in situations where they architecturally make the project more appealing. He is not overly sure that the three corners of this building is necessary for that architectural feeling however, he does understand from a economic standpoint that they are looking for the space. They have creatively and innovatively reduced the square footage in trying to do that. As far as Imago goes, he would love to have that site because the clientele walking out of this five-star hotel will pass the gallery first on their way to the shopping district. He doesn't look at this town as a village anymore. In his eyes it hasn't been a village since the late 80s. It has become a very creative and innovative city over the years. Even if the Commission approves this project the developer will just be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire when they go before the Planning Commission and the City Council; because they will be much harder on this issue. Architecturally he likes the project but there it is too much above the height limitation. Commissioner Levin also had some issues with the height. He likes what they have done in terms of the reductions and setting it back. He understands where Mr. Austin is coming from with the hotel being immediately adjacent to his gallery. He stated that hotels are next to impossible to finance these days and it's not that easy to say you can reduce it or to do a 24-room hotel. He felt sure that the developer weighed hard and long before taking 30,000 square feet out of it because that is a serious chunk of change. As mentioned by the developer in a previous meeting, the residential portion is what carries this project and makes it worthwhile. It is a GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word RlesW Minutes\20101AR100622min.doc Page 12 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL R' EW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 tough call, but no one is entitled to a view and when we buy our homes with a view we get to enjoy them as long as we can, but you can't deny somebody else to develop. A lot of arguments have been made that he thought didn't have validity. The setback is not any closer to Highway 74 from where the frontage road exists and where it doesn't exist. You have to take out the things that are not real to the things that are real. Ms. Grisa mentioned that Desert Marriott Springs was approved at 78' with a height exception, as well as Starwood Vacation Ownership which was approved at 52'. What Mr. Joblon is asking for is no different from what other applicants have requested and received approval for. She pointed out that this hotel and the site are different from the other properties because there was a lot of area in between them and the residents and even the public right of away. She referred to the concerns regarding the traffic and said that even though ARC is not looking at that, Public Works requests that a consultant perform a traffic study. The Public Works director wants to make sure that our streets are flowing smoothly. Commissioner Levin said that this project will also go through a fairly intensive environmental study. Noise, air quality, traffic all the environmental issues will be intensively looked into and recommendations made. Whatever gets decided here today is not the end all to this project. Commissioner Stendell stated that from a purely architectural standpoint he could get behind this project. He thinks it is an interesting project and not as massive as a battleship or aircraft carrier. He informed the applicant that they have done some creative things to get it where it needs to be and he commends their efforts. Commissioner Gregory thought the architecture from the beginning was excellent and is even better now. They now have the luxury of having less density so they can really make this sing a little more. He didn't think this was a big opaque slab, this is a breathing building and the architecture needs to be understood better by people who don't know how to look at elevation. At the previous meeting he suggested that a 3-D rendering be submitted, something that people will understand what the developer is doing and they will like the architecture more. He had suggested at a previous meeting to break the building in the middle to give them an opportunity to break the axis and the opportunity to drop the northern most building so that you don't create the problem that you have adjacent to the Imago Gallery. He understands why the GAPlanning\Janine JudyMord FilesW Minutes\20MAR100622min.doc Page 13 of 19 1-1 ARCHITECTURAL R`, SEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 Imago Gallery is upset, it's like a giant canyon placed next to the gallery. It is way beyond the spirit of the height limit. In his opinion that is the major architectural focus that they need to take. He stated again that if they did a 3-D computer presentation, he would be much more inclined to be in favor. Right now he feels they have come a long distance in making this building much more palatable. The developer has made a very good effort, but they're not there yet and it's better to be beaten up here than in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Joblon stated that he and Mr. Bagato have discussed a 3-D model on a DVD, but in Mr. Bagato's opinion he thought the photos would be more effective. Ms. Aylaian stated that in fairness to Mr. Bagato staff preferred the 3-D model but the developer indicated that it would be too slow and too cumbersome to get through. Mr. Joblon agreed that it would be too cumbersome. Commissioner Gregory stated that when you have so much obvious opposition and concern a 3-D presentation would benefit their cause in helping people understand the project. Commissioner Gregory called for a vote. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the developer would prefer the ARC to deny or continue. The Commission discussed the options and Mr. Joblon asked for a continuance. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to continue Case PP 09-507. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Lambell and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-519 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PONDEROSA HOMES II INC. Attn: Pamela Hardy, 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Review of fireplaces on tracts 31490 and tract 31490-1. LOCATION: 75-400 Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100622min.doc Page 14 of 19 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Preliminary approval of architecture and landscaping for a new Condominium and Resort Hotel located at 45-640 Highway 74. The project includes 91 hotel rooms, 59 resident units, and related ancillary uses. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPLICANT: PDH Partners, LLC. 9355 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 CASE NOS: PP 09-507 / TT 36284 DATE: June 22, 2010 CONTENT Revised Drawings Photos of Building Height Study at Four Stories on Highway 74 Letters in Opposition Letters in Favor I. RECOMMENDATION: That the Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval of the building and landscaping design for the Rosewood Hotel as proposed. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of staff's recommendation will grant preliminary approval of architectural and landscaping design for a new condominium and resort hotel located at 45-640 Highway 74. The project includes 91 hotel rooms, 59 resident units, and related ancillary uses. The applicant redesigned the project to minimize the impacts and provide a project that would be more compatible to the surrounding area. The new design creates a three story hotel along Highway 74 with a partial 4th story set back 95 feet from the street, and approximately 225 feet from the Sandpiper perimeter wall. In addition, the building has been stepped backed along Ocotillo Drive, lessening the massing to the residents there as well. The front elevation along Highway 74 has been broken up by Staff Report' Case Nos. PP 09-507 / TT 36284 June 22, 2010 Page 2 of 4 providing deep recessed pockets of glass with natural lighting, improving the overall design and massing scheme along the Highway 74 frontage. Staff has included all the letters in favor or opposition to the project that were received at the time of writing this report. These letters are included for your review. III. BACKGROUND: On May 25, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission continued the project to allow the applicant time to either redesign the project to reduce the overall massing of the building architecture, or to move the project forward with a recommendation of denial. The applicant has redesigned the project to reduce the massing of the two buildings. The proposed changes are: • Elimination of the 4th floor along the Highway 74 frontage, creating a 3-story hotel at 35 feet high measured from the average grade elevation directly along the Highway 74 frontage. • Creation of four (4) breaks in the two front building elevations by carving out deep recessed portions of the building to reduce the massing along Highway 74, and creating some transparency through the building glass allowing natural lighting into the hallways. • Creation of a partial 4th floor towards the middle of the two buildings with a 45- foot setback from the front of the building, and an additional 50-foot setback from the street, creating a 95-foot setback from Highway 74. • Stepping back the 3`d floor from the 2"d floor, and the 41h floor from the 3`d floor of the building along the Ocotillo (east) side, reducing the visual impact along Ocotillo. • Reduction of the overall square footage of the project by approximately 30,000 square feet, requiring the change in unit count. The project went from 81 hotel rooms to 92, and from 72 residential units to 59. III. DISCUSSION: Many hotels and timeshare developments in the City of Palm Desert are located in either a Planned Residential (PR) or Planned Commercial (PC) zone. Both of these zones allow projects to be built with exceptions to any of the development requirements. In the Planned Commercial Zone, Section 25.30.260 Exceptions states that "the standards outlined in Sections 25.30.220 through 25.30.250 shall be required unless modified by the approved precise plan." As an example, this G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Nrchitectural Review Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report Case Nos. PP 09-507 / TT 36284 June 22, 2010 Page 3 of 4 exception was granted for Desert Springs Marriott, which was approved at 78-feet tall. Most hotels in the city have been approved with a height exception. However, other hotels and time shares have been approved with development agreements, which have also been used to approve projects taller than the zone allows. Development agreements are contracts between the City and a developer, and are used when a developer will provide infrastructure or a financial benefit to the City. Most recently, the City approved the Starwood Vacation Ownership project within the Desert Willow Golf Course. The buildings were approved at three and four stories tall with a maximum height of 52-feet. Development agreements allow the City to approve modified standards for projects that will provide a financial benefit. When a developer submits a project requesting a height exception consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or development agreement for modified standards, staff will analyze the project in context with the surrounding properties, topography, landmarks, in order to minimize any negative impacts to the neighbors. The subject project was submitted at 4 stories with an initial building height of 52 feet measured from the average grade elevation of the site, and a maximum height of 69 feet at the north end of the building. Staff was concerned with the compatibility of the project at that height, and told the applicant that the fourth story would not be supported by staff. On April 13, 2010, the project was presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Staff expressed concerns over the building design and massing. After the project presentation, the Commission stated that they liked the architectural design and requested no changes. However, the size of the project was a concern and the applicant was directed to provide additional plans that would model the project in context with the surrounding neighborhood. On April 27, 2010, the project returned to the ARC and the applicant provided some new perspective photo simulation drawings in context of the street view along Highway 74. In addition, residents from Sandpiper attended the meeting to discuss the hotel, expressing concerns with height, noise, traffic and lighting. After the presentation and discussion, the Commission was not satisfied with the quality of the photo simulations and requested that the applicant provide better 3D modeling of the project. After the April 27, 2010, ARC meeting, the applicant began meeting with the Sandpiper residents to discuss the project. To address the concerns over the height, the applicant reduced the overall building height to 45 feet from 52 feet measured from the average grade elevation of the site. To demonstrate the building height, the applicant met with the residents and staff at the project site to conduct a height study using balloons to indicate how tall the building would be at the height limit of the zone and at the new proposed height of 45 feet measured from the average grade elevation (photos included in packets). GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood Hotel\Architectural Review Commission Staff Report.doc Staff Report ' A Case Nos. PP 09-507 / TT 36284 June 22, 2010 Page 4 of 4 After seeing the balloon study and photos, staff still did not support the project with a 4th story at the lower building height. The applicant was made aware that staff would only support the project at 3-stories because of the visual impact along Highway 74 and to the surrounding neighbors. In early May, staff starting receiving letters in opposition and in favor of the project. Those letters are included in this packet for your review. On May 25, 2010, the applicant presented 30 photo simulations of the hotel in context with the surrounding area. After the discussion, the Architectural Review Commission continued the project to allow the applicant time to decide whether or not he wanted to redesign the project to reduce the massing of the buildings, or receive a denial as proposed. The applicant redesigned the project to minimize the impacts and provide a project that would be more compatible to the surrounding area. The new design creates a three story hotel along Highway 74 with a partial 4th story set back 95 feet from the street, and approximately 225 feet from the Sandpiper perimeter wall. The stepping back of the building from both Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive improves the views for the surrounding neighbors, and improves the massing scheme of the overall project from the street views. The front elevation along Highway 74 has been broken up by providing deep recessed pockets of glass with natural lighting, improving the overall design and massing scheme along Highway 74. After reviewing the new design and the modifications to the building design, staff is recommending approval of the project as currently proposed. IV. CONCLUSION: Staff has been very cautious with this project due to concerns with the scale and massing that would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has been very responsive to the concerns of both staff and the neighbors by modifying the project repeatedly to create a more attractive development that has lessened the visual impacts by stepping back the building on both street frontages. The new design provides a shorter building frontage along Highway 74 than the photos of the height study preformed for the hotel at four stories indicate. Staff is recommending that that Architectural Review Commission grant preliminary approval of the building and landscaping design as proposed. Submitted by: Tony Bagato Principal Planner G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\PP\PP, CUP 09-507, TT36284 Rosewood HotehArchitectural Review Commission Statt Report.doc June 9, 2010 73-510 FRED WkRING DRIVE Rum DESERT, CACIF RNIA 9226o_2578 TEL: 760 346-o61I infoWritNo pAnudcscrt. r4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case PP 09-507 to June 22, 2010 due to the applicant not being in attendance. Date of Action Vote: June 8, 2010 Motion carried absent 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. May 26, 2010 73-5 I O FRED WARING DRIVE PAI.JI DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9236o-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i infof rcit%ofpahndesert.,,rg ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case PP 09-50 to June 8, 2010. Date of Action: March 25, 2010 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL R► EW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 The Commission reviewed and discussed the letter height. Mr. Sanson stated that overall the size is 5' 4"; the "L" is 3' 11" and the "E" is 20". Mr. Bagato said this is part of what the development agreement allows and the square footage is based on the tenant square footage and will identify the center. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi- family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato presented the preliminary approval of the Rosewood Hotel and stated that this has come before the ARC in two previous meetings and was continued. The Commission recommended that the developers work out some of the massing in context of the neighborhood and requested a 3-D model of the project. He stated that the applicant has photo sims of the project but did not bring the 3-D model with them. Mr. Matt Joblon, PDH Partners, Inc. stated that since the last meeting they met with the residents of Sandpiper and the people from the Amago Gallery. They went out to the site to do a balloon study at the Sandpiper. He explained that they placed the balloons at the proposed height versus the current height and put them on the northwest corner, center west corner, and the southwest corner of the site. They presented those photos to the Commission for their review. WPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010 AR100525min.doc Page 4 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RE fN:W COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 Mr. Joblon stated that they have compromised by reducing the building 7' by lowering the residential and hotel units by a foot; which is dramatic and definitely takes away from the value. They also took a couple feet off the lobby height for the residential side and from the hotel. Commissioner Levin asked if the reduction in height resulted in a reduction in the number of rooms and Mr. Joblon answered no and said that they took the height out of each floor; still leaving four floors. Commissioner Stendell asked what they were at center and Mr. Joblon stated that it was 35'. Originally they came in asking for 52' and they brought it down to 45' and are now asking for an additional 10'. The highest corner on the north end is 59' and before it was proposed at 66'. Mr. Richard Riveire, Architect presented 25 3-D photos of the site for the Commission's review and explained the images to them. He then described the mass as it fits on the site to make this project work. He explained that the architecture is deliberately designed to reflect a desert vernacular, but not necessarily the vernacular that you tend to get in Palm Desert. From an architectural point of view they definitely want the horizontal appearance to it. Mr. Joblon referred back to the balloon study that showed the 35', 49' and 59' heights. The project definitely has presence but the difference between the fourth story and the third story is not as material as everyone thinks it is. He believes having that additional 10' doesn't create that much additional impact. Mr. Bagato presented the Commission with two additional letters received for review. He stated that this is not the advertised public hearing but the ARC allows an opportunity for the public to speak and suggested opening up the meeting to the public. Commissioner Gregory asked what height restrictions or setbacks they were requesting in the sense of variances. Mr. Joblon stated that it was a height variance. Commissioner Gregory asked if determining the height is pursuant to city standards in a sense that it is measured from the center of the building and averaging it. Mr. Bagato stated that there is a section of the code that says when they measure the height of a structure you take in the average of the site and apply it over the general site. Commissioner Gregory wondered if the code addressed such a long large building on a slope situation such as this. Mr. Bagato didn't know if the intent of the code addressed that, but pointed out that the average was used GAPlanningUanine Judy`,Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 5 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RE W COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 on the Westfield mall which has a big slope on a huge parcel further away from the street, and terraced projects like Falling Waters and the Larkspur Hotel that have three stories on the front end and two stories on the back. Commissioner Gregory opened the hearing for public statement. Ms. Kathryn Cook - 473 Sandpiper. She referred to the balloon study and said it just shows more readily than any word or picture could that the building will completely obliterate the view of the mountains and the vistas along Highway 74. She said that the Sandpiper is regarded by many as a modern treasure on El Paseo and is visited by numbers of visitors who come to look at midcentury modern architecture. The architect's design situated each condo so the residents could have a view of the wonderful desert and the vistas. She stated they are happy to share the view, but would be extremely disappointed to lose it. The way the hotel is situated they will see the back side of the hotel because everything is situated towards Ocotillo. It breaks her heart that such a lovely facility that they are designing has to impinge on its neighbors. Ms. Jan Hoffman - 363 Sandpiper. She expressed that a great deal of consideration,, creativity, and energy has been put into this design. . She thanked them for that energy but she couldn't condone the project because it goes against all of her feelings and her love for Palm Desert. She mentioned that notices should have been sent to the taxpayers addresses so they could have participated in this earlier. She said that the massive look of the design being presented is too massive and too much of a straight line and an 85' speck in the middle is not going to diminish the mass. She didn't know if architectural enhancements could be done to the flatness on Highway 74 but suggested they break it up. On El Paseo the buildings are practically common walls, but if you look at them each store has its own individuality so there isn't a massive look. She is also concerned with the hallway that faces Highway 74 that runs the length of the building. She said there would be a mass of lights running the whole length and wondered how the lighting would affect the Sandpiper at all hours of the night; 365 days a year. She also mentioned that she had a hard time listening to the developer's say that the project will not work unless they get the full amount of square footage. She informed the applicants that the Sandpiper residents would like to see a little more consideration given to them. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FitesUA Min utes\2010\AR100525min doc Page 6 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL F. ,;'IEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 Ms. Margarite Stetson - 263 Sandpiper. She stated that she loves that at night it's very dark which is nice because the residents can watch the stars. One of her biggest concerns is the fact that the entrance is going to be off Highway 74 and it is already a very busy highway with people coming down much too fast. Consequently she feels that it will be very dangerous to have an in and out from the hotel right on Highway 74. The traffic on El Paseo has increased noticeably in the last two years and it already takes three to five minutes to get out of gate F. She urged them to rethink the planning because it will be a major problem. Mr. Pearson Forbes - 252 Sandpiper. He stated that the hotel is an interesting site. It is 800' long and on a slope so even building to code allows the building to be 49' at the northern point. However, code isn't the issue here; mass is. Some of the ways to mitigate the mass have been brought up by Mr. Riveire, but he focused on the Ocotillo side; stepping back the building, starting from a lower height and going to a higher height. Stepping the building back from the property line helps but they are doing the opposite on Highway 74. By using the frontage road the hotel property is actually moving 30' closer to the Sandpiper, not further away. Another way to break up the mass would be to break up the building into smaller segments because these are two massive 300' long walls. In reference to lighting, the Sandpiper residents look out at complete blackness at night and if this hotel is built as proposed, they will look at corridor after corridor of lights; 24-7. To conclude he quoted the Palm Desert code as it relates to the architectural commission Chapter 25.70, Architectural Commission Goals/Policy/Procedures, Section 25.70.090 Action of the Commission states, "to approve an application the Commission shall find the following: Subsection B; that the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion." Subsection C states, "that the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 7 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RL EW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 this title and the general plan of the city." For this proposed development he believes that they cannot meet these findings. This project is a monstrosity imposing itself on single story residences on three adjacent sides; on the east, south and west. Ms. Tess Miller — 231 Sandpiper. She stated that the Sandpiper is a manmade development sitting in a natural environment and clearly this beautiful hotel belongs somewhere where it is burdened with other large buildings. It doesn't belong in the desert environment and will dwarf everything; Sandpiper and El Paseo. It will block all the beautiful things about the desert; the view and the stars. She is also concerned that the city is not following the general plan that was established in 2004 that limited building height. She stated that the applicants need to design within the parameters in the natural environment and the plan admits that it can impose constraints but it can also lead to creativity. Building something two stories and terrace it down will create the same amount of building without the bulk. The general plan says to harmonize new land uses and developments within the existing built and natural environment. This project clearly does not fit within anything that was built in downtown Palm Desert. It is huge and doesn't fit the desert architecture. Structures should be planned with integrated elements within the natural environment achieved by building scale and proportion in structure height. These structures should be similar in height and compatible with other buildings. She stated that they need to stick with the plan that was agreed upon. She stated that the Rosewood is beautiful, but they will be the only ones that will get the scenic vistas that belong to everyone. It will be a shame to lose the beautiful architecture of the Sandpiper and lose what we all deserve to have here. Ms. Heidi Hanskin — 211 Sandpiper. She stated that she appreciates the beautiful renderings of this lovely boutique hotel and can appreciate what it can contribute to Palm Desert; revenue and an influx of visitors. She grew up in the desert and the Sandpiper has been in her family for 25 years. She agrees with the concerns made regarding the scenery, lighting, and traffic. She has seen the traffic really escalate on El Paseo and it has become very problematic getting in and out and the noise level has escalated over the past few years as well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the 45', which is 10' above the code was measured from the center of the 800' long property and is it one or two parcels and Mr. Joblon answered that it was measured G Tlanning\Janine JudylWord Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min dcc Page 8 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RL EW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 in the center and it is only one parcel. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the height was at the upper end. Mr. Joblon stated 21' so stepping down from south to north is 21', 45' and 55'. The Commission reviewed the photos. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a hard time with this proposal. He stated that the architecture is very well designed but feels that the massing defies the spirit of the code and ordinances. When the Commission looks at residential design we look at things such as how the roof might be sloped so that if a house is taller than earlier codes we still try to respect the neighbors by having the houses at least conform somewhat to one another through some kind sensitivity to the existing homes. He realizes that Palm Desert is growing up and he doesn't have a problem with a large development being built so long as it is massed sensitively on both sides. He thought they did a great job on the Ocotillo side, but as a lot of neighbors are complaining it's obviously not a great job on Highway 74. Contrary to what was said earlier, if you remove some of the height and some of the massing you will lose some of the units and he understands how extremely detrimental that can be to the economic feasibility of the project. However, when the spirit of the ordinance is 35' with the understanding that it might get a little bit higher or a little bit lower from one end or the other he didn't think that was aimed towards something that had such a long axis that parallels the street with a gradient of Highway 74. So when you have a building at 59' tall it is so far off from 35, close to the street and to the neighborhood it doesn't work with the spirit of the ordinance. He remembers when the Amago was built there was a huge negative reaction towards that building and now looking at various images that have been created the Amago looks dwarfed on the north end by this proposed building. He stated there are ways to mitigate it. If you did not follow the aesthetic of having that continuous horizontal line and worked with the grade that would help a lot, however he understands that that would take away from the architectural vision. What he sees is a beautiful building that right now is impacting the neighborhood and flies in the spirit of various ordinances. He stated to Mr. Joblon that based on his many years of experience this project will have difficulty getting through the Planning Commission and the City Council. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 9 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RI `EW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 Commissioner Lambell reviewed the photos and stated that there is much more of an impact from the Sandpiper side. She pointed out the photos that were the most glaring. She agrees that it needs to fit in better with the scale and scope of the property with a reminder that views are not protected. Commissioner Levin asked if Mr. Riveire could address the corridor lighting concerns and how that will impact out to the west. Mr. Riveire stated they would probably end up with a lot of indirect lighting with an approach to having more fixtures as opposed to overhead lights. The bright light is buried in the middle of the property where the lobby is located. Mr. Joblon pointed out that there will be a 6' overhang, the shutters system 6' back and then another 6' there will be glass that will be glazed and then the hallway with different types of warm lights. He didn't think the lights would ever be an issue. Commissioner Levin stated that at one time Mr. Bagato made a statement that height wasn't within this Commission's decision making parameters and asked him to clarify. Mr. Bagato stated that granting a height variance or the approval of the development agreement and any exceptions will ultimately come from the City Council. The ARC will make recommendations based on the architectural design and the massing in context of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission will approve the height, lighting and traffic. He stated that they could recommend approval for a three story or a terraced building. There are different roads they can go depending on what the applicant wants to do. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed that the massing is a real problem and it needs to be revised down on one or both buildings, terraced and stair -stepped to make it more palatable to the neighborhood. Commissioner Stendell stated that the ARC's task is to look at the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood and this hotel is an architectural feat that is very attractive. His only concern was the height and said that if they were within 10% of their limits he thought they would have a far greater opportunity of presenting it and possibly getting it approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council; but it's 10'. The interior courtyards and the entrance have been given far more credits than making the hotel a compatible part of the community as a whole. He felt that it would GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR100525min,doc Page 10 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RE. .§W COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 be difficult to get this approved through the Planning Commission and the City Council. He liked the architecture and would love to see a high end boutique hotel some place in the city, close in. It's just a matter of making it work. Commissioner Gregory stated to Mr. Joblon that they needed to make a decision as to whether they might want a denial without malice so they can go on with their vision and planning and see where they end up, or they could choose to subscribe to the Commission's comments and modify the design and continue this project. He thought it was something that could be the applicant's choice because the Commission is encouraging the development of this plan and likes what they are proposing but there seems to be a concern with the big heavy massing. He asked the applicant if he had a feeling as to what direction he would like to go. Mr. Joblon stated that he didn't know and said that he would like to take some time to think it through and to understand all their options. Commissioner Levin stated that they could continue it and then if they decide not to make the changes and wanted to take it on to Planning Commission then it would come back to ARC for a vote. Mr. Joblon wanted to clarify his options. He stated that they could get a continuance today to figure out what they wanted to do, then come back in two weeks and stay with it or take a little time to redesign to try to get an approval through ARC. He then decided on a continuance to the next meeting. Commissioner Levin made a motion to continue and Commissioner Lambell seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for any further comments. There being none the vote was called. Commissioner Gregory stated that he would love for them to redesign this project because he would like to see this move forward. Mr. Bagato asked if the Commission could give the applicant some instruction to help them along. Commissioner Gregory said that he wasn't all that concerned about height but was concerned with overall height. He felt that if they show the same sensitivity to the Sandpiper as they did on Ocotillo and reorient the massing they will be on their way. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min doc Page 11 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL R. EW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 Mr. Joblon asked to have some dialog. They started at point A with what they needed to'do on this property to get a five-star resort experience. He thought everyone would agree that they would want to push the mass towards the most commercial part of the property, which is Highway 74. The other challenging thing is that no five-star operator will come in here with rooms facing Highway 74, which kills you because that is wasted space. They looked at this every way possible on how to diminish the mass. The Commission discussed stepping the buildings back. Mr. Joblon stated that the front fagade when first presented was well received by the Commission. It has an accordion effect going on and is a pretty interesting fagade for that type of length. Commissioner Lambell stated that this Commission will never tell them how to do it so the point being is that the mass is what they are concerned with and the applicant needs to digest that and see what comes back at them. If it is still this plan then it can always be appealed. The Commission is charged with looking at it from an architectural standpoint and does it fit into the neighborhood. Clearly at this moment it does not. Mr. Riveire stated that this is still the same volume regardless of how it is situated. Their approach was to take the side that was the least impactful and work the heck out of the fagade to get it to a point where it had depth, rhythm, movement, and lighting. Then they put piles of trees in front of it. From an architectural point of view it made a lot of sense. Architects are problem solvers and that is what he plans to do. He will try to figure out how to manipulate the mass. He definitely doesn't want to make it work in a way that just shifts the problem to someone else. Commissioner Gregory asked if the premise of a five-star hotel is reaching too far considering thb limitations of the site. He wondered if they might have better luck thinking more four -star or maybe not offering so much in such a small package. Mr. Joblon explained that the money is truly made in the residential, plus there is an enormous amount of wealth in the desert in a two-hour drive to San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles County. The desert has the largest population of wealth in the United States and people don't have any resorts to drive to. Commissioner Gregory believed that the support would be there for them to move forward with the project if they could mitigate some of the issues. G \Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 12 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL R IEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case PP 09-507. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Vuksic and Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Piles\A Minutes\2010\AR100525min.doc Page 13 of 13 April 28, 2010 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C-M Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case No. PP 09-507 subject to submitting a 3-D model to include site context. Date of Action: April 27, 2010 Vote: Motion carried 7-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL ( 11EW COMMISSION r MINUTES April 27, 2010 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to: 1) large wall signage only occurring over the section with the door; 2) eliminate signage on the awning; and 3) stucco base underneath the windows a color to match the window frame. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C. (4) Mr. Bagato stated that this project was continued from a previous meeting to allow the applicant to prepare some visual design studies. Mr. Dale Yonkin, Nadel, Inc., stated that there were two issues discussed at the last meeting and perspectives were requested. He presented perspectives and pointed out that one perspective shows the building in context of the immediate adjacent neighbors to the north and south. For the massing he explained how the building steps down towards Ocotillo giving it a sense of how little the building ends up near the Ocotillo property line, and how open the east side is because of the two large courtyards and car entry. For the context of the building they created two perspectives. One is looking south from the intersection of El Paseo and Highway 74, which shows how minimal the impact is on Highway 74. The other perspective is looking north on Highway 74. There are three perspectives; one aerial and two ground level, plus the building elevation from Highway 74 that shows the buildings north and south in relationship to the hotel. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Min utes\2010\AR100427min.doc Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE_=W COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 Mr. Bagato referred to the landscaping and explained that the applicant will have to do a retention basin and a storage tank. After submitting the landscape plans the Landscape Specialist indicated that the roots would end up going into the storage tank which will be a problem, so they will have to redesign around the tank. The Commission asked Mr. Joblin to clarify the unit count since there was a discrepancy as stated in the newspaper. Mr. Matt Joblin, PDH Partners, Inc., answered that it was 72 units. It was originally 67 but because there was a revision in the square footage and other factors it changed to 72. Mr. Yonkin stated that one of the other issues from the last meeting were the size of the pylons at the entry. The pylons were reviewed and additional studies were presented to the Commission. He explained the relationship of the scale of the pylons to cars and people and said that they were reduced to 30' as opposed to 40' shown on the plans. He felt that the 30' works perfectly well, but would like the option of keeping them at 40'. If they go transparent then the higher pylon would be more effective; if going a little more solid then perhaps they would scale it down. Approval for the larger one would give them the option to study in real detail with the artist creating the pylon. Mr. Joblin stated that having some flexibility with additional height will create what they believe is the wow factor. Commissioner Touschner thought they didn't need to worry about the wow factor at any height and felt this was making a pretty bold statement. She brought up the height at the last meeting because she feels the pylons are two massive things. Mr. Bagato stated that it will move on to the Planning Commission and the City Council who can also change some of the building. Once the approval takes place the final construction drawings will come to Architectural Review during the building plan check process. Then at that time, the Commission can condition the approval that those two pieces be studied further as part of the construction process. Commissioner Touschner thought this should come back at design development; the concept works but bring it back when it is further developed. The Commission reviewed the height of the Amago Gallery and the hotel. Mr. Yonkin said that the height of the gallery is 35' and the height of their project closest to the gallery is 62' above grade. He stated that the elevation shows that the gallery while it's shorter is G TIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\20101AR100427min.dce Page 4 of 9 l ARCHITECTURAL F ,>�IEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 setback nicely. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is hard to tell the scale because the distance between Amago and the structure on the north side is small. Mr. Yonkin stated that it is about 65'. Commissioner Van Wet asked how far of a gap do they have between buildings. Mr. Yonkin answered 84'. Mr. Joblin stated that he met with Amago Gallery to present the project to them and they are verbally in support of the project and understand the sense of community and the value it is creating. They asked that as long as they screen the building with landscaping they would be very happy with the project. Mr. Bagato presented a letter he received via email from Norman Rickard, 1207 Sandpiper, regarding his concerns with the height of the project. Mr. Rickard asked that the Commission adhere to the current height limitation of 35'. Mr. Bagato stated that the Commission's policy is not to approve the height exception because that would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He said that the Commission's role is to encourage development that is in harmony with the design character of the City and in conformance of the guidelines. He stated that they don't necessarily have to approve it based on the ordinance, but they can decide on the overall height based on the compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato invited the public in attendance to come forward and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Tom Rasmussin, 241 Sandpiper, stated that from his home he would look directly at this project. He said that he is amazed that this is even as far along as it is and no one has talked to Sandpiper. He pointed out that the Ocotillo side is much lower in value and has virtually or almost no architectural significant whatsoever; whereas the Sandpiper is probably the preeminent architectural asset of the town. This project will absolutely destroy what exists there. He feels that the height limit of 35' is the Commission's job to maintain. That is what the zoning ordinance requires and what the citizens count on. He suggested that someone come over and take photos from their view to get a different viewpoint on what is taking place. He also pointed out the noise factor from Highway 74 and said that putting a four-story hotel in front of Sandpiper will magnify the noise coming into Sandpiper. He asked that this be given a lot more consideration. He talked to several owners and none of them knew about this project or a few of them thought it would go down behind GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010WR100427min.doc Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RED JU COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 The Gardens. He stated that he will definitely be in front of the City Council and asked if they should appear at the Planning Commission and Mr. Bagato stated that the Planning Commission would give a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rasmussin invited Mr. Joblin to visit them at Sandpiper. Commissioner Levin asked if there was notification to the community for this project. Mr. Bagato answered not at this time. The community will be notified when it goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Pearson Forbes, 252 Sandpiper, stated the contact that the developers have had with the Ocotillo residents, the rentals, and the businesses was all good, but pointed out that the first four circles in the Sandpiper units are right on Highway 74; which totals 96 homeowners. That is a lot of people that will be impacted from this development. This is a big deal for the Sandpiper. From an architectural standpoint he would like to focus on the mass, not just the height limit. The mass is incredible when compared to the Amago Gallery. He indicated that he can see the Gallery from his place and this development will be twice as high. This is such a massive structure that it deserves some architectural revision. He pointed out the 40' to 50' tall pine trees in the median that are good markers of how tall this structure will be at 65'. It will have an impact on reverberation of sound and could also have an impact on sunlight; it will be interesting to know how late the sun would hit the Sandpiper. He agrees that their units are architecturally significant and the residents need to be a part of the approval process and he looks forward to that. Ms. Pam Rasmussin, 241 Sandpiper, stated that out her living room window she has a 50 or 60 degree view of the mountains and from the north end to the south end this development will completely eliminate their views. She stated that there will be about 40 or 50 people who will totally lose their mountain views. She is sure that the developer felt the people on Ocotillo were important to talk to and who are happy with it, but to her knowledge no one has set foot on the Sandpiper property to see how difficult an issue this will be for them. Her understanding was that the City was always going to try and adhere to the 35' height. It's still going to impact them at 35', but that is what it is zoned for and that is what it supposed to be. She believes that if this development is not financially viable at 35' or less, then they should find a piece of property where it is GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AA100427min.dm Page 6 of 9 S ARCHITECTURAL R lEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 viable. She stated that she is incredibly disappointed and said that most of the owners left last week and know nothing of this project. Ms. Carol Fanelli, 182 Sandpiper stated that she bought in the Sandpiper because of the architecture and expressed that this development will be a big mistake. She wants to maintain their architectural significance in their community. Mr. Joblin apologized to the residents at Sandpiper for not coming to them and presenting the project. It was a mistake on his part and he didn't understand how effected they would be. He told them that he would come to them and present the project and explain everything at that time. He then explained to them about the 62' height and pointed out the 25' drop in the property. Even if they stayed within the zoning and didn't ask for the partial 4th floor the residents would still have a 52' height. The viewpoint from where they are is a difference of 10' and would be insignificant. He stated that by having that partial 4th story allows them to have a five -plus star property and would bring something to El Paseo that benefits this community tremendously. He said there are many benefits overall to the City that will happen; not just money. The key here is moving forward to create a project that respects the environment, has open space, and lush landscaping. They wanted to create an anchor to the El Paseo experience and provide benefits to the community. The residents and Mr. Joblin discussed the height of the building and the impact to the residents at Sandpiper. Mr. Rasmussin thanked Mr. Joblin for explaining the project and stated that there will be a problem meeting with the developers since most of the residents have left the area. He suggested that they will have to do this via email. Commissioner Gregory closed the public comments. Commissioner Gregory asked what has changed since the last meeting. Mr. Bagato said the massing of the buildings, the scaling of the art pieces in the entry way, and the landscaping plans. Commissioner Vuksic had a couple of concerns. He reminded the developers that the Commission at the last meeting asked for a three dimensional view of the project in context and thought the Commission was getting very guarded vantage points of this project. Upon reviewing the photos submitted to the Commission at the last meeting, he said the building looks no higher than the G \Rlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\NR100427min.doc Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RE\ .W COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 Amago Gallery and the new photo presented today looks higher; so he questioned which one was correct. The building is going to have to stand on its merits and he knows the developers are capable of showing the Commission what the City will get. Everyone needs to understand what this development is going to be instead of presenting snapshots to get it approved. Mr. Yonkin presented a better photo showing the height of the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could see Amago much better in this photograph. The Commission and the developers discussed the photo and the height. Commissioner Vuksic said that the Commission needs to see this project in three dimensions and said that he will look at this for its architectural merit and the Planning Commission and the City Council will look at the height. He recommended that the developers submit aerials and a 3-D model of the project. He explained to the developers exactly what he was requesting. Commissioner Touschner expressed that this is beautiful architecture with a nice feel to it, but it's all about understanding the massing. She was concerned with what the sides look like. Her concern was on Ocotillo Drive because that is where you are going to see the scale even more because you are going down a smaller street and you are traveling at a lower speed. She didn't understand the whole massing or the layers of where the street is, the landscaping layers or the building edge. She said that the 3-D would allow them to start to see that. The Commission and the developers discussed the massing and layers. Commissioner Gregory stated that the architecture is very nice but he feels that the project will get slammed. He suggested to the developers to be really careful with respect to the massing because the massing really does not conform well to the low story neighborhood. He stated that getting through the Planning Commission and the City Council will be more difficult and he asked them to be sensitive to the concerns that were brought up. Commissioner Lambell asked to see a 3-D model and stated that it is imperative to understand what the massing will look like. Commissioner Vuksic said that he would like to see a 3-D rendering/model of the entire site and with enough context on the computer to show how it would look going up and coming down Highway 74, with enough architecture to understand what is solid. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100427min doc Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL F VIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 Commissioner Lambell moved for a continuance to allow the developers to submit a 3-D model that includes the site context, second by Commissioner Levin. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Touschner stated that if the Commission approves of the architecture do they need the 3-D model to move it forward to the other reviews. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is needed because the height and the mass tie together with the architecture. Commissioner Levin said that as it moves forward to other reviews the Commission can say that the same package was reviewed. Mr. Bagato said that seeing the model would be important and stated that he had informed the developers he had concerns with the height of four stories in context of the street and wouldn't feel comfortable taking it to the Planning Commission without it. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case No. PP 09-507 subject to submitting a 3-D model to include site context. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Stendell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word ResW Minutes\201MAR 100427min doc Page 9 of 9 April 14, 2010 S 73-5 [o FREU WARING DRIVE PALM DFSFRr, CALIFORNIA 9 26o-z578 TEL: 760 346-o6i i FAX: 760 341-7o98 inFoO palm-de:crt.org ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C.4 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case PP 09-507 with no changes in design and submittal of additional perspectives and 3D of project. Date of Action: April 13, 2010 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re -submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ARCHITECTURAL .VIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2010 be continued until the applicant is able to submit the corrected information. The representative once again asked for 10' from the curb. Commissioner Touschner made a motion with the same conditions with the exception of a 10' setback. Commissioner Vuksic made the second. Motion passed 6-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet voting NO. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) 10' from the face of curb and returned to pilasters on each side; 2) tie wall into the existing side fencing; 3) wall to remain wrought iron and never changed to full masonry; 3) L-footings toward curb; and 4) subject to landscape review and approval. Motion carried 6-1-0-0, with Commissioner Van Vliet voting NO. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO: PP 09-507 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PDH PARTNERS, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Precise Plan for a condominium and resort hotel including 67 multi- family residential units and 81 hotel rooms; Rosewood Hotel. LOCATION: 45-640 Highway 74 ZONE: P.C.(4) Mr. Bagato presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that this is a preliminary approval of a Precise Plan for the architecture of a new condominium resort hotel consisting of 67 multi -family residential units and 81 hotel rooms. This is two buildings separated by a courtyard in the middle of the project. The applicant is requesting from Public Works to abandon the frontage road. The frontage road is being eliminated as part of their design to give them an increased 50' setback from Highway 74 and provide a nice area for some landscaping and a new walkway along that area. This will transition off El Paseo and will be a five-star hotel, restaurant and condominiums. They are proposing four stories above a two-story underground parking. The height limit in the area is 35' and they are requesting a height exception in an GAPlanning\Janine JudylWord FilesW Minutes\2010WR100413min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REV; -)COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2010 area zoned planned commercial, which allows for height exceptions. The building is modern architecture. Mr. Bagato presented the material board and discussed the colors and materials. He stated that there is some concern from staff with the architecture of it being four stories tall and suggested mitigating the visual impact of the residents on Ocotillo and Highway 74. He stated that coming down Highway 74 even with the 50' setback he was concerned that there wasn't enough relief in the buildings. Both of these buildings are over 200' long with only an 84' break in the middle and it reads as kind of flat. Although they are using a trellis system off the patio, his concern was that it is being repeated so much without a break that it reads busy. He suggested breaking up the massing in the middle by providing some kind of element or change in the material to give it more vertical elements or step back the top floor in a terrace type effect. The applicant is going for a high end contemporary design that they feel the market will support. He has discussed his concerns with the applicant and stated that staff is recommending approval as a whole and would like the Commission to give their comments on the design. Mr. Matt Joblin, PDH Partners, Inc. described how they chose the site for the hotel and their plans for their project. He expressed that their goal is to create a truly five-star hotel experience that anchors the El Paseo experience. His team consisting of Richard Riveire, Architect, Jim Hyatt, Landscaping and Mr. Dale Yonkin, Nadel, Inc., presented architectural elevations and described the landscaping design for the site. Commissioner Vuksic was impressed with the design, the motor court and the fact that they absorbed the frontage road. He was in favor of the long line and felt that the components were so strong that it would work. He asked them for details of the white box and felt that it was important to have a clean edge. Mr. Riveire stated that the architecture of that piece relies on that sort of purity. Commissioner Vuksic said that it would be important not to have a big piece of cap flashing coming off the top. He mentioned the A/C units and understands that each room will have their own individual air conditioning unit and wanted to make sure that the applicant was confident there wouldn't be anything on the roof. Mr. Riveire stated that the units are proposed for the sides of the buildings and no condensers will be on the roof. Mr. Riveire described the trellis and lighting system and Mr. Joblin described the art sculpture located at the entry to the hotel. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100413min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL .VIEW COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 2010 Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer if Public Works would be signalizing the entrance. Ms. Canales stated that they would not. Commissioner Levin had concerns about not having a signal there. Mr. Joblin indicated that a traffic study was completed and it was determined that a signal was not needed. The Commission felt that it would be a very hard left hand turn. Mr. Joblin stated that he personally did not experience heavy traffic in that area during the times he was there. Mr. Yonkin stated that the residents of the condos would have a separate entrance. Due to equipment malfunction the recorded minutes are intermittent. Commissioner Touschner stated that vehicular traffic should know where to go once the traffic is in the entrance area. She suggested that they create a transition at the entrance. The applicants discussed that concern with the Commission. Commissioner Touschner had concerns with the height of the hotel and the tenants on Ocotillo and suggested that additional studies be prepared regarding the visual impact. Mr. Joblin stated that they went to the neighbors and presented this project to them and received their support. He pointed out that the mass is pushed towards the front as much as possible. He also said that from a financial standpoint for it to work they would have to make it four stories. Commissioner Levin expressed his concerns with the height and what the visual impact would be to the residents on Ocotillo. Mr. Joblin stated that that most of the residents don't have windows facing that direction or they only have small kitchen windows. Once again he reminded the Commission that the residents were in support of the project. Mr. Bagato explained to the Commission that the height limit is 35' and it is measured from the average of the site so that end of the site would be 40' to 47' even without the fourth story. Commissioner Touschner asked if they talked with Sage Place across Highway 74 and Mr. Joblin stated that they did not and said that they were one story and the views were not in that direction; so they focused on the Ocotillo residents who would be the most impacted. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the highest point was off of the adjacent grade on the north end near Amago. Mr. Bagato stated that it was 63' and Amago was lower, around 40'. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Ward FilesW Minutes1201MAR 100413min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REV' I COMMISSION j MINUTES April 13, 2010 Mr. Bagato asked the Commission if they would like to see this again after submitting additional studies or were they comfortable with granting a preliminary approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that this was such a large project it was hard to approve it and not see it again until the working drawings. He mentioned that the Commission is reviewing elevations and renderings that don't show how the west side marries into the north side and it is important. Commissioner Touschner suggested submitting views going south on Highway 74 as well as north. She also suggested the corner of Highway 74 and El Paseo. She recommended that they submit a 3-D model. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue Case PP 09-507 with no changes in design and submittal of additional perspectives and 3D of project. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. C. Miscellaneous Items 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-313 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of signage; Revitalization Plan for El Paseo Drive. LOCATION: El Paseo ZONE: GC, SP, OP Ms. Grisa presented the El Paseo Revitalization Plan for El Paseo Drive and the Commission reviewed two renderings submitted regarding the median head and how it intersects the crosswalk. Mr. Bryce White, Project Administrator explained the two illustrations and the Commission reviewed the drawings. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval of Option C illustrating how the head of the median shall intersect the crosswalk. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioner Gregory and Lambell absent. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2010\AR100413min.doc Page 14 of 15 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.11 CITY OF PALM DESERT CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment 1 Project title: Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 CEQA Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Desert 2 75-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Contact persons and phone number: City of Palm Desert: 3 Lauri Aylaian; Community Development Director Tony Bagato; Associate Planner (760) 346-0611 Project location: 45640 Highway 74 and adjacent lands, Palm Desert, Riverside County, 4• California. APNs 627-281-011, 627-281-014, 627-281-013, 627-281-015, 627-281-017, 627- 281-018. Project sponsor's name and address: PDH Partners, LLC 5• 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 General Plan Designation: (C-C) Community Commercial 6. and (R-H) High Density 7. Zoning: P.C.-(4), S.P. Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation.) Proposed Action: The proposed project involves the construction of a combined transient hotel and residential condominium project on 4.97t gross acres of currently vacant land (4.27f acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7f acres) located immediately east of Highway 74, immediately west of Ocotillo Drive, and immediately south of the Imago art gallery. The project includes the vacation of the existing frontage road between the subject property and the highway. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet south of the El Paseo Drive commercial district. At buildout, the Project will encompass approximately 380,285 gross square feet, including 8. private balconies and terraces, but excluding parking areas, ramps, driveways, loading areas, and areas under building overhangs. The net floor area encompasses approximately 315,111 square feet, inclusive of areas under building overhang and balcony areas deeper than 5-feet, but excluding parking, ramp, loading, exterior walls, shafts, stairs and mechanical. The project will be comprised of two main structures of three floors each with a partial fourth floor set back 45 feet from and running perpendicular to Highway 74, one floor being largely sub -grade. The partial fourth floor is also stepped back from the northern property line. The project will also provide two levels of underground parking for hotel guests and residents, with 24-hour valet service for both user groups and visitors. An alternative parking scheme provides for one level of parking and off -site parking, as further described below. a074 5?'_5631%3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert HoteU CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29. l 1 A car court is planned between the two primary buildings and will provide lobby and associated facilities and services. Parking, loading and service access will all be from Highway 74; there will be no access or egress taken from Ocotillo Drive. Approximately 46% of the site will be covered by buildings and 54% will be in landscape and hardscape. Hotel Component The hotel component will be located in the north building and will provide 68 standard hotel rooms and 14 suites for a total of 82 transient hotel units. The hotel will also provide a 2,070 square foot Ultra lounge, a 2,100 square foot restaurant and a 40-seat roof -deck bar and grill, spa and fitness center, ballrooms and conference rooms, and boutique and other limited retail commercial totaling 2,870 square feet. Residential Component The residential condominium component will include 59 units that will be sold as fee -simple ownership; no timeshare sales are proposed. The residential condominium units will be located in both buildings; however approximately seventy-five percent of such units will be located in the south building. The residential complex will have its own courtyard and pool area. Furnished units will be eligible to become part of the hotel's rental pool, to be leased and managed by the professional hotel operator. Of the 59 residential condominium units, 53 units (those that are either 2 or 3-bedroom units) will have one bedroom that may be locked -off from the rest of the unit with a separate key and placed into the hotel pool separately from the unit, bringing the total maximum number of potential condominium keys available to the hotel to 115. Table I: Space Allocation PDH/Rnsewand Hntel/Reeddence C.hih Amenities Units Keys SF Hotel Units 82 82 53,350 Residential Units 59 115 117,830 Spa & Fitness Center 26,060 Meeting & Function Space 9,690 Boutique/Other Retail Shop 2,870 Signature Restaurant 2,100 Outdoor Courtyard & Bar* 19,600* Ultra Lounge 2,070 Lobby Bar 1,640 Roof Deck 1,220 Ancillary Space 170,140 *Hotel Outdoor courtyard and bar is not included in the total gross area. -2- 5225632�3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29. I I Site Plan The proposed project utilizes the subject site in a highly efficient manner, emphasizing density and the integration of substantial open space in addition to a full range of facilities and services serving the future hotel guests and residents, as well as visitors. The project is comprised of two U-shaped buildings, with each U open to the east. Building setbacks range from 15-feet on the south, 15-feet on the north, 40 to 53-feet along the future Highway 74 frontage, and a minimum 12 feet set back from Ocotillo Drive. Building Height, Massing and Elevation The two component design of this hotel/residential complex is designed as three above -grade floors with a partial fourth floor set back 45 feet from and running perpendicular to Highway 74 and two subgrade floors providing ancillary space and parking. The second and third floors are set back an additional 15f feet from the north property line, and the partial fourth floor is stepped farther back from the northern property line. The eastern three-quarters of the south elevation of the hotel/condo complex will be stepped back in three tiers from Ocotillo Drive, with the two stories above grade and have a height of approximately 37-feet above grade measured from the south portion of the site to the top of parapet; at the south boundary the two- story section of the building is approximately 26-feet in height, with a stepped back third story. The partial fourth floor on the west side of each building will have a maximum height of approximately 50- feet measured from grade elevation at the center of the site to top of parapet. A corner cut back has been designed into the northwest corner of the building that further sets this portion of the building from Highway 74 at this location (see Exhibit D). The proposed buildings optimize the site and divide the project into two distinct building blocks with flat roofs separated by the hotel entry court and atrium. The architectural style is modern with the use of clean lines and materials, space partitioning and building envelope screens that lend variety and visual interest to all four elevations (please see building elevations). The U- shaped buildings are open to the east and also serve to lighten the effect on the buildings along Ocotillo Drive. Access and Parkin; Access to the project is to be taken exclusively from State Highway 74, which is now under the jurisdiction and management of the City. Most of the existing frontage road will be vacated and absorbed into the overall planning site; the southerly -most segment of the frontage road will remain and provide traffic from the south with access onto Highway 74 opposite Pitahaya Street. As noted, three separate curb cuts onto Highway 74 are proposed, including a 30f-foot residential drive on the south end of the site aligned with Pitihaya Street (Driveway 3), a 30±- foot access drive to the under -structure service area (Driveway 1), and a 39-foot main access drive located between the ' two building blocks and leading into an arrival court (Driveway 2). The main (central) access drive will also be served by a 12-foot wide deceleration/turning lane for northbound traffic. The plan leaves the existing striped center median on Highway 74, which will serve southbound left -turns into the site. The proposed project takes advantage of the complementary relationships of the proposed mix of uses. The project's demand for parking is also tempered by the type of residential use contemplated; that is, hotel/condo use will tend to create parking demand more similar to a hotel -3- 52'_i632%3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 than to a full-time residence. A parking demand analysis was conducted by Urban Crossroads to take into account the particular parking demand of this project. Based on the parking demand analysis, the project would be required to provide 336 stalls (including handicapped stalls), all of which will be underground. The project proposes to provide a total of 376 parking spaces. The parking facilities serving hotel guests and residents will have valet service on a 24/7 basis. The applicant is also considering an optional design that would rely on approximately 103 off -site parking spaces, the effects of which are analysed in this IS/MND. Sustainabilityy Components The project proponent plans to take a strongly progressive approach to the application of sustainable building and operational practices for the proposed project. LEED certification is planned for this project. Sustainability efforts identified include: Density by design: the project has a higher than typical residential and commercial hotel density, which results in a substantial increase in land use efficiency; 2. Integrated Solar: the project proponent plans to integrate solar thermal and/or electric on the building roof decks, except the pool deck area, to provide hot water for pools and domestic needs, and to off -set some of the demand for electricity from the grid. The extent of solar technology use has not been quantified; 3. Stormwater runoff will be captured and managed within grass -lined swales and then percolated into the soil and groundwater table via four dry wells, thereby enhancing groundwater recharge; 4. Highly energy efficient building design and construction, using low-E glass, high levels of insulation, shade and exposure control, etc.; 5. Desert Landscaping: The landscape plan incorporates the City's low water -demanding landscape guidelines and those of CVWD to provide the most water thrifty landscape possible; 6. Green -Sources Construction Materials: The proposed project will use recycled building materials wherever feasible and cost-effective. The construction waste stream will be minimized and wastes will be recycled wherever feasible in conformance with requirements for LEED certification. (Please see attached LEED specification sheet for project.); and 7. The project will use EnergyStar appliances throughout, and will utilize highly efficient HVAC systems. _Development Agreement The applicant has also filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. -4- 522563h3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Sienificant Imnact" as indicated by the cherklict nn the fnllm.wina name Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Ahencv) On the basis of this initial evnh,ntinn- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature (Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, City of Palm Desert) M Date 522563h3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Other Approvals The applicant has also submitted a vesting tentative tract map application and an application for a conditional use permit related to the proposed residential units. Surrounding land uses and setting: North: Commercial retail /shopping centers, including El Paseo commercial corridor. 9 South: Verba Santa Drive and multi -family residential neighborhoods. West: Frontage Road (to be vacated), Highway 74, and multi -family residential neighborhoods west of Highway 74. East: Ocotillo Drive and multi -family and single family residential neighborhoods. Other public agencies whose approval is or may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, 10. or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District (CV WD). Summary of CEQA Findings: The proposed Palm Desert Rosewood Hotel Project is expected to have a less than significant impact on potential environmental factors with the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The environmental factors that have the potential to be impacted by this project without the application of any mitigation measures are aesthetic resources, geology and soils and noise. Purpose of this Initial Study This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with Section 15063 and other applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines, to determine if the project, as proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained within this report, the Initial Study will be used in support of the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. -5- s2>>6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29. l 1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR or EIS, or other CEQA or NEPA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or EIS or negative declaration or FONSI. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -7- 52?56320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Fiotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and EIR; Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, 2004; Terra Nova Field Survey & Site Assessment; Application Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan, Site & Building Sections, Nadel Architects, April, 2011; VisionScape Imagery Viewshed Analysis, April 2011. Findings of Fact: The project area, the City and the Coachella Valley benefit from significant viewsheds created by the area's varied geology of mountains and deserts. On the north, the Valley is bordered by the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, as well as the Indio Hills. Much of this land is protected as open space in perpetuity by the creation of the Joshua Tree National Monument. The San Jacinto Mountains comprise the western boundary of the Coachella Valley, along with the significant peak of San Gorgonio. The San Jacinto Mountains rise sharply from the Valley floor, and represent the steepest gradient in North America. The San Jacinto range is partially visible from the subject property. Project site and area conditions affecting area viewsheds, include on -site and surrounding topographic relief, development adjoining and near the Highway 74 corridor, and parkway landscaping, all of which significantly affect viewsheds seen from the highway and adjoining lands. The subject property is near the bottom of the Highway 74 grade, which flattens out a short distance north of the subject property. To the south, Highway 74 climbs steadily up the rather inclined alluvial fans of Dead Indian and Deep Canyons, and then winds through the foothills and into the Santa Rosa Mountains. The most important mountain viewsheds associated with the subject property are to the south, southwest and southeast, and include the foothills and mountains of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Views of the spur of foothills are also visible to the west. The views of the San Bernardino Mountains are somewhat diminished by the distance and intervening topography and development. The highest peaks in the Santa Rosa range include Toro Peak at 8,717 feet above sea level, and Santa Rosa Peak at 8,000 feet above sea level, which can be seen looking up -slope travelling south on Highway 74. The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains were designated a National Monument by Congress in 2000, ensuring their preservation as a valuable scenic resource for the long term. U 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Highway 74 is designated a "Thoroughfare" on the City General Plan Circulation Element, with an assigned right-of-way (R/W) of 118-feet. Highway 74 is also a State Designated Scenic Highway from Highway I I I southward. Development in the area is comprised of a mix of multi -family and single family residential primarily single story in construction, with multi -story commercial development to the immediate north, carrying through to the El Paseo commercial corridor and beyond. (See Photos Survey Appendix). This portion of the Highway 74 corridor requires driver attention to negotiate the existing traffic volumes and take access to and to turn off of this highway. Farther up slope (south) traffic volumes and conflicting movements diminish and views can be more readily taken in. An important consideration is also the project site's proximity to El Paseo, Highway II I and the commercial core area of the City. An intensification of land uses has been under way for several decades, and includes new and renovated development along El Paseo, Highway 74, Monterey Avenue and Highway 111. Existing Viewsheds From Surrounding Development The subject property is surrounded by development on all four sides, noting that development to the west is separated from the subject property by the existing State Highway 74. Lands to the immediate south are occupied by a twelve -unit apartment complex of one-story construction, with a central pool and open space area that is not exposed to the subject property. Five or six of these units have patios that back onto the south property line of the subject property and are secured with bars over windows. Lands to the east and across intervening Ocotillo Drive are comprised primarily of single -story condominium development with pools and open space areas located behind the buildings (farther east) and oriented to the east and southeast, and away from the subject property. Front entrances, garages and kitchen windows front Ocotillo Drive and the subject property. To the northeast, development includes a mix of multi -family and single-family homes, one or two of which have views direct to and across the subject property. To the north is 35-foot commercial structure, occupied by an art gallery and associated parking and loading areas. Farther north is the El Paseo commercial corridor and associated shops, restaurants, galleries and parking. Buildings to the north are generally oriented toward El Paseo Drive and take limited or no advantage of viewsheds to the south. To the west is Highway 74 and single story condominium development beyond, including the Sandpiper community, which is comprised of single story condominiums and is separated from Highway 74 by a six to eight -foot masonry wall. There is no direct access from Highway 74 into Sandpiper or the condominium developments farther to the south, with access being taken from El Paseo on the north and Pitathaya Street farther south. Within Sandpiper, a six to eight -foot wall separates the development from Highway 74, with parking and condominium unit entries also oriented toward the highway. Open space areas within Sandpiper are organized as internal courts surrounded by units. Farther south is an additional single story condominium development, which like the Sandpiper and development east of Ocotillo Drive, is oriented away from Highway 74 and the subject property. It should be noted that some of these units do have front entrances, enclosed patios and kitchen windows on the highway side of the units, although the quality of this outdoor space is significantly impacted by Highway 74 traffic and attendant noise. Access to these units is via drives located on Pitahaya Street. -9- 5'_25e32v3 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.11 Existing Viewsheds From Surrounding; Roads Views from surrounding roadways are also important to consider when assessing viewshed impacts. The two potentially affected roadway viewsheds are those associated with travel on Ocotillo Drive and Highway 74. On Highway 74, southbound travelers enjoy framed and periodically obstructed vistas of the Santa Rosa Mountains directly south and the Cahuilla Hills area to the west. Northbound Highway 74 traffic captures limited views of the Valley floor and more expansive views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains across the Valley. It should be noted that views along this route are substantially obscured by adjoining and nearby development, as well as parkway landscaping. Views from Ocotillo Drive are dominated by condominium units located in proximity to the street, with limited views of the Santa Rosa foothills beyond. Views across the subject property from northbound and southbound Ocotillo Drive are currently unobstructed but open onto Highway 74 and condominium development on the west side of the highway (see Photo Survey). Solar Access, Reflection and Shadow The southern portion of Palm Desert is in proximity to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the northwest through the southeast. These foothills place the area in afternoon shadow, especially in the winter, earlier than lands that are located farther out on the Valley floor. Therefore, solar access in the area is shaped and limited by the surrounding foothills and mountains. Project Impacts: The proposed project utilizes the subject site in an efficient manner that emphasizes density, while still integrating substantial open space serving the future hotel guests and residents. Building setbacks range from 15-feet on the south, 10-feet on the north, up to 53-feet along the Highway 74 frontage, and a minimum 12 feet set back from Ocotillo Drive. Project Design The two component design of this hotel/residential complex provides three above -grade floors and a partial fourth set back 45 feet from and running perpendicular to Highway 74, and two subgrade floors providing ancillary space and parking. The eastern portion of the southern end of the hotel/condo complex will have a height of approximately 37-feet above grade measured from the south end of the building, and from existing ground level to the top of parapet; this overall height includes the elevator building. The fourth floor on the central portion of each building will have a maximum height of approximately 49-feet measured from existing grade established at the center of the site. A corner cut back on the second and third stories at the northwest corner of the building opens the space between the hotel and the Imago Gallery, which is the art gallery immediately adjacent to the north. The two proposed buildings divide the project into two distinct building blocks with flat roofs separated by the hotel entry court. The architectural style is modern with the use of clean lines and materials, space partitioning and building envelope screens that lend variety and interest to all four elevations (please see building elevations). The U-shaped buildings are open to the east and help to relieve the massing effects of the buildings as seen from the east, serving to lighten the effect on the buildings when viewed from along Ocotillo Drive. Building architecture can be characterized as an elaboration of the International Style, which is also reflected locally in the Mid -Century Modernism of many internationally known architects. The strong horizontality of the design is broken into many facets of glass in recessed balconies and screened by sliding louvers that shade the facade. Neutral color stucco walls, columns and parapets provide the structural framework of the buildings. The shade structures are designed to shade patios and units from direct sun; thereby, these devices should help to limit reflection from buildings elevations with high solar exposure. 5 In sr_se3w0 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised a 29.1 1 Architecturally, the proposed building has the potential to be a future landmark. The design incorporates many of the elements of International Style and Mid -Century Modern with an updated sustainability- oriented design that is sensitive to land, water, energy and infrastructure efficiencies. The buildings are not expected to have an adverse impact on or detract from the architectural character of the vicinity, including development west of Highway 74. Rather, if executed properly, the proposed project could be a meaningful addition to other important buildings in the City and Valley. Architecturally, the proposed buildings can be seen as a harmonious and complementary addition to surrounding development. Viewshed Analysis A variety of visual analyses have been conducted to assess the potential of the proposed project to impact area viewshed. These have included on site field and photographic surveys, use of balloons to identify future building heights in the field, the use of a digital terrain modeling and aerial and ground - level photographic data, and computer -based, elevation -controlled modeling. A wide range of views was analysed, and four ground -based viewshed were photographed and analysed with the future buildings accurately modeled in the landscape. Affected views across the subject property are generally upslope and the impacts of the proposed project are very much affected by the distance of the viewer to the project site. A key map showing the four camera locations and the modeled viewsheds are included in Appendix G of this IS/MND. View Impacts to Lands to the West Residential developments on the west side of Highway 74 are comprised of courtyard developments focused inward and away from Highway 74, and take limited advantage of easterly views, generally having units that are oriented away from the highway. Pools and open space areas within Sandpiper are arranged within large pool and open space courts that are surrounded by condominium units. The Sandpiper community has erected a six to eight -foot wall along Highway 74 to buffer the development from traffic. It should be noted that there are sidewalks in the public right-of-way on the west side of Highway 74, although field surveys conducted for this assessment noted very limited use of these sidewalks. It should also be noted that residences on the west side off Highway 74 generally have substantial views of foothills and mountains of the Santa Rosas to the south and southwest (also see Photo Survey). Impacts were also assessed from within the Sandpiper development and are shown in modeled Views B and C. Modeled View B looks east-southeast and is taken from the central pool courtyard area south of Sandpiper Circle. The views of the foothills are currently obscured by existing Sandpiper development and landscaping. The proposed project will have a very limited impact on viewsheds in this and comparable areas within the Sandpiper development. Portions of the third floor in the north hotel building will be visible and most of the south hotel building will be obscured by existing Sandpiper landscaping. As noted, Sandpiper pool areas are surrounded by condominium units, which intercept most views from these open space areas. Impacts to views from this location are less than significant. To further analyse the possible worst case impacts of the proposed project on Sandpiper view -sheds, modeled View C was also taken from within the Sandpiper development and on the west side of the central pool court area located closest to Highway 74. On -site landscaping and buildings within Sandpiper dominate the views to the east and southeast, and toward the proposed project. From this perspective, views of the foothills are limited to the tops of three hills and no mountain views are visible from the east side of this open space/pool area. From the most advantageous view location portions of the third floor of the north building of the proposed hotel are visible, as is a portion of the north elevation of the south building. Impacts to views from this location are less than significant. -11- i2256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 In light of the limited value of the easterly viewshed across the subject property to residents west of Highway 74, the well -conceived architectural style of the proposed buildings, and the orientation of residential development along this roadway to the west and southwest, the impacts of the project to existing and long-term easterly scenic vista enjoyed by residents on the west side of Highway 74 is expected to be less than significant. View Impacts From Along Highway 74 The viewshed available along northbound and southbound Highway 74 were also determined to be most sensitive to impacts from the proposed development. Based on field surveys, preliminary viewshed analyses and in consultation with City staff, two views were selected for analysis. These included one view from the intersection of E1 Paseo and Highway 74, and one from the center turn lanes adjacent to northbound lanes of the highway just south of Pitahaya Street (Views D and A, respectively). Each of these view is discussed below. Modeled View D was taken from southbound lanes at the northwest corner of Highway 74 and El Paseo. From this vantage point the impact of the proposed development on the existing viewshed is low to moderate, obscuring very little of the available mountain views in this area, portions of which being already impacted by the Imago art gallery. Farther up slope and opposite the parking lot south of El Paseo, the viewshed impacts are more substantial due to the proximity of the proposed development and the low angle from which the project and mountains beyond are viewed, and from the combined effect of the Imago art gallery; however, views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south remain unobstructed . Modeled View A is taken from the center turn lane adjacent to the northbound lanes. The existing viewshed includes the existing highway parkway, the currently vacant subject property and condominiums farther to the northeast across Ocotillo Drive. The Little San Bernardino Mountains form the backdrop in the distance. It should be noted that the existing views would be almost completely obscured by development on this land. The proposed development will occupy the foreground and will diminish in effect as viewed along the highway frontage. The proposed landscape plans will also continue the existing treatment along the highway parkway and serve to soften the effect of the building. Impacts to this viewshed, when considered in the context of other permitted and probable development, will be less than significant. View Impacts to Lands on the East Westerly views (views looking west) across the intervening subject property from Ocotillo Drive are of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The loss of views to the west and northwest will occur regardless of what is built on the subject property. The substantial views to the southwest would be unaffected for residences along the southern portion of the site but would be progressively obscured from views farther north on Ocotillo Street.. It is important to note that residences on the east side of Ocotillo Drive are primarily comprised of single -story condominium development with pools and open space areas located behind the building and oriented to the east and southeast, and away from the subject property. In most cases, only front entrances, garages and kitchen windows front Ocotillo Drive and the subject property. To the northeast, development includes a mix of multi -family and single-family homes, one or two of which have views direct to and across the subject property. As with the condominium developments to the south these units front onto Ocotillo Drive and have yards and pools in the rear. Therefore, the value of the viewshed to the west and southwest is diminished and impacts to such resources are therefore considered to be less than significant. -12- >32563-10 Terra \ova City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv"Revised 4.29.1 1 While not modeled, views have been evaluated from along Ocotillo Drive south (upslope) of the proposed project. As with views from the east, the impacts of the proposed development are greater the closer the viewer is to proposed new buildings. About 600-feet south of the site views of the subject property are blocked by existing development on both sides of Ocotillo Drive, with about one story of the proposed building expected to be visible from this point of view. From the mid -line of the subject property and northward (down slope) the views of the subject property and surrounding viewsheds are already affected by existing development. Views looking west from development east of Ocotillo Drive are already affected by intervening development that significantly impacts views from these properties. Based upon these view evaluations, it does not appear that the proposed project will have a significant direct or cumulative impact on viewsheds as seen from this area. View Impacts to Lands on the South The subject property is bounded on the south by a twelve -unit one-story apartment complex, with a central pool and open space area that is not exposed to the subject property. Five or six of these units have patios that back onto a six-foot masonry wall located on the south property line of the subject property, and are secured with bars over windows. These patios will take direct view to the south elevation of the proposed project, which will be approximately three stories above grade at this location. Heretofore, views available from these patios were impacted by a since demolished restaurant. The set back for the proposed building at this location will be 15-feet. Although the proposed building will impact the existing views, these ground level views will be impacted by any permitted development, whether single or multi -story. Lands farther south of the proposed project include additional apartment projects of single -story and two-story design. The view from the adjoining apartment complex and within the common open space area indicates that about one and a half stories of the project will be visible over the on -site apartment buildings. The proposed building will introduce a new visual character of quality multi -family residential design. With proper landscape treatment, the impacts to one and two-story apartments to the south will be less than significant. View Impacts to Lands on the North The subject property is bounded on the north by the Imago art gallery, which extends from the existing frontage street to Ocotillo Drive. This building is oriented to the highway and to the north, with some window exposure to the south. The gallery is set back between 50 and 60-feet from the south property line and 65 to 75-feet from the proposed hotel. The gallery is also located approximately four feet below the lowest elevation of the subject property. While development of the site as proposed will result in a substantial structure to the south, a corner cut has been removed from second and third story of the building at the northwest corner and closest to the gallery. While the gallery does take some advantage of this side of its building, it also serves as parking and loading dock operations. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project on southerly viewsheds is considered to be less than significant. The viewshed evaluation also examined the potential impacts of the project on viewsheds as seen from the north and northeast. Several views were analysed from the northeast showing that the proposed buildings will have a substantial impact on views to the southwest, which include buildings in the foreground and the foothills in the distance. The proposed buildings impact about 50% of the otherwise available mountain views; however, the effect is substantially diminished by distance. -13- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Farther down slope, east of and at a greater distance from the project site, the impacts are further diminished and less substantially. Again, this is due to the greater distance and the diminution of the scale of the proposed buildings against the mountain backdrop, and once again, intervening development already has a substantial impact on these viewsheds. While the proposed project does impact mountain views from perspective on lands to the northeast, these views have been impacted by existing development; nonetheless, substantial mountain views will remain. Therefore, in the context of location and the El Paseo commercial corridor of which this project is a part, the impacts to visual resources appear to be less than significant. Impacts From Light & Glare The proposed project has the potential to become a substantial source of light and glare unless careful design considerations are made. The lighting plan provided for this project identifies small planting accent lights, in -ground path lights, glass facade lights and underwater strip lighting, which is well - shielded and should have a less than significant impact on adjoining lands and night skies. Areas where excessive light and glare could be generated include the development main entrance, entrances to underground parking, loading area entrance and dock, outdoor pool and recreation areas, and roof -top pool/lounge areas. Given the elevated hotel and condominium units, these could be substantial sources of light unless carefully considered. Impacts Associated with Solar Access, Reflection and Shadow As noted above, the southern portion of Palm Desert is in proximity to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the northwest through the southeast. These foothills place the area in shadow, especially in the winter, earlier than lands that are located farther out on the Valley floor. Therefore, solar access in the area is shaped and limited by the surrounding foothills and mountains. The proposed project will have the greatest shadow effect on lands to the immediate east and southeast, and across Ocotillo Drive. Impacts to TravelingPublic The viewsheds enjoyed by the traveling public along Highway 74, a State Designated Scenic Highway, may also be impacted by the proposed development. These views were modeled in Views A and D, discussed above. Southbound (upslope) travelers currently enjoy significant views of the foothills and mountains to the southwest and due south, and to a lesser degree to the southeast. Travel speed on Highway 74 is posted at 55 mph, thereby affecting the views of travelers on this roadway. Easterly views currently enjoyed by the traveling public, are largely comprised on residential development, with views of the foothills beyond; these limited views would be impacted by the hotel development but would be limited in extent along the overall highway frontage. For travelers northbound on Highway 74, views of the desert floor are already affected along the entire length of the highway north of the mountains by existing buildings and parkway and development landscaping. The subject property is located at the bottom of the expansive alluvial fan that forms the developed areas of south Palm Desert, and is within the urban and commercial core area of the City with commensurate traffic and development. Views across the site for northbound travelers are limited, with heavy traffic volumes and will be lost by any development on this site. Therefore, impacts to these views for the traveling public are determined to be less than significant. It should be noted that there are no other substantially scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the subject state scenic highway; therefore the proposed project will have no impacts on any such resources. -►4- 5225G320 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Flotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4,29.1 1 Consistency With General Plan Community Design Goals & Policies The proposed hotel/condo project is also reviewed within the context of the following goals and policies from the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Relevant policies are cited and the project's consistency is then discussed. Goal I A high quality of life provided within a livable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the City,s status as a premier resort community and important commercial center. The proposed project represents a new resort hotel and resort residential development for the City. This "boutique" hotel also provides residential units that capture both the visitor and part-time resident as well. The hotel's design and location are contiguous to the E1 Paseo commercial corridor, which it is expected to complement. The hotel also diversifies the offering of hotel accommodations in the City and should enhance the City's standing as a premier resort community. Goal 2 An aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting. The proposed hotel/condo project brings a high level of architectural design to this portion of Highway 74. The project is a positive contribution to the City's architectural diversity and innovation, and should enhance the community image, as other development along and near the El Paseo corridor has done. The project is located in the heart of the City and is not near any natural open space or elevated terrain. Goal 3 Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources. The proposed project introduces a high level of architectural and landscape design. It also achieves a high level of land use efficiency,, providing 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential units on less than five acres. The project also uses a desert themed landscape plan that adheres to the City's xeriscape landscape guidelines. Being located in the urban core of the City, the project is removed from natural open space areas and is located along a highway with a high level of contiguous development. Policy 1 Promote and maintain a land use pattern in the City and planning area that efficiently distributes homes, employment centers, parks, schools and other institutions, shopping and services. The proposed project is located in proximity and contiguous to the El Paseo commercial corridor and is within 600 feet walking distance of this important commercial district, allowing easy pedestrian access to dining, shopping and entertainment, consistent with the interests of resort residents and hotel guests. The proposed project is also intended to function as an anchor to the E1 Paseo commercial corridor area and experience. Policy 4 Equally apply Ciry, community design standards to all private and public sector development projects to assure protection of the community's scenic viewsheds, provide community cohesion and enhance the image of the City as a premier resort community. -15- i22563h3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Flotel/ CEQA Initial StudviRevised 4.29.1 1 The protection of scenic viewsheds is one of the most important environmental considerations for the proposed project. While the Highway 74 corridor provides views of the Santa Rosa Mountains and foothills, many of these views are already obscured by primarily residential development and extensive landscaping. This includes single -story and two-story multi -family south of the subject site, although most residential development along the highway is single -story. Therefore, viewsheds already enjoyed along Highway 74 are already impacted by existing development, although the proposed project would incrementally obscure views along this roadway and in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project does not adversely affect community cohesion. It does not separate an established neighborhood and is located along a state highway. It does introduce a scale of development that is substantially greater than that to the immediate east and west, but the scale is otherwise comparable to the scale of such buildings as the Imago art gallery and commercial development along El Paseo. Finally, the proposed project is a high -end hotel and resort residential development that would be an important addition to the image of the City as a premier resort community. Policy 8 Areas of special interest, including entry points, scenic roadway viewsheds and community landmarks shall receive appropriate treatment whether part of public or private development proposals. The project site and vicinity are located at one of the central locations in the City downtown and a major entry to this area. The vicinity of Highway 74 and El Paseo and Highway I I I is one of the most important commercial areas in the City. The proposed project could represent a landmark development at this important commercial and transportation node. Policy 9 Site -sensitive architectural designs and native desert landscape materials shall be incorporated into all public and private building projects to complement and enhance the connection between the natural and built environments. The proposed hotel/condo project will utilize an architectural design that is context sensitive, and a desert oriented landscape palette that has been reviewed and approved by City staff and the ARC. Project architecture integrates the best elements of the "International Style", as well as elements of the desert and tropics with the extensive use of sliding window louvers and other sources of shade. The horizontality of the buildings and the application of a stepped design help to reduce the sense of massing and emphasize the long horizontal line. It should be noted that the subject property is surrounded by urban development, which includes expanses of lawn, as well as introduced desert landscaping. There are no native lands in proximity of this site. The landscape plan for the proposed project will also conform to the water use budgets promoted by the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. Policy 10 Commercial, institutional and industrial development projects shall contribute positively to the design objectives of the community and the specific district or corridor design standards and guidelines in which they are located. The proposed project will make a strong positive contribution to the architectural quality of the built environment in the City. Sheets A-3.01 and .02 of the architectural submittal package provide enhanced elevations of the proposed hotel/condo buildings. The building architecture provides visual diversity and simplicity of overall design, allowing the buildings to both stand out and to meld into the surrounding environment. The buildings make a strong statement in the heart of the City's commercial core. me 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4 29.1 1 Policy 11 Community and neighborhood activity centers shall be established at appropriate locations to create recreational opportunities, encourage social interaction and provide a sense of public space and center for neighborhood activity. As proposed, the hotel/condo project will provide several venues for meetings and gatherings for guests, residents, and the general public and interest groups. Meeting and banquet rooms are planned, as are restaurants and several lounges: The open courtyard area may become a local meeting place for business, pleasure and entertainment of locals and visitors to the City. Policy 13 Preserve the value of the community's night sky and avoid unnecessary light and glare from signage, building and landscape illumination, or other sources of outdoor lighting. The project's detailed lighting plan has not been completely developed at the time of the preparation of this document. City development standards require that site and building lighting be carefully designed and controlled, and the proposed project's lighting plan will be developed consistent with all applicable City requirements. The night sky is also a highly valued asset in the desert and its protection has become a matter of policy. The mitigation measures set forth below will help assure that the project does not adversely impact the night sky. Policy 16 Overhead utility lines shall be under grounded to the greatest extent practical through the establishment of an under grounding program and guidelines. There is currently a power line and transformer on the subject property, which powered previous development that has been removed from the site. The project is required by mitigation measures to underground any and all electric lines and underground or pad -mount power conditioning equipment. Policy 17 Public utility facilities, including electric power substations, domestic water and irrigation wells, switching and control facilities shall be screened, landscaped and/or otherwise obscured and integrated into the surrounding environment to limit their adverse aesthetic impact. Please see Policy 16 discussion. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Summer of Impacts The proposed project represents a major addition to the urban environment surrounding this site and replaces a mix of earlier development that has since been removed. The site is located within and contiguous to the E1 Paseo commercial corridor and fronts on State Highway 74. The site slopes from south to north, as do surrounding lands and the highway. While surrounding development includes one- story apartments and condominiums, it also includes the 35-foot high Imago art galley and multi -story buildings along El Paseo, and two-story residential units a short distance to the south. -17- 522;63h3 Terra Nova Cite of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 The proposed building design attempts to reduce the effect of the maximum height of four stories by tucking one and a half stories below grade on the highest portions of the site, and exposing these subgrade stories on the north side of the site. This design places the highest portions of the building adjacent to the 35-foot commercial structure to the north. The design also incorporates a building corner cut back at the northwest corner near the Imago gallery. It should be noted also that the second and third floors of the hotel building are stepped back an additional 1 5±-feet from the north property line, and the partial fourth floor is stepped farther back from the northern property line. The digital terrain -based and the computer generated visual impact analyses indicates that impacts will be greatest to residences immediately east of Ocotillo Drive. Impacts to these units would be substantial regardless of the type of development that occurs on the subject property. These one-story units would have their westerly views largely eliminated by single -story development. Residents in the Sandpiper development, across Highway 74, will be impacted to a less than significant degree. Impacts are limited by the orientation of buildings and open space in Sandpiper to courtyards and away from Highway 74, by the orientation of the tallest portions of the project away from Highway 74, and by the multiplicity of residential blocks in this development and how they obscure views beyond the development. The 6-8-foot wall along Highway 74 also substantially blocks views of the subject property. Based upon an assessment of the visual resources of the surrounding area and the size, scope and design of the proposed project, it appears that the proposed development could have significant impacts to area viewsheds, and from the potential to generate significant levels of light and glare. Refinements in design have reduced the effect of the buildings and quality architecture and landscape treatment are expected to further reduce project impacts. Mitigation measures that will help assure that potential impacts are reduced to levels that are less than significant are set forth below. Mitigation Measures Landscaping 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a final landscape plan shall be prepared that assures that the design conforms to the City's landscape ordinance and guidelines, including the use of native and other drought -tolerant landscape materials to the greatest extent practicable. 2. The landscaping buffer immediately south of the proposed development shall incorporate the use of climbing or trainable vines on the south fagade of the building, shall preserve privacy to the maximum extent feasible, and will provide layering of smaller shrubs and bushes to enhance the depth of the landscaping barrier. 3. Landscaping on the north side of the property shall be designed to integrate the building with the site while buffering views from the north and northeast, including the Imago art gallery loading area. 4. Landscape treatment along the eastern portions of the site shall incorporate the use of vertical elements and layering of the landscape to buffer the massing of the building and enhance the open hotel and residential courts; landscaping elements will also incorporate the sidewalk to be installed and the landscaped wall. a 5??56320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Lighting Entrance, parking, loading and other lighting areas with lighting shall utilize the lowest levels of illumination practicable, while adequately addressing building identification, safety and defensible space. Landscape lighting shall be shielded to direct and limit areas of illumination to the subject property. Lighting plans shall be provided with landscape plans. Exterior building and other security lighting shall be integral to the building architecture and/or landscape plan, shall avoid excessive lighting levels and direct and shield illumination to protect adjoining properties and night skies. All on -site electrical power lines shall be installed underground during project development. Transformers and other power conditioning equipment may be pad -mounted or placed in underground vaults, as determined appropriate by the City and Southern California Edison. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. The City Public Works and Community Development Departments shall provide final review of final architectural designs, grading plans and landscape plans, as well as required lighting plans. Said plans shall be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Responsible Parties: Planning Department, Public Works department, Building & Safety M ,22;a320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study: Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: X a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agri- cultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Sources: Site plan, Palm Desert General Plan and EIR; and California Farmland. Mapping and Monitoring Program. Findings of Fact: No agricultural activities are known or suspected of having taken place within the site. The subject property is located in an urban environment surrounded by commercial and residential land uses, and the proposed development does not present any potential impacts to agricultural resources in the area. As development of the proposed project does not include the conversion of farmland, there will be no impact on agricultural resources, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or result in the loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The proposed project, including the proposed Development Agreement, is not currently in agriculture production, nor is there Williamson Act contracts on the subject property. Development of the proposed Palm Desert Hotel Project will not impact agricultural resources, and therefore no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. -20- 522W20 Terra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study /Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant. w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implement- x ation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attain- X ment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including re -leasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook, Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan for PM 10, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, and the Air Quality Technical Study. Findings of Fact: As discussed below the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact to air quality. A project specific air quality and greenhouse gas study was conducted in order to identify any potential air quality impacts that may occur as a result of project implementation. The Study analyzes project related air quality emissions for the development of 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential condominiums and described the current regulatory and environmental setting in the project vicinity and region. The full report is included in Appendix B of this document. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the appended Air Quality Study. Air pollution in the project area is attributed to a combination of regional activities, including grading, construction and vehicular traffic, as well as heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment. In addition, a considerable amount of the existing air pollution in the project vicinity is due to local geographic and climatic conditions. -21- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQiVID) maintains two monitoring stations in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). These stations monitor concentration of criteria pollutants including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter under 10 microns (PM10) and fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in size (PM,.;). Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been established (See Table 1 of Appendix B). The two primary pollutants of concern in the Coachella Valley are particulate matter (PM10) and ozone (03). Ozone (03) is formed when byproducts of combustion react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. This process occurs in the atmosphere where oxides of nitrogen combine with reactive organic gases, such as hydrocarbons, in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas, and a common component of photochemical smog. Although also produced within the Coachella Valley, most ozone pollutants are transported by coastal air mass from the Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino air basins, thereby contributing to occasionally high ozone concentrations in the Valley. The Coachella Valley has a history of exceeding regulatory ozone standards, although the number of days and months the Federal one -hour standard has dropped steadily over the past decade. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the SSAB is classified as a "serious" ozone non -attainment area for the 8-hour state standard, which means that the region must come into compliance with Federal ozone standards by June 2013. SCAQMD recognizes that due to the SCAB's contribution of ozone, the SSAB will not be able to obtain this deadline and has therefore asked for a reclassification of "severe-15," which must achieve attainment by June 15, 2019.1 Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of fine suspended particles of ten microns or smaller in diameter, which are byproducts of road dust, sand, diesel soot, wind storms and the abrasion of tires and brakes. PM10 or smaller is one of the most prevalent forms of pollution in the Coachella Valley and is associated with land disturbance and strong desert winds. Fine particulate matter poses a significant threat to public health. The elderly, children, and adults with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most susceptible to the effects of PM10. More than half the smallest suspended particles can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs, resulting in permanent lung damage. Elevated PM10 levels are also associated with an increase in respiratory infections and occurrences of asthma attacks. The Coachella Valley has historically been classified as a PM10 non -attainment area for both the federal and state standards. More recently, however, the Coachella Valley has become eligible for redesignation as attainment for PM10 due to the annual average PM10 concentrations meeting the revoked federal standard. The peak 24-hour average PM10 concentrations have also not exceeded the current federal standard (150 µg/m3). On February 25, 2010 the California Air Resources Board approved the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan from serious non -attainment to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard under CAA Section 107. CARB has submitted the redesignation request to the US Environmental Protection Agency. As of April 21, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency has not redesignated the PM10 classification for the Coachella Valley. SCAQMD employs effective measures to reduce particulate matter in the District, sets forth new measures that could further reduce particulate matter, and lists those new measures that need further evaluation prior to implementation. In addition, applicable state code and AQMD Rules, including Rule '2007 Air Quality Management Plan," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007. -22- 52256320 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 403 (Fugitive Dust), enforce fugitive dust compliance. The Coachella Valley is defined as unclassifiable for PM2.5, based on the 2007 State Area Designations and does not require a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment. Grading and Construction Related Emissions Potential impacts to air quality from the proposed development may result from site grading and construction activities associated with the 4.97 acre site. A disturbance area of this size has the potential to generate approximately 99 pounds per day of PM10 dust, and 20 pounds per day of PM,.5 dust, without mitigation. In order to limit impacts from fugitive dust that may be generated during grading activities, SCAQMD Rule 403 and dust control measures such as watering exposed surfaces and applying soil stabilizers shall be implemented. Table 1 below summarizes emissions from construction activities including equipment and workers vehicle trips from grading, trenching, and paving, as well as delivery of construction materials and off gassing from the application of architectural coating. Table 1 Construction Emission Summary (pounds per day) CO ROG NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equip. Emissions 41.97 26.43 60.56 0.01 3.63 3.34 7,095.68 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Note that emission projections for summer and winter are equivalent As indicated by the above table, unmitigated grading and construction activities are expected to be well below the SCAQMD daily emission threshold for all criteria pollutants. It should be noted that construction related impacts are short-term and will occur over a limited period of time and then will end. Air quality impacts from all construction activities are projected to result in less than significant emissions. Therefore, the Palm Desert Hotel Project is not expected to adversely impact local or regional air quality during construction. Operational Buildout Emissions Operation of the Palm Desert Hotel project includes area source emissions such as combustion of fuels, landscaping maintenance, use of consumer products, and application of architectural coatings, as well as emissions from moving sources. The table below summarizes the estimated emission level for each criteria pollutant associated with day-to-day operations of the proposed project at buildout. As shown in Table 2, operation of the proposed project will not exceed any of the established SCAQMD thresholds. -23- 5225b320 Terra NovaiCiv, of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.11 Table 2 Operational Emission Summary ounds ner da CO ROG NOx SO2 PM10 Pi✓12.5 CO2 Summer Area Source Emissions 3.89 3.71 1.27 0 0.01 0.01 1,531.26 Operational Emissions 97.37 8.39 12.79 0.11 16.64 3.33 10,164.78 Summer Emissions 101.26 12.10 14.06 0.11 16.65 3.34 11,696.04 Winter Area Source Emissions 26.4 12.7 1.93 0.07 3.97 3.82 2,471.33 Operational Emissions 94.71 8.98 15.19 0.09 16.64 3.33 9,255.16 Winter Emissions 121.11 21.68 17.12 0.16 20.61 7.15 11,726.49 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Exceed Threshold No No No No No No N/A The project will also generate indirect emission associated the production of energy for onsite electricity use. Emissions from the production of onsite energy use will not be emitted in the project vicinity. Nonetheless, air quality emissions that may be generated offsite as a result of increased energy demand onsite are presented in the table below. Table 3 shows the emission of criteria pollutants that are projected to be emitted from the use of 3,593 megawatts, which is the project's estimated annual energy demand. Table 3 Off -site Energy Production Emissions (pounds per day) CO ROG NOx SO2 PMto Lbs /Day 1.97 0.10 11.32 1.18 0.39 "Air Quality Impact Analysis," prepared by Terra Nova Planning and Research, December 30, 2009. The tables 2 and 3 above show that at buildout of the proposed project all emissions of criteria pollutants are below established thresholds. Therefore, operational impacts to air quality are expected to be less than significant. LEED Certification Efforts The Palm Desert Hotel is being designed to standards to help it attain LEED certification for owner - controlled areas. Although not necessary as mitigation measures, these items will benefit the local environment. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Air quality has become an increasing concern because of human health issues, and because air pollutants are thought to be contributing to global warming and climate change. The primary contributor to air pollution is the burning of fossil fuels through the use of automobiles, power and heat generators, and industrial processes. Emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are responsible for the poor air quality that is evident in industrial centers worldwide. -24- �22i6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudviRevised 4.29.1 1 Some air polluting agents are also greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (COS), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (-N20), and fluorinated gases (hydrolflourocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), which are released into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. For the purpose of this analysis emission of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are evaluated. The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) requires the state to cut GHG emission to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Therefore, the project would have a significant impacts if GHG's emitted by the project interfere with the ability of AB 32 to achieve the intended reductions by 2020. GHG Construction Emissions Construction activities will generate short-term GHG emissions during site grading, trenching, paving, and building construction. As seen in Table 8 of the Air Quality Study (Appendix B), construction of the project is expected to generate a total of 533,252.36 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent. Due to the project scope and implementation of project design features, construction activities are not expected to interfere with the objectives of AB 32. Therefore, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. Operational GHG Emissions At buildout the proposed project will result in the emission of greenhouse gasses primarily through the consumption of fossil fuels through automobiles as well as power plants. The use of natural gas and the transportation of water also contribute to operational emission of GHG's. As seen in Table 15 of the Air Quality Study (Appendix B), operation of the Palm Desert Hotel is projected to generate 4,207 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. For comparison purposes, the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in California for the year 1990 was estimated to be 427 million metric tons. At buildout the project will contribute approximately 0.001 % of the total California emissions limit for 2020 as established by the California Air Resources Board (GARB). In 2005 the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the United States was estimated at 7,260.4 million metric tons. The project represents 0.0001% of the total emissions for the US as estimated in year 2005. As noted above, the project design features sustainability guidelines and principles. In addition several mitigation measures set forth below are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on project design principals and with implementation of the mitigation measures outlines below, operation of the Palm Desert Hotel is not expected to interfere with the objectives of AB 32. Therefore, impacts from the emission of greenhouse gases during operation are expected to be less than significant. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts to air quality, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures Mitigation_ Measures for Reducing Impacts to Climate Change _2;_ 522563'_v3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 The follow mitigation measures are derived from consensus recommendations for reducing global warming and air pollution and are intended to limit the project's contribute to greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Landscaping designs shall consider the use of trees and other vegetation to maximize the shading of buildings in order to reduce energy requirements for heating and cooling provide carbon storage. 2. Building designs shall strive to exceed Title 24 requirements and utilize materials that are "green" or sustainably sourced. 3. To the greatest extent practicable, onsite structures shall be constructed using recycled building material and/or recyclable materials. 4. To the greatest extent practicable, the project shall incorporate solar water heaters for pools, domestic hot water and/or process heat to reduce the conventional energy demand associated with heating water for indoor use. 5. Hotel units and condominiums shall be equipped with energy efficient and water conserving appliances and fixtures. 6. Building design shall utilize natural lighting and ventilation to the greatest extent practicable. 7. Project developers shall coordinate with the local solid waste disposal provider to assure that measures are in place to encourage waste reduction, and facilitate recycling and composting programs. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will have very limited cumulative impacts, which will result in minimal contribution to local and regional air quality as a result of construction. Although the project is expected to increase the population slightly, it will not be growth inducing and will not significantly increase the population of Palm Desert. The project will not be a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts associated with climate change are expected to be less than significant. General Mitigation Measures Due to the proposed scope of the Palm Desert Hotel project, none of the air quality thresholds are projected to be exceeded and impacts to air quality are expected to be less than significant. Although mitigation measures are not required since no thresholds are exceeded, the following techniques described below will reduce air quality emissions. The following design recommendations will reduce reliance on automobiles for transportation: 1. Provide interconnecting pedestrian paths to nearby commercial and recreational land uses; 2. Establish accessible public transit routes that provide seated shaded areas within walking distance of the project site; and 3. Promote the use of electric vehicles and alternative modes of transport and provide safe and convenient parking. The design recommendation listed below will encourage operational efficiency and sustainability: -26- 5??5632v3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 1. Design onsite structures to be energy efficient and achieve LEED standard equivalence; 2. Design onsite building to be water efficient; 3. Install light colored '`cool" roofs and cool pavement; 4. Provide high density residential for a compact community; 5. Incorporate the use of solar energy for onsite energy production including solar hot water heaters; 6. Install water efficient irrigation systems and devices; 7. Utilize desert landscaping techniques to minimize water demand; and 8. Promote recycling by providing convenient programs including composting green waste. In order minimize the impacts from fugitive dust emission, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 1. The applicant shall prepare a dust control plan to conform with AQMD Rule 403. The dust control plan may include the following measures: • chemically treat soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days; • pave on -site construction access roads as they are developed; extend paving at least 120 feet from roadway into construction site and clean roadways at the end of each working day; • restore vegetative ground cover as soon as construction activities have been completed • chemically treat unpaved roads that carry 20 vehicle trips per day or more; • all construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; • water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth -moving operations; • operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site; and/or • re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering or other appropriate means. 2. To reduce fugitive dust during construction activities trucks leaving the sites should be washed off, haul trucks should maintain 2 feet of freeboard or be covered; and low sulfur fuels should be used for construction equipment. In order minimize the impacts from objectionable odors, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. 1. All cooking areas, including but not limited to stoves and grills, shall be properly hooded and incorporate appropriate kitchen exhaust air cleaning, ventilation and exhaust equipment that effectively intercepts and eliminates cooking odors and other cooking -related emissions. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Public Works Department shall require, review and approve a detailed dust management plan consistent with the project grading plan. The dust control plan or equivalent documentation shall also address issues of construction vehicle staging and maintenance. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that impacts associated with PMIO are mitigated to a less than significant level. Responsible Parties: Grading and General Contractor; Public Works Department, Building Department. -27- 5225v32�3 Terra Nova%City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? -28- i22>6320 Cerra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; Riverside County General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and EIWEIS, 2007; Site Survey. Findings of Fact: The subject property is located in the urban core area of the City and is adjacent to the heavily traveled Highway 74. The site has previously been developed but all previous structures have been removed, with the exception of an electric power distribution line and transformer. The site is essentially devoid of vegetation, with the exception of one eucalyptus tree and several oleander shrubs on the south property line and two palo verde trees are located on the north property line. The site does not support habitat for sensitive species, as it is located in an urban environment surrounded by commercial and residential land uses. Common species that may occur in the area include small mammals, a variety of birds and perhaps common small reptiles. No sensitive or special status species have been identified onsite and none are expected to inhabit the subject property or adjacent properties. No trees or other assemblages of vegetation with significant habitat value currently exist onsite. The project boundary and vicinity does not contain any riparian or wetlands habitat, and it does not serve as a migratory corridor or nursery site. Given the very limited on -site vegetation, development of the proposed project is not expected to conflict with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The site is not identified as a conservation area in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The subject property was disturbed and developed prior to 1996 and is therefore exempt from payment of the impact mitigation fee established by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The proposed project will not interfere with any City policies regarding the preservation of plants or animals. Landscape plans for the proposed project will require approval by the City of Palm Desert. The proposed project will result in temporary and permanent disturbance to land that has already been significantly impacted and does not serve as viable habitat for species. Therefore, development of the project will not impact sensitive species of plants, or animals, or natural communities and no mitigation measures will be required. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts to biological resources, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures None required Mitigation Monitoring and Report None required -29- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: X a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5.1 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; Riverside County General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Findings of Fact: Cultural resources are generally defined as those resources of traditional, cultural, religions, or historic importance to Indian tribes, other socio-cultural groups, or to the American people in general. They include, but are not limited to, archeological, historical, and traditional cultural historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, landscapes, or objects. Important historic resources in the area include the Cocomaricopa Trail, which passed through the Coachella Valley along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and closely following the current Highway 111. Originally an Indian trade route, the Cocomaricopa Trails connected the coastal region of California with the Colorado River, and later served as the primary thoroughfare for stagecoaches traveling through the Coachella Valley between coastal southern California and the gold fields of Arizona. Palm Desert was founded on the south side of Highway I II in 1945-1946 by the four Henderson brothers, who were involved in early development, and organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town, and by 1947, the population was sufficient to establish a post office. In 1951, Palm Village and Palm Desert merged into a single community, forming the present urban core of the city. -30- 52_2563-10 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 The cultural resources sensitivity assessment prepared for the City General Plan indicates that the subject property is located in an area designated as having the "Highest Concentration of Historic Structures from 1940s-1950s". However, it must be noted that the project site is currently vacant and has been previously partially developed. The entire site has been disturbed numerous times in association with previous on -site development and nearby road construction. No cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent to the project area in past studies, and there is no evidence to indicate that cultural resources exist on site. The proposed project will not impact any known paleontological resource or culturally significant geological features. The Palm Desert Hotel Project will result in temporary and permanent disturbance to land that has already been significantly impacted. Development is not expected to disturb any known cultural resources or human remains; therefore no mitigation measures are required. Sensitive Architectural Resources The proposed project will be located within approximately 110-feet of the Sandpiper residential community located on the west side of Highway 74. Planning for this project began in 1958 and the architect selected for its design was William "Bill" Krisel of the firm Palmer and Krisel, AIA of Los Angeles, which was already a recognized design firm with national awards to its credit. Krisel is most widely known for his work in designing the "Alexander Homes" in Palm Springs and elsewhere in the Coachella Valley. The design of the Sandpiper community is based on the use of eight three -unit, single story, flat roof design laid out in circular fashion around a central pool/spa and open space area. Patterned concrete block was widely used in the project, and thoughtful shading devices were used. The project was photographed by Julius Shulman, which were widely published and are now included in the architectural photography collection at the Desert Museum in Palm Springs. As a general rule, relatively new structures do not qualify for consideration as historic resources until they are 50 to 60 years old. Also, they need to be identified as historic resources by a local jurisdiction or other regulatory authority. Consistency With General Plan Archaeological and Cultural Resources Goals & Policies The proposed hotel/condo project is also reviewed within the context of the following goals and policies from the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan. The purpose statement of the General Plan Archaeological and Cultural Resources Element says: "Cultural resources are an integral part of the community and provide residents with an important and meaningful sense of history and heritage. The Archaeological and Cultural Resources Element describes the documented pre -history and history of the City of Palm Desert, including its 201" century development. It sets forth goals, policies and programs which preserve the City's cultural heritage and help perpetuate it for future generations." Below, relevant Archaeological and Cultural Resources Element policies are cited and the project's consistency is then discussed. -31- s22se320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study Revised 4.29.1 1 Goal Documentation, maintenance, preservation and enhancement of archaeological and historic sites, artifacts, traditions and other elements of the City's cultural heritage. The City has established an Historic Preservation Commission and adopted ordinance to implement a program for designating and preserving sensitive cultural resources in the City. The City also supports the Historic Society of Palm Desert and their education efforts. The proposed development is within convenient walking distance of the Historical Society and its exhibitions on local history. The proposed project does not conflict with this goal. Policy 1 The City shall exercise its responsibility to identify, document and evaluate archaeological, historical and cultural resources that may be affected by proposed development projects and other landscape - altering activities. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on historically and culturally significant resources in the vicinity. Residents of the Sandpiper residential community have expressed concern that the proposed project will detract from and diminish the historic value of their community. The substantial spacial separation of these two properties (approximately 110- feet), the six to eight -foot masonry wall that separates Sandpiper residents from Highway 74, and the one-story nature of the Sandpiper development means that the traveling public is not able take note of Sandpiper design or architecture. The nearest the proposed project's buildings may occur to the sandpiper property is approximately 160- feet, and again separated by the highway. As discussed above and under AESTHETICS, the Sandpiper design turns residential living space inward toward centrally located pools/spa/ramadas and away from Highway 74. The viewshed analysis indicates that views beyond the Sandpiper project are already impacted by buildings on the Sandpiper property and demonstrates that the proposed project will not significantly impact any viewsheds currently available to Sandpiper residents. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy. Policy 6 Support the listing of eligible structures or sites as potential historic landmarks and their inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The City has established a process by which historically significant buildings and structures can be so recognized, designated and preserved for posterity. The homeowners at Sandpiper may wish to consider proposing their development for an historic designation. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy. City -Historic Preservation Program CEQA requires that the analysis determine whether the proposed project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. In 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1168 for the designation and preservation of historic sites. The ordinance sets forth the criteria and process by which a building or other structure may be designated as historically significant. To date, only two properties have been certified as historically significant, and include the Fire Station on El Paseo (now the home of the Historical Society of Palm Desert) and the Shadow Mountain golf course and clubhouse. The Fire Station is within walking distance of the proposed development. No application has been filed to secure an historical designation on the Sandpiper property or any other building or property in the project vicinity. Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural/historic resources from this project. -32- i22i6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Eloteli CEQA Initial Studv!Revised 4.29. l 1 Development Am greeent The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts to archaeological or cultural resources, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. -33- 52_2i6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: X a) Expose people or structures to poten- tial substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; "Soils Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September, 1980. Findings of Fact The subject property is located in an area that is susceptible to a variety of geotechnical conditions and hazards, which must be addressed in the engineering of the proposed development. Each major area of potential concern is addressed below. -34- 5?_563h 3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial S[Udv/Revised 4.29.1 1 Quaternary Alluvium Alluvial deposits occur in the vicinity of the project site at the mouths of drainages from the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and north of the San Andreas Fault, from drainages of the Little San Bernardino Mountains. These sediments of Holocene alluvium are deposited rapidly, and not well consolidated, so that the major engineering concern affecting this stratum would be collapse upon introduction of irrigation water. It is underlain by soils classified as Carsitas gravelly sand (CdC), consisting of well drained to excessively drained sands and gravels with a low water holding capacity. These soil types include coarse -grained soils, sands, clean sands, and poorly graded sand. The site's geotechnical characteristics are expected to provide for a stable building foundation and with the use of current seismic code any potential geotechnical hazards will be reduced to less than significant levels. Seismicity and Groundshaking The project site is located approximately 8 miles from the seismically active San Andreas Fault. The site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Fault Hazard Study Zone and no active faulting is expected to occur on site or in the project vicinity. The site, as with the rest of the City, has the potential to be subject to significant ground movement and shaking in the event of a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault Zone. Structures, fill, and manufactured slopes associated with this project will be required to meet the City's and the State's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for the site's seismic zone. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code will ensure that potential impacts from ground shaking are reduced to less than significant levels. Liquefaction and Subsidence The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low, given the distance from active faults, existing soils conditions, and the depth to groundwater, which is in expected to be greater than 195 feet in this area due to the area's location on somewhat elevated alluvium in proximity to the bedrock of the mountains, and the location of the main portion of the aquifer farther north on the Valley floor.' The presumed groundwater gradient of the site is toward the south-southwest generally following the topographic gradient of the Valley. Although the site is located within an area that is considered to have a high susceptibility to seismically induced settlement, compliance with the Unified Building Code will minimize impacts in the event that ground shaking were to occur. The potential for slope failure is considered less than significant with appropriate design and structural engineering of proposed buildings, retaining walls and other structures. Soils Erosion: The Palm Desert Hotel Project site is located in an area that is considered subject to a severe wind erosion hazard, with soils that can be eroded by strong winds when disturbed. During grading and construction activities, temporary wind erosion may impact the site and its vicinity. Since strong winds are common within the subject area, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that potential soil erosion from wind will be kept to a minimum during construction. The above air quality discussion includes analysis that quantifies the potential level of impact and outlines mitigation measures that will reduce impacts associated with soil erosion from wind to less than significant levels. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, "Coachella Valley Urban Water Management Plan," prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District, 2005. -35- 5225632v3 Terra Nova City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudvRevised 4.29.1 1 ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts associated with geotechnical conditions, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures It is anticipated that the City's design review and building permit process will assure that the subject development is built in conformance with prevailing state and local requirements for seismic safety and structural integrity. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measures will help assure that there are no significant impacts resulting for geologic or soil conditions. Mitigation measures specific to the Palm Desert Hotel Project are set forth below. Clearing and Grubbing: All surfaces to receive fill shall be cleared of roots, vegetation, debris, and other unsuitable materials. Soils that are disturbed due to removal of surface vegetation and debris shall be replaced as controlled compact fill under the direction of the project soils engineer. 2. Preparation of Fill Areas: All fill areas shall be properly processed and re -compacted. Fill areas shall be scarified and watered as prescribed by the project soils engineer. 3. Placement of Compacted Fill: Fill consisting of on -site or approved imported soils shall be spread in thin lifts and compacted at near optimum moisture content to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. 4. Finish cut slopes shall not be inclined steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). All cut slopes shall be inspected during grading to provide additional recommendations for safe construction. Prior to the initiation of grading or construction, a final grading plan and associated engineering report addressing dust control, retaining wall engineering details and other design analysis, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan, which shall include information on any planned on -site catchments and or storage facilities, demolition and dust control plan, details on cut and fill, location of staging areas, haul routes and other details. Dust control plans shall conform to the CVSIP and associated city requirements. Responsible Agency: Public Works, Building and Safety, and Planning Departments. -36- i2256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or X the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a X list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land X use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan? -37- 52256320 Terra Nova'City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudviRevised 4.29.1 1 h) Expose people or structures to a significant X risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 45640 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California, January 2008. Findings of Fact: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared on the subject property. The ESA determined that there are no current or historical underground tanks, buried materials, or aboveground tanks known to be associated with the project site. No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were detected during the ESA site surveys. Two Southern California Edison electric vaults were observed near the middle southern end of the site, and a high -voltage transmission line extends from the middle of the site to the northern end of the site. No leakage or areas of stains or corrosion were observed in association with the on -site transformer or elsewhere on site during the site visit. The Phase I report conducted for the project detected non-ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) asbestos -containing roofing materials (ACMs) at the former restaurant building prior to its demolition. Since that time, the subject restaurant and its foundation and other materials have been removed. There is a limited possibility that lead -based paint may have been used in the original restaurant building materials or in materials added as part of improvement activities, in that construction of these structures occurred prior to the 1992 (Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X)). With the demolition completed on these structures, it is expected that levels of lead in on -site soils are less than significant. The Phase I ESA determined that there is the potential for a restaurant -related grease inceptor and/or old septic systems to be present at the site. It is therefore recommended that a Phase II ESA be performed prior to project grading. The ESA site survey included peripheral lands and determined that contaminants from offsite properties have not and are not expected to impact the site. Potential Development Impacts Development of the proposed project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in the use, generation or disposal of hazardous materials. There are no uses planned on site that might generate substantial volumes of hazardous materials wastes. An increase in the hotel and residential population may lead to an associated increase in the use of common household cleaners, batteries, fluorescent tubes, mercury -containing devices, and electronics. All of these products, termed universal wastes, are considered hazardous materials since they could harm people or the environment if they are not disposed of properly. In order to safely dispose of these wastes local jurisdictions operate collection sites that accept antifreeze, batteries, oil, and latex paint. Routine landscaping and other on -site maintenance may require the storage, use and transport of fuels and other chemical substances, including fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides. However, potential impacts to the public are expected to be mitigated through sound landscaping management practices, which minimize the use of chemical agents, and indicate proper use, as well as strict adherence to applicable policies and laws. -38- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel! CEQA Initial SIUdv/Revised 4.29.1 1 In addition, the project proponent shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs), as set forth in the project Integrated Pest Management Plan to be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the application of fertilizers and other organic and inorganic chemicals are not expected to have a significant impact on either surface or groundwater. The project will not make a cumulatively significant contribution to the generation or release of hazardous or toxic materials. Neither will it have cumulative effects on emergency response capabilities, or contribute to an increased wildland fire hazard. Deve"ment Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures l . If on -lot septic tanks and/or grease interceptors remain on the site these features shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a remediation plan addressing the potential occurrence of on -lot septic tanks or grease traps and their removal and disposal. Responsible Parties: Public Works, Building and Safety, and Planning Departments. -39- Terra Nova City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which have been granted)? -permits c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner resulting in substantial erosion/siltation on- or off -site?. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on - or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? --i0- 5225G33c3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29. I 1 Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and EIR; Water Quality Management Plan, Kimley-Horn Associates, December 2009, Revised April 2011; Project Drainage Report and Plan, Kimley-Horn, April 201 l . Findings of Fact: The desert floor receives a very low mean annual rainfall, averaging from 4 to 6 inches per year. In some years, no measurable rainfall has been reported. In general, precipitation occurs during the winter months, between December and March. The surrounding mountain slopes generally receive rainfall that increase with elevation. The mountains and upper elevations are generally cooler, with about a 5°F drop in temperature with every 1,000-foot increase in elevation. Daytime temperatures in the Valley reach up to 125°F occasionally during the summer season and winter temperatures rarely fall below freezing. Flash flooding in the Coachella Valley is generally limited to washes extending from mountain canyons, floodways and floodplains adjacent to rivers and low-lying drainages. Flooding on alluvial fans can be particularly damaging because floodwaters move at high velocities and spread across wide unchannelized areas. Given that most of the City is situated on alluvial fans, the hazard posed by flooding is significant if not mitigated. The subject property is located in an area that has in the past experienced significant flooding originating from mountains and canyons to the south. In the past two decades, major flood control facilities have been constructed that have removed this area and other portions of south Palm Desert from the 100-year flood hazard area. However, this site and surrounding lands are located in a FEMA Zone B, designating areas with a flood hazard between the 100-year and the 500-year storm event. There are no existing subsurface drainage facilities in the area. Existing curbs and gutters along the frontage road, Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive convey local runoff northward and ultimately to the Whitewater River located approximately one mile north of the site. The subject property is currently vacant but was previously developed. Currently, all existing runoff sheet flows from south to north and exits at a concentrated point located at the northwest corner of the site. Two existing walls prevent runoff from the south from entering the project site. Portions of runoff from the project site surface flow onto the existing art gallery parking lot to the north. The balance of sheet flows into the frontage road curb and gutter and continues north to an existing cross gutter that channels these and offsite flows along the Highway 74 curb and gutter. Runoff volumes for the subject property were computed for the 100-year storm and as t-hr, 3-hr, 6-hr and 24-hr storm events. Project Impacts The proposed project will result in a redevelopment of previously developed but currently vacant lands within and adjacent to the Highway 74 drainage area. Development of the site will result in approximately 74% coverage with impermeable surfaces and about 26% as landscape area; combined, landscape and hardscape total approximately 44% of the site. Runoff calculation prepared for the project WQMP can be found in Appendix C of the WQMP. Currently, there are no private storm drainage facilities within the project site boundary. Existing curb and gutter along the frontage road is used to convey street and site storm water to a storm drain system farther north along Highway 74. Stormwater runoff from the project will be managed by a combination of on -site facilities that will reduce maximum site runoff to its current undeveloped condition. On -site runoff is to be collected through a system of catchments and conveyances, and discharged into two vegetated swales running parallel to and along the hotel frontage with Highway 74. Runoff will be slowly conveyed along these swales, providing time for enhanced percolation and bio-remediation of -41- 5215G320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 trace contaminants. The vegetation and cobble -lined swales will discharge into drywells to further the infiltration of runoff. Excess flows that are less than or equivalent to existing conditions will be discharged to the Highway 74 at points adjacent to the site. Development of the proposed project will not result in the generation of contaminated urban runoff or otherwise compromise local or regional water quality. NPDES permit requirements will be imposed by the City, as appropriate, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared and submitted with this development application. Therefore, based on the hydraulic analysis and project drainage plan, the project is expected to have a less than significant impact on water quality standards. Residential Water Demand The project is not expected to generate a significant need for additional water resources. Potable water demand was calculated based on estimates from the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF).' For residential land uses, the number of planned dwelling units was multiplied by the expected household population size of 2.17 persons. The total population (59 units X 2.17 = 128) was then multiplied by the AWWARF per capita factor for indoor use: 69.3 gallons per day per person, yielding a residential demand of 8,870f gallons per day. Non -Residential Water Demand Indoor potable demand for non-residential land uses was multiplied by the appropriate AWWARF water demand factor. For hotel, commercial, and office land uses the AWWARF figures offer a low and high estimate for each projected demand. In order to be consistent the low and high estimates were averaged and the resultant values were used. The potable water demand factor for non-residential uses is 87.5 gallons per day per occupied room, 0.08 gallons per square foot per day (30.5 gallons per year per square foot) for commercial and office land uses, and 0.631 gallons per square foot per day (230.5 gallons per year per square foot) of restaurant use. The total water demand estimates assume 75% occupancy of the hotel year round, which is considered a conservative estimate. Square footages for hotel rooms, retail and other commercial, office/administration, and restaurant land uses were extracted from the Precise Plan application. Square footages were then multiplied by the appropriate average per square foot AWWARF water demand factor in order to quantify the total potable water demand expected to be generated by buildout of the proposed residential hotel project.' Based upon this analysis, non-residential water demand will total approximately 26,606 gallons per day. It should be noted that these demand figures do not reflect the substantial reduction in demand likely to result from adherence to state and local water conservation regulations and ordinances. Therefore, the estimated daily water demand should be considered conservative. A water -efficient landscape palette has been developed in consultation with City staff and is comprised primarily of native desert and other drought -tolerant materials and should limit water demand. The proposed project will meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance. The project will not interfere with groundwater recharge, and the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project's long-term demand for water resources is expected to be less than significant, and the implementation of water conservation standards will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. 3 Project 9241A, Residential End Uses of Water, AWWARF, Winter 1999/2000. ' Project 4241 B, Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water, AWWARF, Summer 2000. --42- 5]'-5G32h3 Terra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEOA Initial Stiidv(RevkPrt .t IQ i i Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/ilvfND, including for potential impacts to water resources, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures The final development plans shall provide details on stormwater and water quality management. The applicant shall also submit a final landscape plan and plant palette for the project, which shall comply with the City Landscape Ordinance, incorporating native and other drought -tolerant plant materials to the greatest extent practicable. No invasive plants, as identified by the City and/or the Coachella Valley MSHCP, shall be permitted. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed stormwater management and landscaping plans and palettes shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Responsible Agencies: Public Works Department, and Community Development Department. -43- ?'_2 %320 Terra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel, CEQA Initial Study'Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: X a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, and Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. Findings of Fact: The northern portion of the subject property is designated Community Commercial (C-C) on the City General Plan Land Use map. The southern portion is designated Residential High Density (R-H). These designations are consistent with the proposed land use with the processing and approval of appropriate development plans and applications. The proposed project appears well suited for the location, being a mixed use project and a portion of and contiguous to the El Paseo commercial corridor; the subject property is contiguous to the Imago art gallery on the north. As noted above, surrounding land uses are comprised primarily of Highway 74 and condominium and apartment development, most of which does not take advantage of views across the subject property. The proposed condo/hotel project will operate as an upscale residential project that will have access to the same hotel amenities as hotel guests. It should be noted that the compact and highly efficient design of the project is consistent with sustainable land use development tenants of land use and infrastructure efficiency, proximity to commercial and other services, and easy access to alternative modes of travel. Vehicle miles traveled in association with the operation of this development are expected to be substantially reduced by its location. Energy and water use per unit is expected to be substantially less than older comparable developments. -414- i22563'-v3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEOA Inirini Srnriy/Revicrri a 7o t i The proposed project will not physically divide an established community, being located along a regional arterial highway. The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including the General Plan or any Specific Plan. The project may also be determined to be consistent with the City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of a need to rationalize a substantial exceedance of the 35-foot height limit set forth in the ordinance. The City Zoning Ordinance allows the City Council to approve projects that exceed the 35-foot height limitation if adequate supporting documentation can support such a determination. As discussed above under "Aesthetics", while the project will have a clearly noticeable impact on surrounding viewsheds, these impacts are not inconsistent with the nature of the proposed development. The basis exists to determine that the project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetic resources, which may provide support for City exception of the height limit. The proposed project is designed to optimize the site while being compatible with the existing land uses to the extent practicable. The project is likely to also be a synergistic addition to the existing mix of uses in the area, providing convenient dining and entertainment for local residents and also providing business to establishments located on E1 Paseo and elsewhere in the City. As a hotel -condo development, the proposed project can enhance the hybrid product mix of resort residential and resort hotel that complements both markets. The proposed project will support existing commercial development in the vicinity and provide amenities that encourage tourism and augment the resort lifestyle. In that it is planned for development within both High Density Residential and Community Commercial land use designations, the proposed project will provide a bridge between the two land uses. The project is not located within a Conservation Area designated by the Coachella Valley MSHCP (and associated NCCP). The subject property was fully disturbed prior to 1996 and is therefore not subject to the payment of the development impact fee established by the MSHCP. General Plan Land Use Policy Consistency The following discussions provide an analysis of relevant General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies, and the degree to which the proposed project is consistent with them. Each goal and policy is verbatim from the General Plan and is in Italics. General Land Use Goals and Policies The following overarching goals and policies are taken from the beginning of the City General Plan Land Use Element. The relevance of these is briefly discussed below. Goa! 2 A diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, fill commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities. Palm Desert has been developedas a premier resort residential community and has cultivated a wide range of resort and residential product to appeal to a broad socio-economic cross section. The proposed project represents a new hotel and residential concept, one that can be more closely integrated with the village environment along El Paseo. The project does complement the local employment base and will enhance the various commercial services and meeting and dining facilities already located in the City. -45- i2256320 Terra NovalCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Goal 3 An appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continute to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. The project represents a hybrid commercial hotel and condominium development that results in synergies for both components of the development. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of TOT and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents is also likely to have positive fiscal consequences for the City. Policy 3 The City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed development, the City will balance the land use and planning issues with those associated with maintaining a strong local economy that generates a revenue stream to support community facilities and services. The proposed development broadens the City economic base and is consistent with the City's economic development strategies. Policy 4 Every opportunity shall be exploited to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas, including Highway 111, El Paseo, the University Park planning area and the Interstate-1 D corridor, by integrating nearby higher density residential uses with retail and ofce/butsiness park land uses. The proposed project is expected to have a very positive effect on the western portion of the El Paseo business district. By integrating upscale higher density residential with complementary quality resort hotel development, the project helps to meet this and similar General Plan goals. The project has the potential to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas Policy 7 Thoughtful and effective in -fill development shall be encoutraged by developing and updating neighborhood Specific Plans and by prioritizing capital improvements in the developed areas of the City. The subject property is an infill site located within the southern end of the E1 Paseo commercial district. All surrounding lands are fully developed. The property is partially segregated from surrounding development by the substantial Highway 74 right-of-way and by Ocotillo Drive. The Imago art gallery is located to the immediate north and a small one-story apartment complex is located to the immediate south. The proposed project represents an efficient use of public roadways, water and sewer, and other infrastructure. Residential Land Use Goals and Policies The following goals and policies from the Land Use Element are specifically related to residential land use, which represents an important component of the proposed project. The relevance of each goal and policy, and the projects consistency, are discussed below. m 52256320 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 Goal I A balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community. The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to seasonal residents with high disposable incomes. Revenues from this project should help support the provision of services to other socio-economic groups in the City. Goal 2 The preservation and enhancement of the City's existing neighborhoods. The proposed development merges several vacant parcels along Highway 74 into a single site with a proposed unified development. The proposed project does not separate or significantly affect existing neighborhoods in the planning area. Residential developments to the east, west and south are all composed of internally oriented one-story condominium and apartment developments. Project traffic will have little or no impact on existing neighborhoods. The proposed project does not separate or divide an existing neighborhood but rather helps to buffer lands to the east from Highway 74 traffic noise. Policy I The City shall strive to provide a balanced mix of housing product that thoughtfully responds to the demands and opportunities associated with the City's strength as a retail commercial center and major destination and residential resort community. The City's strength as a resort residential community includes the broad mix of housing provided within the City. The proposed project fits a specific resort residential niche that complements the City's El Paseo commercial corridor and its upscale destination resort market. The project will add to the sense of a resort village development along this portion of the El Paseo corridor. The proposed project is also intended to function as an anchor to the El Paseo commercial corridor area and experience. Policy 2 Residential land use planning in developing areas shall preserve neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible residential land use pattern. The proposed development is a hybrid of residential and hotel resort development, which is proposed as infill along a major highway and segregated from most residential uses by public roadways. The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on area traffic or the character of local residential neighborhoods, which largely turn inward and away from public streets and surrounding lands. The somewhat isolated nature of the site and its contiguity with and part of the El Paseo commercial corridor argues that it is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. Policy 3 The City shall encourage in -fill development on lands located adjacent to or near existing residential areas and utilities to maximize the efficient utilization of land and infrastructure. Over the past several decades, the subject property has seen a variety of individual and piecemeal developments, which has heretofore been comprised of several individual parcels, and is surrounded completely by existing development. In addition to providing residential units, the project also provides a resort hotel and associated amenities that will also be available to project residents. The proposed project is an efficient use of this remaining piece of vacant land and the infrastructure that supports it. -47- 522i63'-v3 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies GOAL I An integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities. The proposed project is an integration of resort residential and upscale boutique hotel. Residential - serving commercial, including Fresh and Easy, Starbucks, and other neighborhood commercial services are within easy walking distance. Both the residents and hotel guests are also expected to make expenditures within the E1 Paseo commercial corridor. The project also constitutes a new hospitality and tourist commercial product that should complement the El Paseo village area. GOAL 2 A pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses. As a part of the El Paseo commercial corridor and with its location on Highway 74, the proposed mixed residential/resort hotel will compliment and create synergies with the El Paseo village area. This type of mixed use supports the City's resort and retail commercial position in the City and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping essentially all project traffic on Highway 74, surrounding neighborhoods are not impacted by project traffic. As noted above and in the discussion under "Aesthetics", the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the adjoining streets (Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive). Policy 3 The City shall encourage lot consolidation and integrated development planning wherever possible, with special emphasis along the Monterey Avenue and Cook Street corridors, as well as in the University Park planning area. Subdivisions shall be consistent with and complement the development of City's coherent master land use plans. The proposed development appears to directly implement this policy by consolidating and merging a diverse set of parcels into a single development site, developing an integrated land use plan that complements the City's desire for a coherent and diverse land use planning. Zoning Ordinance Consistency As noted, the condo/hotel project is proposing limited exceptions to the development standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance, as provided in Section 25.30.260 Exceptions, which states: "The standards outlined in Sections 25.30.220 through 25.30.250 shall be required unless modified by the approved precise plan. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982; Ord. 95 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.18-6)." Also relevant is Zoning Ordinance Section 25.56.300: The height of a structure. This section describes how the height of a proposed building should be judged based on certain criteria, including measuring height vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure. The ordinance also recognizes other architectural or design elements, including projections, towers or cupolas may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. --48- Terra NovwCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Buildings set backs are also to be excepted under the proposed development. Section 25.30.270: Building setbacks from the planned street line, states that the set back from a local street, such as Ocotillo Drive, is twenty-five feet. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982; Ord. 95 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.18- 7). The proposed minimum set back along this street is 12-feet. Section 25.30.240 Resort center development standards requires that the minimum side yard setback for a commercial development in the subject zone is 15-feet. The proposed minimum north side yard adjoining the Imago art gallery is 15-feet and a corner cut back has been incorporated into the northwest corner of the building. Finally, this same section of the Zoning Ordinance (subsections F and G) requires minimum landscape areas for hotels, a minimum of forty percent of the site area shall be developed as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area with an adequate irrigation system. The ordinance also states that for other uses, a minimum of twenty percent of the total site shall be in landscaping. (Ord. 355 (part), 1983: Ord. 279, 1981; Ord. 227 § 3, 1980: Ord. 95 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.18-5.03) As described above, the project proponent is requesting exceptions to the height and setback requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance makes provision under the processing of a Precise Plan application to make exceptions to the development standards. The building set back exception requested are minor and should not result in any significant adverse impacts on surrounding lands, as indicated by project support from condominium owners on the east side of Ocotillo Drive. Potential impacts associated with granting the requested exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance are expected to be less than significant. Also please see the discussion under the heading "AESTHETICS". Summary of Impacts The project will not physically divide an established community or neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The mixed use nature of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses, is a part of and complements and supports the El Paseo commercial corridor, and provides residences in walkable proximity to neighborhood commercial services, as well as shopping and entertainment. Surrounding residential development is generally internally oriented, with walls and entrances being located along the highway and local roads. In consideration of the whole, the development of this project will have no significant adverse impacts to existing land uses and planning. The proposed project will not make a significant cumulative contribution to land use incompatibilities, and no mitigation measures are required. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. There are no provisions in the DA affecting land use that have not been analysed in this IS/MND, which with proposed mitigation with reduce project impacts to a level that is less than, significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting No mitigation monitoring or reporting required. --t9- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: X a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and Riverside County General Plan and Environmental Impact Report; Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production -Consumption Region, prepared by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1988. Findings of Fact: Aggregate resources in the Coachella Valley were evaluated by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), now known as the California Geological Survey, (CGS) in a 1988 report entitled, "Aggregate Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production -Consumption Region."' The proposed project site is limited in size and is located within an established urban core where extensive development has occurred. The soils on the site are comprised of Carsitas gravelly sand and could be a viable source of sand and gravel. However, the Coachella Valley has licensed more than 300 million tons of sand and gravel mining elsewhere, and the subject property is not considered a viable source for mineral resources. The proposed project, including the proposed development Agreement, will not impact an identified mineral resource area and is located adjacent to existing and approved land uses that would be incompatible with mineral extraction operations. The proposed project will have a less than significant cumulative effect on mineral resources; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. -Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production -Consumption Region," prepared by the California Department of conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1988. -50- 52'-563'_v3 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudyiRevised 4 29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and EIR; Project plans and site survey; Palm Desert Noise Control Ordinance; Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, December 2009. Findings of Fact: Noise is simply defined as unwanted sound. Excessive noise affects physical health, psychological wellbeing, social cohesion, property values and economic productivity. Development and urbanization often lead to increased levels of noise. Excessive noise levels can be undesirable and have the potential to contribute to temporary and permanent physical impairments including, hearing loss, -51- 5'--' 563 h 3 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 fatigue, stress, annoyance, and anxiety. In order to prevent noise levels from becoming excessive, standards can be adopted and implemented. Also certain mitigation measures can be applied to reduce noise levels and ensure that a high quality of life is preserved in urban areas. Noise sources can be categorized as either "line sources," such as a street, or "point sources," such as a bell tower. The movement of sound is affected by a number of factors including temperature, wind speed and direction, ground surfaces, vegetation, and walls and buildings. Sounds can be absorbed and damped as they pass over various surfaces. For example, earth and vegetation have a noise reduction rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance whereas the noise reduction rate of asphalt and concrete is 3.0 dBA for the same distance. The principal noise generator within the community is vehicular traffic, including automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles. The level of noise produced by vehicular traffic generally varies in relation to the volume of traffic, the percentage of trucks, and average traffic speed. Sensitive noise receptors in the project area are also subject to mechanical noise. The operation of mechanical equipment, including HVAC and especially that which is roof -mounted equipment, generates noise that can penetrate into adjacent neighborhoods and affect sensitive receptors. The constant drone produced by fans and compressors can degrade the enjoyment of the outdoors and negatively affect the quality of life for nearby residents. Existing and Long -Term Noise Environment The proposed condo/hotel development site is currently a vacant strip located along Highway 74 and separated by an existing frontage road, and bounded on the east by Ocotillo Drive. Other uses in the area include commercial to the immediate north and multi -family residential east and west of and adjacent to Highway 74, and to the south. Vehicular traffic dominates the noise environment. Along Highway 74 and south of Highway 111, traffic volumes are approximately 22,002 vehicles per day based on counts collected in March of 2006 and 2007, and increased by application of a 6 percent and 4 percent annual growth rate, respectively. The highest volumes were between 8 AM and 7 PM. Existing traffic noise conditions are estimated to place the 70 and 65 CNEL contours approximately 110-feet and 238-feet from the Highway 74 center line, respectively. Therefore, both in the existing and long-term condition the subject property will occur between the 70 and 65 CNEL contours and will require mitigation to reduce interior or appropriate exterior areas to levels that are less than significant. Construction Noise Impacts During the initial stages of development there will be ongoing construction within the project site. Although noise from construction on the project site will be short term, it will likely produce excessive and intrusive noise levels from the use of construction equipment during grading and excavation. The use of construction equipment such as bulldozers, backfillers, and front loaders could generate noise levels ranging from 73 to 96 dBA within 50 feet from the source. Additionally, noises associated with the erection of structures can range from 79 to 89 dBA at 50 feet, while grading related noises can range from 88 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project has the potential to impact residents located on the east side of Ocotillo Drive, as well as those located immediately south of the site. _5?_ 52256.320 Terra No%aXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Stud}/Revised 4.29.11 Operational Noise Operational noise associated with the day-to-day business activities at the hotel and residential complex are expected to be very limited, with the most pronounced source of noise expected to be traffic noise at levels comparable to existing conditions. Development plans indicate that roof area will dedicated to HVAC equipment for the proposed development. The roof -mounted HVAC equipment will be acoustically and visually screened by a parapet and architectural screens. Loading areas appear to be limited to a dedicated area on the north side of the building, and may also serve residents in the subgrade parking area. The loading area is accessed directly from Highway 74 and is fully enclosed. Therefore, loading area operations are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the area noise environment. No other sources of operational stationary noise are expected to result from the project. The project proposes roof -top uses, including pools and lounge area where informal dining will also take place. Associated with these uses will be pool equipment, cooking hoods and fans, and other potential sources of noise. As with HVAC units, these sources will need to be acoustically buffered or isolated to avoid and minimize the impacts of these noise sources on surrounding neighborhoods. Acoustical Environment The proposed project will add to and affect the acoustic environment in the area, both by attenuating and reflecting noise generated within the project and noise originating off -site, specifically from Highway 74 traffic. As noted above and in the noise impact study prepared for this project, noise impacts are generally line of sight and can be intercepted, attenuated and reflected effectively. The proposed building is setback a minimum of 53-feet from the paved section of Highway 74, and is further separated from other land uses to the west by the highway, westerly parkway and additional setbacks. While some highway 74 traffic noise will be attenuated within the project, some acoustical energy will be reflected upward. Furthermore, the project will buffer lands to the east from currently unbuffered highway traffic noise. Therefore, the project is not expected to adversely affect the acoustic environment in the project area. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts from environmental noise, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Noise Regulation and Impact Summary The City has established community -wide noise standards that emphasize the value of an acceptable noise environment and are intended to regulate excessive noise from existing uses and associated activities. They are also meant to serve as a guide for identifying other pertinent noise regulations so as to direct the location of potential noise generators and sensitive land uses. The regulations for noise measurement and monitoring, as well as special provisions and exemptions, are set forth in the City's Noise Control Ordinance as part of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.' By conforming to the City Noise Ordinance the project is expected to have a less than significant near -term, operational and long-term cumulative effect on the noise environment of the area. The following measures are recommended to assure that noise impacts are kept at less than significant levels. ' "Noise Element the City of Palm Desert General Plan," prepared by City of Palm Desert and Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., 2004. -53- Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEOA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 Mitigation Measures In order to assure the limitation of potential noise impacts from the proposed development, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: Construction Noise 1. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturers' standards. Equipment operators shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors. 2. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. 3. Routes for construction -related truck traffic shall be reasonably designated to ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained for existing residential neighborhoods. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as possible from existing residential neighborhoods. 4. All construction -related activities that could result in high noise levels should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction should be allowed on Sundays or public holidays, except in cases of emergency. 5. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest to the project site during all construction phases. 6. To the extent practicable, the construction contractor and City shall limit haul truck arrivals and departures to the same hours specified for construction equipment, and haul routes shall limit passing sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to the greatest extent feasible. On -Site Operational and Stationary Noise 7. The design, selection, and placement of mechanical equipment for on -site buildings shall include consideration of the potential noise impact on nearby structures, both within the development and in the surrounding neighborhood. Roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by effective acoustical barriers, such as parapet walls or similar architectural elements. 8. Appropriate sound attenuation measures, such as silencers and/or barriers, shall be provided where necessary on outdoor equipment, whether roof or pad -mounted, including but not limited to cooling towers, air-cooled condensers, refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation. 9. Effective acoustical materials shall be incorporated into residential and hotel building walls and windows, boundary walls, A/C equipment walls and other acoustical barriers to adequately reduce outdoor noise impacts on the indoor noise environment. 10. To the extent feasible, the project developer shall utilize natural noise barriers such as existing terrain, manufactured berms, and vegetation to mitigate potential noise impacts. 11. As feasible, delivery trucks shall minimize engine idling time during deliveries. -5-4- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 On -Site Traffic Noise 12. The architect shall specify wall and window construction that demonstrates the interior noise levels will meet City standards. II Any proposed outdoor lounges, dining areas or other areas of conversation and open space enjoyment shall be provided with appropriate acoustical barriers (walls, sound glass, etc.), as necessary to assure that these outdoor living spaces can meet applicable City noise standards. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pre -Construction A. The City shall review the project grading and development plans, and assure that stationary noise sources, as well as equipment maintenance and staging areas sources are located sufficiently away from existing residences. City inspectors, as well as the grading and general contractors, shall regularly monitor construction operations and associated noise generation near residences. Operational noise issues will be mitigated on a case -by -case basis, if and when they arise. Responsible Agencies: Palm Desert Building and Safety Department, Palm Desert Planning Department, and the City Engineer. B. During final refinements to building design, the developer and architect shall ensure that acoustical analysis takes into consideration the following: • Design of perimeter walls, building envelopes, outdoor living area and landscape that effectively implement the above cited mitigation measures • Selection and placement of mechanical equipment • Shielding and buffering of mechanical equipment and truck loading/unloading areas Responsible Parties: Project Proponent, including acoustical engineer, Project Architect, City Building and Safety Department C. Designate acceptable truck/construction equipment route(s), as appropriate. Responsible Parties: Public Works Department During Construction D. Ensure functional mufflers are installed on all construction equipment. Responsible Parties: Project Proponent, General Contractors, Building and Safety Department, Code Enforcement. E. Ensure designated truck routes are being utilized. Responsible Parties: General contractor, Building and Safety Department, Code Enforcement. F. Ensure construction equipment operates only during those hours designated by the City Noise Ordinance, except in emergencies. Responsible Parties: Project Developers, General Contractors, Building and Safety Department, Code Enforcement. -55- 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: X a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources: Project description and exhibits, and Palm Desert General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Findings of Fact: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and associated designations for the property. The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units to the City's housing stock, although the subject residences are expected to be used on a second home or part-time basis. The current (2009') household size for the City of Palm Desert is 2.156 persons, and the project has the potential to increase the City's population by approximately 127 people. This number is considered conservative because, as noted, it would be expected, that a substantial portion of the units will be purchased and occupied by part-time winter and vacationing residents, or will be placed into the hotel rental pool. The proposed project will not have a direct effect on the loss or construction of housing or on changes in population in the City or area. The project will potentially result in an increase in retails sales activity within the El Paseo and other Palm Desert shopping districts, but will not significantly induce growth or displace an existing community. Additional job opportunities will be provided beyond those under existing conditions, especially in the hospitality industry. The project will have some direct and indirect effects on housing or population, in that along with the direct effects of the additional 59 residential units, there will be the indirect effects of infrastructure Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, I/1/2009. -56- 522%32�3 Terra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/ Revised 4.29.1 1 modifications to existing roads in order to facilitate site access, traveler traffic, and parking requirements. However, these impacts are not considered to be significant as the roadway system, water and sewer system, and other utilities and services are already in place to serve the proposed development. The Project will not induce substantial population growth or displace an existing community. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts to population and housing hazards or hazardous materials, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. -57- 5222;6320 Terra NovaiCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudN/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial X adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perform- ance objectives for any of the public services: X Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Findings of Fact: Although the subject property is currently vacant, it has heretofore been developed and generating a demand for a full range of public services and facilities. City fire and police services are based on target population ratios, and the City has a well -staffed police force and fire department provided under contract from the County Sheriff's Department and Cal Fire, respectively. The subject property is located within the urban core of the City and is well within 5-minute response times for fire and police. Existing fire and police protective services are expected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed development. While implementation of the proposed project will marginally increase calls for service to the project area, it is expected that these impacts will be less than significant. School impact fees will be levied on a per unit basis for residences and on a square footage basis for other uses associated with the project to help off --set the costs of providing school facilities for the children of future residents or employees. Fees are levied and must be paid to the Desert Sand Unified School District prior to the issuance of building permits. -58- 5'_25G32v3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 l The proposed development will include swimming pools, spas and other recreation amenities. The development will also include a library for the project residents and guests. The proposed development is also located in proximity to City parks, open space areas and trails in the Cahuilla Hills area that can be easily reached via Pitahaya and Edgehill Drives. Although the proposed project will result in the addition of 59 residential units to the City's housing stock, it is not anticipated that full-time residents with school -aged children will occupy a major portion of them. The proposed project will result in a slight increase to the City's residential and resort center development, and is not expected to generate any cumulatively significant impacts to public services or facilities. The project is not expected to generate a significant demand for parks, libraries, or recreational facilities. Buildout of the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on public services or facilities. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential impacts to public services or facilities, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. -59- Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- X a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources: Project description/site plans; and Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Findings of Fact: The City of Palm Desert's 15-park system features amenities such as public art, community gardens, dog parks, a rose garden, an amphitheater, a variety of trail systems, playgrounds, and sports facilities. Located within the vicinity of the proposed project are Palm Village Park, Haystack Greenbelt and Smoketree Natural Area, Community Gardens, Washington Charter School Park, Ironwood Park, Cap Homme/Ralf Adams Park, and Cahuilla Hills Park. Several of these City recreational amenities are located within walking or biking distance of the proposed development. Together with the 82 hotel units, the proposed project will include 59 residential units. In keeping with the City's policy that new residential developments provide adequate on -site recreational amenities consistent with the values and standards of the community and the needs of new development, the proposed project includes 2 pools, a library, and a spa and fitness center that will accommodate both its hotel guests and residents. The City has implemented a "Quimby", or park, fee ordinance to. assure that adequate park space is provided for future residents. To the extent applicable, the project proponent will be required to pay the park fees in place at the time that building permits are issued. This fee will assure that the impacts to City parks are reduced to less than significant levels. Project development, including the implementation of the proposed development Agreement, is not expected to significantly impact the use of park facilities, therefore no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. W >22�6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4 ?9 I I Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Sources: Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance, Palm Desert General Plan and EIR, 2004; Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 25, 2011; Palm Desert Hotel Condominium Development Parking Evaluation, Urban Crossroads, April 25, 2011; Palm Desert Hotel Condominium Development Trip Generation Evaluation, Urban Crossroads. July 15, 2010. -61- 'Cerra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Findings of Fact: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for this project, representing the worst case scenario with a portion of project parking accommodated off -site.' Roadways potentially affected by the proposed development are limited to the existing frontage road and Highway 74. The frontage road has limited use and serves primarily residences immediately adjacent to it. Highway 74 is a major regional link between Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley and south-central Riverside County and northern San Diego County. Existing traffic volumes on Highway 74 just south of Highway I I I were measured in February 2009 and yielded 22,022 vehicles per day, which dropped to 18,000 vehicles per day south of El Paseo and to approximately 17,800 vehicles per day north of Pitahaya Street. The project traffic analysis also examined existing nearby intersections that could be impacted by the proposed development. These include the intersections of Highway 74 with Highway 111, El Paseo, "A" Street and Pitahaya Street. The intersections of Highway 74 with Highway I I t and El Paseo are controlled by traffic signals, while the other two intersection are controlled by cross -street stop signs. The unsignalized intersections do not appear to meet signal warrants and operate acceptably with the existing cross -street stop signs. All intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better. The project study area is served by the Line I I I bus route operated by the Sunline Transit Agency, and can be boarded near the subject site, providing convenient access to guests, residents and staff. The City also operates a free courtesy shuttle on El Paseo that will pick up and drop off shoppers along the drive. Project Impacts The proposed Palm Desert Hotel Project is projected to generate approximately 1,013 average daily trips (ADT), with the hotel component being the greatest trip generator (670 ADT). Daily peak hour trips for each combined hotel and residential unit are calculated at 14 trips (13.98), with 72 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour period and 80 vehicles in the PM peak hour period. No modal split is assumed. The heaviest project traffic is expected to occur on that segment of Highway 74 between the site and Highway 111. The traffic study also assumed a 2% annual growth rate in background traffic. It should also be noted that the traffic analysis evaluated off-peak trips associated with use of optional off -site parking facilities, which are further discussed below. The proposed project will have three points of access from Highway 74 and include the following: • Driveway No. 1: Full Highway 74 Access (Service Entry at north end). • Driveway No. 2: Full Highway 74 Access (Main Entry) • Driveway No. 3: Limited Highway 74 Access, no right turn permitted from Highway 74 The traffic analysis examined the consequences of these changes and the impacts of future traffic, including that with and without the proposed development, in the 2014 period. For 2014, with anticipated future traffic growth without the project, the potentially affected project intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS and not require any changes in intersection geometries or traffic controls. It should be noted that under this "no project" condition, the intersection of El Paseo and Highway 74 is projected to operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour period; however, the anticipated delay is 38.6 seconds, which is at the lowest portion of the LOS D delay spectrum. For 2014 with the proposed development and other anticipated traffic growth, the existing geometries and traffic controls at the project intersections are expected to continue to assure operations at acceptable levels. The most impacted intersection will be El Paseo at Highway 74, which with project traffic will continue to experience maximum delays of 38.6 seconds, again at the lowest portion of the LOS D delay range. s Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 25, 2011. -62- Terra No%wCity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 To summarize project traffic impacts, the proposed development will generate approximately 1,013 average daily trips with 72 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 80 vehicles in the PM peak hour. As a result of the redesign of access drives and associated changes to Highway 74, including the removal of the northern portion of the frontage road, existing counts entering and existing the frontage road north of the project will subsequently shift to "A" Street. Existing and future frontage road traffic originating south of the project will enter and exit Highway 74 at project driveway number 3. As noted above, no consideration has been made for potential reduction in average daily trips and vehicle miles travelled from the use of public or mass transit, which has the potential of providing substantial reductions in the number of trips generated by the project. Trip generation may also be overstated in consideration of the pedestrian -oriented nature of the project and El Paseo Shopping District as a whole, which encourages park -and -walk shopping and thereby reduces the trips generated per unit of commercial space. The synergistic mix of land uses proposed and the project's proximity to the El Paseo shopping district may also serve to reduce the number of trips generated by this project. Upon project buildout in 2014, and with the inclusion of other sources of future traffic, the study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during peak traffic periods. No improvements to existing intersection geometries or to existing traffic controls are needed to assure acceptable LOS and operating conditions. The vacation of the existing frontage road in front of the project and the provision of three access drives along Highway 74, including the connection of the frontage road south of the project to Highway 74, require that specific recommendations be followed to avoid and minimize the impact of these changes on traffic safety and roadway operations and efficiency. These recommendations are set forth in the mitigation discussion, below. Parking Provisions The proposed project is a somewhat unique mix of hotel and residential use, with the residential components augmenting or extending the number of "hotel" units that can be made available. This approach also generally results in a residential unit owner who uses the unit perhaps more frequently but for shorter periods, while placing the residential unit in the hotel rental pool when it is not in use. This type of use pattern generally reduces the need for parking when compared to freestanding condominium development. An analysis was made of the potential parking demand associated with this project if each demand component were to be calculated separately and independent of the other on -site uses. Based on this unweighted calculation, the project could be required to provide up to 617 parking spaces. However, based upon the significant synergistic mix of uses within this development, much of the demand services (and hence parking) are met by on -site hotel guests and residents. A separate parking demand analysis was conducted to take into account the unique parking demand of this project.' In addition to City Code, the ITE publication Parkin; Generation (3rd Edition) was also consulted. The unique site and access, and the project's operational characteristics were considered and evaluated in consultation with City staff. For purposes of evaluating this project's real or likely parking needs, its essential character as a residential resort hotel was used to select ITE Land Use Groups 330 (Resort Hotel: 1.42 spaces per room) and 230 (Residential Condominium: 1.46 spaces per unit) to calculate parking demand. These parking demand rates include consideration of ancillary uses. ' Technical Memorandum: Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development - Parking Evaluation prepared by Scott Sato, P.E., Urban Crossroads, July 15, 2010, Revised April 21, 2011. -63- 5_2563h3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Using these parking demand factors, the proposed project should be required to provide at least 202 parking spaces (116 spaces for the hotel and 86 spaces for the condominiums). The project also includes a few ancillary uses that if conservatively factored yield an overall parking demand of 261 parking spaces. In consideration of project space adequate to accommodate a ballroom or other large gathering, an additional approximately 75 parking spaces would be required, bringing the total needed parking to 336 spaces. As currently proposed, the project will provide 376 stalls (including handicapped stalls), all of which will be underground. This arguably provides a surplus of about 40 parking spaces for this project. Even with this additional potential and intermittent demand, the project is still expected to provide surplus parking. The parking facilities serving hotel guests and residents will have valet service on a 24/7 basis, which will be essential for effective and efficient parking, since the project design provides for tandem parking in the project parking structure. Off -Site Parking Option An alternative project design is also being considered that would provide 233 on -site parking spaces and would rely on the availability of a maximum 103 additional off -site parking spaces to meet peak evening demand generated by ancillary project uses. Therefore, the project has been evaluated for the possibility of meeting the evening parking demand off -site but in the immediate vicinity of the development. A separate parking analysis specific to this off -site parking option was evaluated and is a part of this environmental analysis. The project traffic study also assumed this worst case scenario in its analysis. As a part of this off -site parking option analysis, several nearby parking areas were surveyed for current levels of parking demand for the time period from 6:00 PM and later. These included three existing lots and one proposed future City parking lot, all within approximately 600-feet of the proposed development. The prospective off -site parking areas that could provide the required evening parking for the project include the adjoining Imago art gallery parking, Daily Grill parking, the Debonne parking and the future City parking facility. The three existing lots provide a total of 272 parking spaces and have a post 6:00 PM demand of approximately 98 spaces, which tappers down to 67 spaces after 8:00 PM. Therefore, there is an identified current minimum parking surplus of approximately 174 spaces. The future City parking lot, which is not included in this count, is projected to provide an additional 113 spaces when constructed. It should be noted that the City has reviewed preliminary plans for a 3,600 square foot restaurant within the existing Daily Grill parking lot, which will result in the loss of spaces and generate a net new demand for 49 parking spaces. The Daily Grill lot would also be reconfigured to increase the total available parking. After accounting for area lost to the possible future restaurant and its demand for parking, and accounting for the lot's reconfiguration, there would remain a net surplus of approximately 73 parking spaces in the Daily Grill parking lot. In summary, on a Saturday night during the peak season, the three existing off -site parking lots will have approximately 174 unoccupied parking spaces after 6:00 PM and more unoccupied spaces thereafter. If the prospective restaurant is built and the Daily Grill lot is reconfigured, the net unoccupied parking during this period would be IN spaces. This current and projected surplus of existing parking in immediate proximity to the project should be more than adequate to meet the maximum projected 103 off -site parking need if this design option is implemented. If the proposed future City lot planned on Ocotillo Drive just south of El Paseo is constructed, it will provide an additional 113 parking spaces to the parking supply in this area. As noted above, the project would provide 24/7 valet parking service, which would also apply to off -site parking. -GI- 522>6320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/ Revised 4.29.1 1 Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/VEND, including for potential impacts to roadways or other parts of the transportation system, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Impacts Summary The proposed project is not expected to cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Neither will the project cause to be exceeded, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established under the Congestion Management Plan or established by the City. If the off -site parking alternative is implemented, it will not significantly impact the availability of parking for other businesses in the project vicinity, either with or without the proposed City parking lot. The project will not have an effect on air travel patterns in the area. With proper design refinements, the project will not substantially increase traffic hazards in the area. As proposed, the project should not adversely affect the delivery of emergency services to the development or other development in the area. The project provides adequate amounts of parking. Mitigation Measures Construction of on -site and project -related off -site improvements shall occur in conformance with the recommendations set forth in the project Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 5-A. The recommended on -site and project related roadway improvements are further described below: Driveway 1 (Service Drive) Recommendations. a. Restrict Project Driveway 1 (northern most) shall provide a full access connection to Highway 74. Driveway 2 (Main Access Drive) Recommendations a. Construct a minimum 100-foot southbound left turn lane on Highway 74 at its proposed intersection with Project Driveway 2. b. Construct a minimum 100-foot northbound right turn lane to access the main access Driveway 2. Driveway 3 (Resident & Frontage Road Drive) Recommendations a. Align Driveway 3 directly across from Pitahaya Street. b. Restrict northbound right turns at Project Driveway 3 by providing appropriate signage at the project driveway. C. The existing continuous painted striped center turn lane on Highway 74 will provide the minimum 100-foot northbound left turn lane for left turns onto Pitahaya Street at its intersection with Highway 74 proposed intersection with Project Driveway 3. 2. The frontage road adjacent to the project will be vacated in conjunction with development. However, the frontage road on the southerly boundary of the project will be connected to Driveway 3 and will provide access to Highway 74. A crosswalk shall be constructed at the south end of the project to tie the project sidewalk to the existing frontage road sidewalk located on the east side of the frontage road. M 52'_5633v3 rerra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.I 1 Stop sign control shall be provided at the intersections of the project access points that do not meet minimum traffic signal warrants, and connect with public roadways. 4. On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. 5. Sight distance at each project access roadway shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 6. Work within the public right-of-way shall require an approved encroachment permit from the City Public Works Department. 7. To the extent applicable, the developer shall pay appropriate Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) in accordance with the prevailing impacts fee. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the City Building and Safety Department and Engineering/Public Works Department shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances have been provided at all intersections abutting the project boundaries. 9. The project operator shall maintain 24/7 valet service for the parking structure to assure the viability and efficiency of the planned tandem parking. 10. In the event the off -site parking option is implemented, the applicant shall provide copies of all required agreements with the owners of the off -site parking lots demonstrating permission to use said lots for post 6:00 PM project parking. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting A. Prior to the issuance of grading or roadway encroachment permits, the applicant shall secure final approval of the design and location of project access drives, intersection design and interior circulation plans, and signage program. Responsible Party: Applicant, Public Works Department B. Prior to issuance of grading or encroachment permits the applicant shall submit and secure approval of construction staging areas, construction -related traffic management, and haul routes Responsible Party: Applicant, General and Grading Contractor, Public Works Department C. The project proponent shall pay Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and other transportation improvement fees required by the City of Palm Desert for the net additional commercial space resulting from the project's development. . Responsible Parties: Applicant, City Building Department. D. Prior to the issuance of building permits, and in the event the off -site parking option is implemented, the applicant shall provide copies of all required agreements with the owners of the off -site parking lots demonstrating permission to use said lots for post 6:00 PM project parking. Responsible Parties: Applicant, City Planning and Building Departments. ;2l %320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Flotel/ CEQA Initial Studv'Revised 4,29.1 1 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, & local X solid waste statutes and regulations? 67- 52256320 Terra Nova Citv of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 Sources: Project description and application materials; Palm Desert General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2004; Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and associated Final EIR, Coachella Valley Water District, Adopted October 2002. Findings of Fact: Domestic Water Service Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) will provide potable water to the subject property via the existing water supply system, which has heretofore served development on this property and is capable of meeting the project's domestic water needs. CVWD utilizes deep wells to extract groundwater from the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD's domestic water system, which serves the City, includes 50 wells with an average depth of 900 feet. CVWD also has a total of 27 reservoirs serving the City, with an average capacity of 1.8 million gallons. Some of these reservoirs may also serve pressure zones, which extend beyond the City. The largest (i.e., main or trunk) water lines are generally located along section lines, with smaller lines branching into individual sections. Non -potable water is now being delivered to portions of the City and area from the Coachella Valley Branch of the All -American Canal. In the immediate project vicinity, CVWD has a wide range of main and distribution lines serving the subject property and surrounding development, including a 12-inch water line adjacent to the site that is expected to more than suffice to deliver required water flows to the proposed development. Residential Water Demand The project is not expected to generate a significant need for additional water resources. Potable water demand was calculated based on estimates from the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF).10 For residential land uses, the number of planned dwelling units was multiplied by the expected household population size of 2.17 persons. The total population (59 units X 2.17 = 128) was then multiplied by the AWWARF per capita factor for indoor use: 69.3 gallons per day per person, 3 yielding a residential demand of 8,870t gallons per day. Non -Residential Water Demand Indoor potable demand for non-residential land uses was multiplied by the appropriate AWWARF water demand factor. For hotel, commercial, and office land uses the AWWARF figures offer a low and high estimate for each projected demand. In order to be consistent the low and high estimates were averaged and the resultant values were used. The potable water demand factor for non-residential uses is 87.5 gallons per day per occupied room, 0.08 gallons per square foot per day (30.5 gallons per year per square foot) for commercial and office land uses, and 0.631 gallons per square foot per day (230.5 gallons per year per square foot) of restaurant use. The total water demand estimates assume 75% occupancy of the hotel year round, which is considered a conservative estimate. Square footages for hotel rooms, retail and other commercial, office/administration, and restaurant land uses were extracted from the Precise Plan application Square footages were then multiplied by the appropriate average per square foot AWWARF water demand factor in order to quantify the total potable water demand expected to be generated by buildout of the proposed residential hotel project: " Based upon this analysis, non-residential water demand will total approximately 26,606 gallons per day. It should be noted that these demand figures do not reflect the substantial reduction in demand likely to result from adherence to state and local water conservation regulations and ordinances. Therefore, the estimated daily water demand should be considered conservative. 10 Project #241A, Residential End Uses of Water, AWWARF, Winter 1999/2000. 11 Project #241 B, Commercial and Industrial End Uses of Water, AWWARF, Summer 2000. -68- 5'_2563'-v3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQ:\ Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 Based upon the projected demand of 35,476 gallons per day, the proposed project is not expected to require the construction of new wells, water distribution lines or additional storage. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the availability of water resources and the facilities of the local purveyor to supply the project. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Wastewater collection and treatment services are provided by the CVWD. Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk lines generally ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches, relying primarily on gravity flow. Effluent from the area is conveyed to CVWD's Cook Street treatment plant (Water Reclamation Plant No. 10), which has a current capacity of 18 million gallons per day. CVWD continually increases the capacity of its plants by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration plants and other structures. This plant also has tertiary treatment facilities with a capacity of more than 10 million gallons per day, which generates reclaimed water for use on local golf courses and public landscape areas. The proposed project will result in a modest and less than significant incremental increase in demand on existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Domestic and hotel/restaurant-type uses generate wastewater flows that average about 60% to 80% of total water use,'' which yields a project wastewater discharge of between 25,261 and 33,682 gallons per day. Based upon current waste water treatment capacity at CVWD's Cook Street plant, existing and planned future capacity, and the limited demand the project will place on treatment plant capacity, the project will have no significant impact on this facility or CVWD's ability to serve this or other development in the community. Drainage Facilities Stormwater runoff from the subject property and vicinity are surface conveyed in street rights -of -way to sub -surface facilities to the north, which ultimately discharge into the Whitewater River located approximately one mile north of the site. As discussed in Section VIII, above, stormwater runoff from the project will be managed by a combination of on -site facilities that will reduce maximum site runoff to that expected under its current undeveloped condition. On -site runoff is to be collected through a system on catchments and conveyances, and discharged into two vegetated swales running parallel to and along the hotel frontage with Highway 74. Runoff will be slowly conveyed along these swales, providing time for enhanced percolation and bio- remediation of trace contaminants. The bio-swales will discharge into two drywells to further the infiltration of runoff. Excess flows will be discharged to the remaining frontage road north of the site in a manner comparable to the existing condition. Therefore, the development of this project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and will have a less than significant impact on these facilities. Local _Water Supplies The Coachella Valley, although located in one of the driest regions of the country, has a substantial subsurface groundwater basin. The charging of the underground aquifer has occurred over millions of years and has accumulated over time primarily by local water runoff from surrounding mountains. The geology of the Coachella Valley has created a deep spreading zone with several thousand feet of sediment that have created the groundwater storage basin. 1' -Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook," prepared by John G, Rau and David C. Wooten, 1980. -69- 92'i632%3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudyiRevised 4.29.1 1 The groundwater basin in the Coachella Valley is a northwest -southeast trending sub -surface aquifer, which generally extends from the Whitewater River in the northwest to the Salton Sea in the southeast. The Whitewater River Subbasin encompasses approximately 400 square miles and is bounded on the north by the Garnet Hill Fault, on the east by the San Andreas Fault, and on the south by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The Subbasin is expected to contain about 28,800,000 acre-feet of groundwater within the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface." It should also be noted that CVWD is a contractor with the State Water Project (SWP) and receives annual deliveries of Colorado River water in exchange for its contracted amount of SWP water. CVWD is also part to the party to the Quantitative Supply Agreement (QSA), which assures up to 459,000 acre-feet per year to CVWD. Based upon an assessment of existing water supplies, it is determined that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources without the need for new or expanded entitlements needed. Therefore, the proposed development will have a less than significant impact on local or regional water resources. Community Waste Collection and Landfill Capacity The proposed development is expected to generate a level of solid waste comparable to what would be expected from other permitted uses on these lands. Multi -family dwelling generate solid waste at the rate of between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day; this somewhat conservative generation rate has also been applied to the project hotel rooms, yielding a total residential demand of approximately 1,273 pounds of solid waste per day. Restaurants and related uses are projected to generate one pound of solid waste per customer per day or 17 pounds per employee per day. Based on assumed maximum seating in restaurants and lounges of 779 seats, and a generation rate of 1, pound per seat per day, the lounges and restaurants are expected to generate approximately 779 pounds of solid waste per day. Therefore, in total the proposed development is conservatively projected to generate approximately 2,052 pounds per day. The proposed project will be served by the City's solid waste hauler, Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, which currently hauls the City's waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Through the City development review and approval process, it is expected that the proposed development will comply with all applicable federal, state, & local solid waste statutes and regulations. Development Agreement The applicant has filed a draft Development Agreement (DA) with the City, which addresses specifics associated with the proposed project and provisions that provide a higher degree of certainty for the City and the developer, provide enhanced benefits to the public, and assure its consistency with City policies, ordinances and regulations and exceptions thereto. The DA has been reviewed and incorporated fully in the analysis in this IS/MND, including for potential to utilities and service systems, and the DA will not result in any significant project impacts. Summary of Impacts The proposed development is expected to have a less than significant impact on water supplies and service, waste water facilities, drainage facilities, landfills or other utilities and services. 13 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and State Water Project Entitlement Transfer, Coachella Valley Water District, Adopted October 2002; and associated Final EIR (SCH#s: 20000031027 & 1999041032). -70- 5225632%3 Cerra NovaXity of Palm Desert Palm Desert F{otel/ CEQA Initial Studv/Revised 4.29.1 1 Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. 52256320 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.11 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either directly or indirectly? Sources: Project Description, and Palm Desert General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Findings of Fact: The subject property has been completely disturbed and the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project will not have a significant impact on sensitive wildlife or habitat, or impact important historic or cultural resources, since neither occurs on site or within an area of potential affect. By intensifying the use of the subject property, the project enhances the use of limited land and other resources in a more efficient manner. No significant cumulative impacts have been found to be associated with this project, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting None required. �ry,a 52'5632h3 Terra Nova/City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Hotel/ CEQA Initial StudyiRevised 4.29.1 1 List of Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Aerial View -High Altitude C. Aerial View -Low Altitude D. Project Site Plan E. Building Cross Sections F. Building Elevations G. Soils Map H. Visual Simulations & Key Map View A: Highway 74 Looking North View B: Sandpiper South Looking East View C: Sandpiper North Looking Southeast View D: Highway 74 @ El Paseo Looking South Technical Appendices Prepared for this Environmental Assessment A. Building/Site Sections for the Proposed Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project, prepared by Nadel Residential and Commercial, Inc. April 2011. B. "Air Quality Analysis for the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project", prepared by Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc., December 30, 2009, Revised April 25, 2011. C. "Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis", prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. February 8, 2010, Revised April 25, 2011. D. "Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development -Parking Evaluation", technical memorandum prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. July 15, 2010, Revised April 21, 2011. E. "Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development -Trip Generation Evaluation", technical memorandum prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. July 15, 2010. F. "Water Quality Management Plan for the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences", prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, December 2009, Revised April 27, 2011. G. Visual Impact Analyses, prepared by VisionScape Imagery, Inc., May 3, 2011. H. Digital Terrain Based Viewshed Analysis, prepared by Nadel Architects. July 2, 2010. Other Sources: A. "Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan," prepared by General Plan Advisory Committee Community, Development Department City of Palm Desert and Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., adopted March 15, 2004. B. "Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report," prepared by Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., 2004. C. "Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance," adopted February 25, 1999, as amended. -73- 5'-'-5G3h3 Terra Nova City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Elotel/ CEQA Initial Study/Revised 4.29.1 1 D. '`CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. E. 2003) Coachella Valley PMl0 State Implementation Plan," prepared by Julia C. Lester, Ph.D., and Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., August 1, 2003. F. "Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., adopted May 2007. G. "Riverside County General Plan" prepared by County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, adopted October 2003. H. "Riverside County General Plan Environmental Impact Report," prepared by County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, certified October 2003. -74- i225632v3 " MaB r ' ... ... cCcK7 7, a, .L J Phi Project Cdc {a�f ' 20=PA Site '- .4 V%'.•jO.. '�." �' • RIVE 'x•i.••? ..i CCC w . r,. .•mot. . .r.� `a— -�;r�� '.I J TO It ChC r'i�w�''_ Z�. ♦ 11t'1«•nt rt 4. .won • ,� ,, „" \�' ..�.,,�"`^`` ' T.- "'�CdC r 30 :Z7 / G 4 L:'F J.' t..uF.ip� ' - Q rr• ai �� �.•, A' • rtic_—at �s 0 (] ..� .. 41k, CdC 81 r. v tiF r N M B a i !L _-. � •Cali • •� . TAIW 0 ChC� _ 'GdG ;F*Wat •' v I � ,fir .•.... l�}L RA : b* ank c — 4 Legend: ChC CdC - Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes ` Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980 / 32 t r 1 Erhihu �. _A TERRA NOVA® Palm Desert Hotel & Residences IMNIND Soils Map G Pluming & Research. Inc Palm Desert, California P 1!4w 1 / •► .b NOBLE & COMPANY, LLC June 16, 2011 Mr. John M. Wohlmuth City Manager City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Via Hand Delivery Re: Rosewood Hotel Proposal Dear Mr. Wohlmuth, I am pleased to write this letter in support of the referenced project. The entire Coachella Valley and especially Palm Desert will benefit from having a 5 Star hotel located in our city. I can think of no better location for a hotel of this quality than at the beginning of Highway 74 which has been greatly enhanced by the undergrounding of all utility wires as well as being centrally located in the valley. Also, the proximity of this site to the shops, restaurants and public art displays of El Paseo and surrounding areas will be beneficial to merchants, restaurateurs and hotel guests alike. Rosewood Hotels is clearly among the very few absolutely top quality hotel/resort operators and it carries a worldwide reputation that will result in the exposure of Palm Desert to an entirely new set of visitors. My home is on Joshua Tree Street, less than a mile from the Rosewood site and I am certain that this development will enhance the already high quality of life that my family and I enjoy in Palm Desert. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this matter. t,a Sincerely, Thomas S. Noble rn i -n t"J Cc: Mayor and City Council Members,,' mrn Planning Commissioners 34360 Gateway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Tel. (760) 770-3100 • Fax (760) 770-3199 • noblecompanyllc@aol.com www.noblecompanyllc.com Michelson, Wilma From: esther katz [pdhairesther@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 5:33 PM To: CityhallMail Subject: new hotel at highway 74 and El Paseo Hi, I have just been informed that there may be a new hotel going up in Palm Desert in the location of Highway 74 and E1 Paseo. As a Hair Salon Owner on E1 Paseo, I am in favor of this happening. It will bring much needed revenue to our community and it will give jobs to many in the community who need work. Please take my vote as a yes. Thank you, Esther Katz HAIR DESIGNS BY ESTHER 73925 EL PASEO SUITE F PALM DESERT, CA 92260 760 568-2230 1 ALLAN LEVIN ASSOCIATES July 7, 2011 Development & Construction Management Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council c City of Palm Desert r-, x... c . 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 0 -n w n RE: PROPOSED ROSEWOOD HOTEL - M PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-507 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is to encourage your support and approval of the proposed Rosewood Hotel (located on Highway 74 south of El Paseo) which is Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 09-507. As a resident of Palm Desert for over 28 years and a business owner in Palm Desert for over 17 years, I have seen our resort community evolve into a true world class destination resort where people want to come to visit and also to live, work and play. The development of the Rosewood Hotel is the next step in this evolution. I have followed this project through its numerous iterations and have seen the developer work with both the City staff and the neighbors to create not only an economically viable hotel project, but an upscale, aesthetically pleasing addition to our City. i was in attendance at the June 21st Planning Commission meeting and saw the tremendous support for the project from the large number of community members in the audience as well as the numerous letters of support submitted to the Commission. Not only will this project bring revenue to the City through its TOT, it will also bring revenue to the merchants of El Paseo as well as much needed jobs to our local economy. They have made a commitment to our community to use local contractors whenever possible during the constriction of the project. Again, I encourage you to approve this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, r Allan Levin, o er Allan Levin Associates 76-768 Bishop Place • Palm Desert, CA 92211 9 (760) 345-0058 Voice/FAX • e-mail: alamagic@earthlink.net Palm Springs CONVENTION June 24, 2010 Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Desert Resort Communities AND VISITORS AUTHORITY RE: Rosewood Desert Club — Palm Desert Dear Mr. Joblon, The Palm Springs Desert Resort Communities Convention and Visitors Authority, which represents all of the cities of the Coachella Valley as well as Riverside County, is looking forward to welcoming your project, Rosewood Desert Club, to Palm Desert, hopefully in the near future. A five-star hotel with approximately 72 hotel rooms, 20 suites, luxury spa and fitness center, boutique retail and signature restaurant, as planned for the Rosewood Desert Club, translates to important bed taxes and sales revenues for Palm Desert, thus benefiting the entire Coachella Valley and the CVA. The Rosewood image in our desert will enrich our myriad attractions and ancillary businesses. Indeed, the Rosewood Desert Club project will become an integral factor in the fabric of the Coachella Valley. We look forward to a welcoming celebration for the opening of the Rosewood Desert Club. Very truly yours, JridyyVossler Interim President/CEO y /has(Lee) K. Morcus Chairman, Hospitality Industry and Business Council 4St�rtn,; Iha Jr •.. �. .., ;:are r _nit�[=' t � �«;=r� ;:nty ` ern .ar, r..t ,A t: .... �. 'dam 1' 'f, S, C OLLEGE�FDESERT Opening the Door ... November 15, 2010 Ms. Lauri Alayian Planning Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Five Star Hotel -Palm Desert Dear Ms. Alayian, City of Palm Desert Community Development NOV 17 2010 I am writing to endorse and support the proposed Five Star Hotel being planned for Highway 74 in Palm Desert, CA. The project would be of great benefit to Palm Desert and surrounding communities, and especially beneficial to the College of the Desert by providing learning and employment opportunities to our students. Our career technology programs in allied health, architecture, culinary arts, hospitality, renewable energy, green technology, facilities maintenance and construction management would provide a trained workforce for this project. And our students would have internships, work experience and financial aid scholarships. Having met with Matthew Joblon, Robert W. Roark, and Robert L. Pippin about College of the Desert's professional career programs and our ability to deliver a trained and skilled workforce, and learning of the internships and financial scholarships available to students, I support the project for the benefit of Coachella Valley. Also as a resident of the Coachella Valley, I believe the project would provide a substantial revenue stream to the Valley, high -end residential opportunities and would continue the strong tradition of quality development in the Coachella Valley. College of the Desert jrp..jp College of the Desert — 43500 Monterey Av enue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 (_760) 773-2i00—tN%sva.collegeofthedesert.edu t S i David and Leisa Austin Imago Galleries 45-450 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 June 7, 2011 Ms. Lauri Aylaian; Community Development Director Mr. Tony Bagato; Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 75-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Withdrawal of Opposition to Rosewood Palm Desert Hotel Project Dear Ms. Aylaian and Mr. Bagato: As you know, we own and operate the Imago Galleries located at 45-450 Highway 74, immediately north of the proposed Rosewood Palm Desert Hotel project (the "Hotel Project"). We have reviewed the recent changes that the Developer has incorporated into the Hotel Project and submitted to the City to modify the northern portion of the Hotel Project. In light of these changes, and in reliance on them, and that they will be incorporated into the design and any actual construction of the Hotel Project, we are pleased to inform you that we hereby withdraw all opposition to the Hotel Project that we had expressed previously. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter Sincerely, David and Leisa Austin May 21, 2011 Bernie and Barbara Cain 1202 Sandpiper Palm Desert CA 92260 City of Palm Desert Attn: Planning Department Tony Bagato / Principal Planner Dear Mr. Bagato: As longtime owners of condominiums in the Sandpiper community, we want to express our support for the Rosewood project on Monterrey/Highway 74. The plans we have reviewed and the press we've read indicate that concerns by adjacent businesses and residential neighbors have been sensitively addressed by the developer. In our opinion, the project is perfectly located for hotel and condo usage. It's adjacent to El Paseo while having its main entrance on a major arterial, Monterrey, provides for traffic circulation. The in -fill site ties retail shopping, restaurants and art galleries to the hotel section, and blends condos to the existing residential neighbors to the south. Height has been addressed with several alterations to the site plan. Multiple step backs and building height variations create a pleasing street fagade. We as residents of Palm Desert have longed for a high quality hotel and this site provides a strategic location with great appeal to visitor guests to the city. We encourage the City to move forward with approval of Rosewood. Sincerely, Bernie and Barbara Cain caincos@mindspring.com PENTA The PFNT1 Building Group, LP January 21st, 2011 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert Ca, 92260 Attn: Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development Re: Rosewood Hotel Project Dear Ms. Aylaian, I am writing in regards to the proposed upcoming Rosewood Hotel project located off highway 74 in Palm Desert. The PENTA Building Group believes that this project would be a tremendous asset and a terrific long term property for the City of Palm Desert. The PENTA Building Group would like to pass on our support for this project and that we believe a luxury resort of this nature is a great fit for the City of Palm Desert and the community. Besides the new construction and long term employment implications a project like the Rosewood Hotel would be a terrific luxury resort addition to the El Paseo district. Thank you for taking the time in reviewing this letter and please give me a call if you should have any questions regarding our support for the Rosewood Hotel project. Respectfully, ,The PENT Bing Group Al /Joel Wallis / Southern California Area Manager 1-1350 Mollu-rcY Avenne r t'uhn Ocscrt, CA 92260 ■ ; 60- % ; 6-61 1 I ■ [';ts i (i0- i � 6-66`?S C';ilitcornia Cont. License 11'92S 1:1 E May 26, 2010 City of Palm Desert Mr. Tony Bagato Principal Planner 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Rosewood Hotel project Dear Mr. Bagato: (A'11cart«-ell ProperlIes, 11le. I FOUNDATION FOR LIFE. INVESTING WITH WISDOM. RECEIVED ?UN U l 2U6U ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Over the last few months I've had the opportunity to meet with Matthew Joblon to discuss his plans to develop a five-star Rosewood Hotel on the lot located on Highway 74 south of El Paseo. We've sat down together numerous times and discussed the project, plans and program in great detail. The quality of design detail is extremely impressive! It is my firm belief that this development will greatly benefit El Paseo's shopping district and the City of Palm Desert. As a long-time developer and enthusiast of El Paseo, I think that the one amenity that El Paseo is missing is a nearby, luxury hotel for the Palm Desert visitor. By bringing five- star accommodations within walking distance to El Paseo, it will significantly increase traffic and sales for the retailers, as well as increase tax revenue to the City. I can't think of a more fitting relationship; a real win -win for all! I strongly urge you to support Mr. Joblon, whose project will only benefit and add value to the area. If you'd like, I am open to discussing this with you more at length. I can be reached at (323) 937-7110. Sincerely, CHARTWELL PROPERTIES, INC. . �Z/ Fred A. Fern Chairman Commercial Real Estate Services 73-061 EI Paseo, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 tel 760,341.4888 fax 760.568.9958 www.chartwellproperties.net CC:tACHEL _ A VALLEY May 26, 2010 Matthew Joblon, Managing Director Friedman Equities, Inc. 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 re: Rosewood Hotel Project Dear Mr. Joblon: On behalf of the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, I am writing to lend our support to the proposed Rosewood Hotel project in Palm Desert. The Coachella Valley Economic Partnership (CVEP) serves its investors — including the nine cities of the Coachella Valley, the County of Riverside and over 100 private businesses — by working to attract businesses to the region as well as to assist existing businesses with expansion. The Coachella Valley has collaborated to create a comprehensive regional strategy known as the Coachella Valley Economic Blueprint, which provides regional stakeholders the opportunity to unite behind an aggressive and proactive plan for the future economic sustainability of our region. After reviewing the Economic Impact Analysis for the project we are supportive of the direct, indirect and induced impact of the project. We are also eager to realize both the short term and long term jobs that this project will generate not only for the City of Palm Desert, but our region. While we do not generally support specific projects, after meeting with you we were impressed with the amount of work you have already done to garner support for your project and the potential for long term economic impact. We defer to the City Council and staff to determine the specific requirements for your project but strongly support your entrepreneurial spirit and commitment to excellence. Sincerely, Wesley Ahlgren Director I JLII1e 1, 2010 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Rosewood Hotel project Dear Commissioners: (AmaNvell Pn)peel Ws, FOUNDATION FOR LIFE. INVESTING WITH WISDOM. .RECEIVED 1i1 1 q r 4 ,OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Over the last few months I've had the opportunity to meet with Matthew Joblon to discuss his plans to develop a five-star Rosewood Hotel on the lot located on Highway 74 south of El Paseo. We've sat down together numerous times and discussed the project, plans and program in great detail. The quality of design detail is extremely impressive! It is my firm belief that this development will greatly benefit El Paseo's shopping district and the City of Palm Desert. As a long-time developer and enthusiast of El Paseo, I think that the one amenity that El Pasco is missing is a nearby, luxury hotel for the Palm Desert visitor. By bringing five- star accommodations within walking distance to El Pasco, it will significantly increase traffic and sales for the retailers, as well as increase tax revenue to the City. I can't think of a more fitting relationship; a real win -win for all! I strongly urge you to support Mr. Joblon, whose project will only benefit and add value to the area. If you'd like, I am open to discussing this with you more at length. I can be reached at (323) 937-7110. Sincerely, CHARTWELL PROPERTIES, INC. Fred A. Fern Chairman Commercial Real Estate Services 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 tel 760,341.4888 fax 760.568.9958 www.chartwelIpropet-ties.net ROSEWOOD HC)TI:L) & RESDR"I'S' City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 To Whom It May Concern, January 20, 2011 I would like to take this opportunity to convey Rosewood Hotels & Resorts' support for the proposed mixed -use hotel and residential project being contemplated for the City of Palm Desert. I first toured the site with the developers in January of 2009. In May of 2009 Rosewood executed a non -binding Letter of Intent with the PDH Partners, LLC to provide eventual technical support and hotel management services for the property. In anticipation of executing this agreement, our Architecture and Design team provided input regarding the program and design of the project in order for the hotel to achieve an ultra -luxury standard. Throughout the entitlement process we provided periodic feedback to the developer on the resort area program and key design elements, as they worked to consider the feedback of the community while still meeting an ultra -luxury hotel standard. We are in the process of negotiating definitive technical services and management agreements, and recently extended our Letter of Intent to allow us ample time to complete negotiations and for PDH to complete the entitlement process. Rosewood has been managing ultra -luxury hotels and resorts for over thirty years. We currently operate 18 properties around the world, with a pipeline of six projects opening within the next 18 to 24 months. Given our presence in California today, we believe this project is a natural extension of the Rosewood brand, and a chance to bring a true ultra -luxury boutique hotel to the desert. I apologize that I could not be there in person to voice my support for this project, but please do not hesitate to call or write should you wish to discuss further. Best regards, Alex Alt Vice President, Development and Strategy Rosewood Hotels & Resorts 500 Crefeent Court, ,Suite 300, Dallas. IX 75201 T 214.880. i200 F 214, 880. 420, rosewoodhorels. com \odsuj re.,.,s s i v...'3ry fy t plA! i,.� ! �y .� "�d wc `I June 9, 2010 Mr. Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Dear Matthew: It was indeed a pleasure meeting you at our last El Paseo Business Improvement District (EPBID) Board of Directors meeting on May 18th. Your presentation on the proposed Rosewood Desert Club Hotel & Residences was both professional and intriguing. The Board certainly agrees with your description of Palm Desert as Southern California's premier desert community, as well as the allure of the "El Paseo lifestyle experience!" It's our goal to maintain that reputation, and certainly a 5+star luxury resort, such as you described in your presentation, would enhance that allure. The EPBID Board of Directors offers you our support in your efforts to move forward with this project. Please keep us informed as to your progress and certainly let us know if there is anything we can do at this end to facilitate those efforts. Sincerely, Michael Shimer President EPBID Board of Directors e-mail copies: To all El Paseo Board Members, Ruth Ann Moore, Furino/Greene Creative) NOBLE & CC)MPANY, LLC June 16, 2011 Mr. John M. Wohlmuth City Manager City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Via Hand Delivery Re: Rosewood Hotel Proposal Dear Mr. Wohlmuth, C4 of Palm Din 10mmunitY oeve►opmw JON 17 2011 I am pleased to write this letter in support of the referenced project. The entire Coachella Valley and especially Palm Desert will benefit from having a 5 Star hotel located in our city. I can think of no better location for a hotel of this quality than at the beginning of Highway 74 which has been greatly enhanced by the undergrounding of all utility wires as well as being centrally located in the valley. Also, the proximity of this site to the shops, restaurants and public art displays of El Paseo and surrounding areas will be beneficial to merchants, restaurateurs and hotel guests alike. Rosewood Hotels is clearly among the very few absolutely top quality hotel/resort operators and it carries a worldwide reputation that will result in the exposure of Palm Desert to an entirely new set of visitors. My home is on Joshua Tree Street, less than a mile from the Rosewood site and I am certain that this development will enhance the already high quality of life that my family and I enjoy in Palm Desert. matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this Sincerely, Thomas S. Noble Cc: Mayor and City Council Members Planning Commissioners 34360 Gateway Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 Tel. (760) 770-3100 • Fax (760) 770-3199 , noblecompanyllc@aol.com www.noblecompanyllc.com ALLAN LEVIN ASSOCIATES June 16, 2011 Members of the Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: PROPOSED ROSEWOOD HOTEL PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-507 Members of the Planning Commission: Development & Construction Management Co�nmlq► Development JUN 16 2011 This letter is to encourage your support and approval of the proposed Rosewood Hotel (located on Highway 74 south of El Paseo) which is Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 09-507. As a resident of Palm Desert for over 28 years and a business owner in Palm Desert for over 17 years, I have seen our resort community evolve into a true world class destination resort where people want to come to visit and also to live, work and play. The development of the Rosewood Hotel is the next step in this evolution. I have followed this project through its numerous iterations and have seen the developer work with both the City staff and the neighbors to create not only an economically viable hotel project, but an upscale, aesthetically pleasing addition to our City. Not only will this project bring revenue to the City through its TOT, it will also bring revenue to the merchants of El Paseo as well as much needed jobs to our local economy. They have made a commitment to our community to use local contractors whenever possible during the construction of the project. Again, I encourage you to approve this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, I Allan Levin, owner Allan Levin Associates 76-768 Bishop Place • Palm Desert, CA92211 • (760) 345-0058 Voice/FAX • e-mail: alamagic1eearth Iink. net PLANNI\G 3 CIVIL ENUINEERING -i LA\D SC 3V'F1'INCi June 21, 2011 Palm Desert Planning Commission c/o Ms. Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert CA 92260-2578 Subject: DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & TT 36284 Dear Commissioners: The City of Palm Desert has been the focus of progressive development from its early days as a city and appears poised to add another quality piece to the City in the form of the Rosewood Hotel. Realizing that it is the function of staff, Commission and ultimately the City Council to insure a quality "fit" to the community, as a member of the broader planning and development sectors of the Coachella Valley for over 40 years, I would like to add my support and encouragement to the City to approve this project. The City, the valley and most of the country have been mired in a serious economic slump and the prospect of a new, high quality hotel being proposed in the area is news that we all needed to hear. MSA Consulting has clients with commercial properties in close proximity and a high end hotel to support El Paseo has been at the top of their wish list for quite some time. Being able to walk from the hotel to these shops and restaurants is what planner's usually only dream about. Hopefully, you're about to make that happen! Very truly yours, NlMIL DES Marvin Roos Director of Design Development 34200 Boa Hoar: DRIVE 'A RANCHO N41RAGE A CALIFORm'A ;a 92270 760-320-9811 i 760-323-7893 r--.\x .a ���aw.NIS�CoNsuLrlNc[NC'.con� Jun 14 1U W:b9p I Donald A. Norberg The Sandpiper Unit 4904 72-245 El Pasco Palm Desert, Ca 92260 (760) 346 7666 danorber@g pacbeil, net June 7, 2010 Mr. Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Re: Rosewood Proposed Development — Highway 74 Dear Mr. Joblon: Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns regarding your proposed project. Specifically, our concern was the height of the project as it appeared from Highway 74 as originally proposed. The modifications you made to that original proposal substantially reduce the visual impact of mass and scale to us in our Sandpiper Condominium complex across the street. Given these tasteful changes to your project, my wife and I no longer have our original skepticism of your proposal. As a result, we are pleased to send you this letter enthusiastically endorsing your project. There is no question that a first class 5 star hotel/condominium complex in this location will dramatically improve the City of Palm Desert and the El Pasco shopping/dining "experience". Every morning we are in the desert my wife and I walk the length of El Pasco on both sides of the street. It is simply amazing how many El Pasco retail and dining establishments go out of business and/or turn over every year for lack of customers. The City fathers of Palm Desert had great foresight to create this upscale E1 Pasco shopping area. With more foot traffic from your upscale customers, your development will be a win -win for everyone. Moreover, it is also rather obvious that your project will substantially increase property values in outneighborhood, another win -win for us all. Very A. Norberg July 9, 2010 Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LI_:C 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 902 10 Dear Matt: I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with me and go over the proposed Rosewood Hotel project on Hwy 74 in Palm Desert. As I am a Sandpiper homeowner and will live across the street from the hotel, 1 needed to satisfy myself that the project was a well thought out endeavor. After meeting with you on June 30 at ,your office, I am convinced that the project, as presented to the Architecture Review Committee with the new height modifications and changes in the "mass", will be an excellent addition to Palm Desert. Palm Desert does not have a 5-star hotel and considering the status of the City and the prominence of El Paseo, I think this will be a wonderful addition to the "neighborhood." I am still concerned about the height on the north side of the hotel and how it might affect Imago Gallery. You and I talked about that and I do think that the Gallery will benefit greatly from having a deluxe hotel next door. Anything that can minimize the Iarger mass on the north side would be welcome. I any very pleased with the architectural design as presented. I think the clean and linear lines present a sophisticated modern plan and actually complimenrLs the historic Sandpiper Condominium by famed architect William Krisel, across the street. Therefore, I am in support of your project as it stands at this time before the Architectural Review Committee in Palm Desert. "Thank you Karen Prinzmetal 361 Sandpiper Palm Desert, 92260 kprinzinetal(,!�,yahoo. com 1 IT 1 j�vuny, I A I i) Mr. !Wvn, Ant me riot Worural mw% pu WSP Lftp W Our comnum? 11 rlqmu Wj: -ITO, %Mf Waited "Am MY ;u IN m I in e%vuinm�,� dT"'t.p! LI I W v jqu,'ITIN� 1, vwif. 01v Own"I by Be PROPMt V1 A 5OMW howl 41 OW (A uunw"44 MA As SIMOV01,; lhti pfcoit,J AWS 10 �11" LWKO AIIA to t,r J, -,ri Armoud maHry Or the min"! n,�I,�hbothitod, I Mats .4 a 3obr Wt,..-A uid will atfnwt addillomd to the ura and pstuvU.. vwlmw Aron A in addoom, So tax momwi and vVWhjnNWf 1'10'1lAvd tha pnjvt whi pmmLW fmimmuA buMs Wr tie CAN, ard fud di uveal Mov,own', 0) 1 VIP. nurs win, Marlis J Cote <marlis@dc.rr.com> v=utject. Re: hotel development June 6, 2011 10:31:28 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com To: Robert L Pippin From: Marlis J Cote Date: June 6, 2011 Re: 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development Dallas and I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 21. But please know that we FULLY SUPPORT the building of the 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and sincerely hope that the Palm Desert Planning Commission is wise enough to okay this 5 star Hotel. Marlis & Dallas Cote 709 Sandpiper Street Palm Desert CA 92260 June 17, 2010 Matthew Joblon PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 i3everly Hills, CA 9021.0 Re: Proposed Rosewood Hotel near Matt: T. enjoyed Ilearing about your proposed hotel project on El Paseo. I was happy to see that the changes you made in your design genuinely reduce the visualimpact that had originally conceited me. I am happy to say that, with these changes, you have gained my full support for this project. Like many others in this economic environment, I have been concerned about the continued vitality and growth of xny conumunity. I believe addxtioxt of tar hotel obs, tourists and likely increased will benefit the cotxuanunity economically with theJ property values for the entire neighborhood. Your confidexice in the strength of our community as a site that can support such a bigh-end project gives me further confidence. I am excited to see the development of this project and to enjoy the benefits I am sure it will bring. Best regards, ), 14 � Vern Holland From: Jason Whitley <Jason@whitleysremodeling.com> Subject: RE: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 17, 2011 7:32:07 AM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Bob, Please know that I am in full support of the Rosewood hotel project. I feel confident that the city council of Palm Desert will also support such a great project. I Do hope that the project would use as many of our local contractors as possible as there are several quality qualified contractors here in the desert. Jason Whitley Whitleys Construction Corp. 77-775 Jackal Dr. Suite B Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 Office 760-341-9480 Fax 760-341-9481 Cell 760 -275 -5637 www.whitleyscc.com -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Pippin [mailto:rlpippin@me.comj Sent: June 16, 2011 4:16 PM To: Jason Whitley Subject: Rosewood Hotel Jason: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Pippin Arete Developer Services c/o Robert L. Pippin rlpippin@me.com From: Hayward Pardue <hpardue@pbla.biz> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 20, 2011 10:53:35 AM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> As a long time property owner in Palm Desert (47 455 South Cliff Rd), I would like to see this project move forward. This site is an excellent fit for the intended use and will be very well received. I strongly urge the Planning Commission and Council to support this project also. Hayward Pardue, P.E. hpardue@pbla.biz (760) 250-0638 Jed Tarr <jtarr@williamwarren.com> RE: Rosewood Hotel June 16, 2011 3:42:37 PM PDT 'Robert Roark' <rwroark@me.com> Hi Robert, I am a big supporter of this project and truly believe the Palm Desert economy NEEDS this project, as the local economy has taken a hard hit with high -unemployment and big cutbacks in consumer spending. The Rosewood Hotel is not only a beautiful and well thought out development, but it will attract an affluent tenant base who will bring money from outside areas and spend it on products and services here in Palm Desert and the entire Coachella Valley region. Most importantly, this project will provide an abundant amount of high -paying construction jobs and long-term permanent jobs, which our economy needs most of all. I will be traveling on business and unfortunately will not be able to attend the Council hearing. Please use this email as my letter of support. Best of luck. Jed Tarr Vice President StorQuest Self Storage www.storquest.com Serving the greater Palm Desert Area 310.579.7793 -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Roark [mailto:rwroark@me.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:09 PM To: StorQuest Sel Storage Subject: Rosewood Hotel Jed: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do SYNERGY WELLNESS CLINICS, INC. Dr. Steven E. Nelson, Pharm. D; PhD; DiHo1n, NMD(C) 74133 El Paseo, Suite 6 Palm Desert, CA. 92260 Office: 760-776-5001 Toll Free 877-640-2458 Fax: 760-776-5005 June 17, 2011 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Dr. Steven Nelson. Unfortunately due to my hectic schedule seeing patients throughout the day, I am unable to attend the court hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6pm. I am writing this letter to show my full support in regards to the Rosewood Hotel Project in Palm Desert. I believe this to be a great opportunity to create new jobs and bring in much needed revenue for the city. Sincerely, Dr. Steven Nelson A Member of The Infinity Center for Advanced Integrative Metabolic Medicine From: Trish McFarlane <bboneapparel@yahoo.com> Suhi,,xt: re Rosewood Hotel Date: June 19, 2011 1:16:41 PM PDT To: ripippin@me.com To: Palm Desert City Council and Planning Commission We are the business owners of BB.one at the Gardens on El Paseo, a woman's fashion boutique for 25 years. 12 years at the Palm Desert Town Center now the Westfield Mall and 13 years at the Gardens on El Pasco. We are strongly voicing our support for the "Rosewood Hotel". Thank you, Trish & Jack McFarlane Trish McFarlane BBone bboneapparel@yahoo.com 760-836-3250 =rrm: Christopher Morgan <christophermorgan70@gmail.com> '�uhjs:f:k: Re: Rosewood Hotel LMta: June 18, 2011 3:34:44 PM PDT o: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert, Thanks for your note and your work on the Rosewood Hotel project. I will attend if able on Tuesday. I definitely support the Rosewood Hotel project and look forward to increased traffic, higher visibility for the area, and many more benefits if it should happen. Please count me and my business as strongly in support of the Rosewood Hotel project. Thanks, Christopher Morgan Christopher Morgan Galleries 73-375 El Paseo Suite I Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone (760) 568-0336 www.christophermorgancialleries..com On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> wrote: Christopher: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Pippin Arete Developer Services c/o Robert L. Pippin rlpippin@me.com From: CodaBarb@aol.com Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 17, 2011 1:14:45 PM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Dear Mr. Pippin In this economy, I cannot believe that anyone in his right mind would be against this project. Not only would it bring construction jobs to the area which are sorely needed, but many positions in the hospitality sector after the project is finished. The city of Palm Desert cannot afford to oppose the Rosewood Hotel project. We at Coda Gallery are 100% in favor of the project going forward as quickly as possible. This Five Star Hotel is needed to enhance the resorts in this city and the valley ... It would be foolish to let this opportunity get away from Palm Desert. The many affluent hotel guests would be an asset to El Paseo merchants, Restaurants and all of Palm Desert as well. Please let us know how we can help. Warmest Regards, Barbara Hill -Stanley, Director Coda Gallery 73-151 El Paseo Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 760-346-4661 p.s. I can send it as a letter if you wish. In a message dated 6/16/2011 4:21:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rlpippin@me.com writes: Barbara: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Pippin Arete Developer Services c/o Robert L. Pippin rlpippin@me.com From: "Greg Eberly, LICM" <info@designergreens.com> `Suoj ,ct: Rosewood mate: June 16, 2011 3:40:42 PM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com, rwroark@me.com As a Palm Desert resident and business owner for over 21 years, I highly support your project as being a major asset to our city, both economically and esthetically. It is upscale projects such as this that keep the El Paseo corridor a top-notch venue for residents and visitors alike. My company, Designer Greens, is the ONLY Palm Desert -based interior plantscaping company. When your project gets underway ... and I truly believe it will ... we'd like to be part of your team to bring greenery to your interior spaces. We do it all for the interior. Anyway, I wish you luck in your quest. I truly hope the Planning Commission sees the value of what you are offering to this city. I will make an attempt to attend the hearing as part of the Chamber contingency. Greg Eberly, LICM Designer Greens 42200 Beacon Hill Palm Desert, CA 92211 www.designer_qreens.com "AlwaysA Step;lhead" From: "jim@heatherjames.com" <jim@heatherjames.com> Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel Oate: June 16, 2011 4:42:28 PM PDT ro: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> 1 Attachment, 117 KB Bob, I am at our gallery in Jackson, Wyoming for the summer, sorry I can not make the meeting! I can not tell you how much I support your project. It will do wonders for the entire valley and be a direct help to us. We can do so many things jointly with you when the project is up. Please tell me anything else I can do to support you. Sincerely, James Carona 45188 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-346-8926 Ph 760-346-8154 Fax www.heatheriames.com PO Box 3580 172 Center Street, Suite 101 Jackson, WY 83001 307-200-6090 Ph 307-200-6091 Fax www.heatheriames.com On Jun 16, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Robert Pippin wrote: City or Palm DoWt Community DW80111l9nt JUN 2 0 2011 James: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the ROSewOGd Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. curtis <cconant@capofireside. com> RE: Rosewood Hotel June 16, 2011 3:07:50 PM PDT rwroark@me.com 'Suzanne Singh' <speterson@capofireside.com> 2 Attachments. 10.4 KB Robert, will be glad to attend; Capo Valley Fireside and team are always in support of anything that helps the community. Best regards. Curtis Conant Desert Sales 26401 Via de Anza San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 =tea Tel: 949.364.5118 Fax: 949.364.5478 Celt: 760.222.5067 From: Suzanne Singh [mailto:speterson@capofireside.com] Sent: Thursdav, June 16, 2011 2:56 PM To: cconant@capofireside.com Subject: Fw: Rosewood Hotel Suzanne Singh Capo Valley Fireside -----Original message ----- From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> To: Capo Valley Fireside <speterson@capofireside.com> Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 21:37:16 GMT+00:00 Subject: Rosewood Hotel rc;m Nicole Deng <NDeng 9katespade.com> )uiaj;ct: RE: Rosewood Hotel I -Rite: June 17, 2011 3:13:37 PM PDT fo: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> good afternoon robert, i am unable to attend this meeting. i would like to show my support, as i believe this would be an advantageous venture for us in the desert. kind regards, nicole nicole deng store manager kate spade new york el paseo village 73-425 el paseo blvd. Suite 108 palm desert, ca 92260 tel. 760-346-0403 www.katespade.com follow us on twitter http://twitter.com/katespadeny join us on facebook http://www.facebook.com/katespade From: Robert Pippin [rlpippin@me.comj Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:05 PM To: Nicole Deng Subject: Rosewood Hotel Nicole: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and 1 will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Pippin Arete Developer Services c/o Robert L. Pippin rlpippin@me.com This message (including any attachments) is intended solely for the specific individual(s) or entity(ies) named above, and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by other than the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. 7rcm: "kmkzmom2@aol.com" <kmkzmom2@aol.com> ` Ubiect: Re: Rosewood Hotel +,nto: June 16, 2011 4:55:25 PM PDT ro: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> I totally agree this project should go forward. The location is perfect for Palm Desert. Connected by DRO/D on Verizon Wireless Original message ----- From: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> To: Jerri Duncan <kmkzmom2@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 23:43:36 GMT+00:00 Subject: Rosewood Hotel Jerri: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Pippin Arete Developer Services c/o Robert L. Pippin rlpippin@me.com C -Z�6� _'/ 'a" z- -AJI'Bw = ( ^� Gzi3t/� (if 4GL Zlf 74,7i�, DO P.M. the boutique 5 Star Rose- outh of El Paseo, has been :omplete, and the hotel pro - inning Commission at 6:00 10 Fred Waring Drive, Palm resort lifestyle of PalmDe- o its many residents, should it support for this project. Hotel (which would be the rt with a luxury hotel ex- Itly, among its many bene- ,t to the merchants along El '.50 permanent jobs, and taxes, and property taxes Please take a moment to tant. Our government )k to the citizenry for guid- ice at the hearing voicing this decision for the bet - Your Presence is Requested: Please mark your calendars and make plans to be at the meeting. If you can make the meeting please drop me a line or send me an e- mailletting me know to lookout for you. If you cannot make it: a simple written note or e-mail sent to me voicing your sup- port for the Rosewood will be included in the record and would advise the commis- sioners of your support. Thank you so much for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you and see- ing you at the hearing. Very truly yours, �o 4,tt4 f 2)-Uv�x � Robert L. Pippin 73111 El Paseo, Suite 205 Palm Desert, California 92260 (760)862-1111 Robert W. Roark Robert L. Pippin rwroark(@me.Co n r1pippinCa)me com Using human faculties and knowledge to achieve real results ror�i Anne LaConde <ken.anne7@verizon.net> S+in•^_ct: Rosewood Hotel Development O ate: June 7, 2011 8:15:46 PM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com We are eight year full time residents of South Palm Desert. We support the development of the 5 star Rosewood Hotel as long as it conforms to the architectural requirements of our area. We want Palm desert and El Paseo to be financially successful and to bring in visitors that appreciate this beautiful community. Ken & Anne LaConde From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> . ubicet: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 14, 2011 11:48:42 AM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Here is a new supporter. Begin forwarded message: From: jiversidge/mchurch <iujuma2423@yahoo com> Date: June 13, 2011 1:15:17 PM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Robert: Thank you for your time. My name is Justin Liversidge. I am a full time resident of the neighborhood in which your hotel is being proposed. Base upon what I see it seems to be a very exciting project and well worth the support of our community. I trust that the city and developer will ensure that the project will see completion rather than a slow death at the hands of the current economy. Please include this note of support in your records. Sincerely; Justin Liversidge Fr,^m: John <jlyman@gmx.com> Su;�j<ct: Support of Rosewood Hotel project in Palm Desert Q.ite: June 14, 2011 4:51:12 PM PDT ro: rlpippin@me.com I have been resident of Palm Desert for over 50 years and I am in favor of this project. John Lyman Fran: Jed Tarr <jtarri nc @yahoo. corn> �jectt: Support for Rosewood Resort 0 ate: January 27. 2011 11:51:48 AM PST f o: rfpippin@me.com Planning Director City of Palm Desert: Jed Tarr, William Warren Group — Owner of StorQuest Self Storage, supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Jed Tarr rr}rn Chris Arnold <carnold@fixturesliving.com> Subi.ct: Support for Rosewood Resort Oate: January 26, 2011 4:35:36 PM PST ro: "rlpippin@me.com" <rlpippin@me.com> Pl.:3nmih) DII,, tof City of ' ��alUl Dt',"rt: i;hris Avoid of Fixtures living, Inc.: uppoits the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, Uvould .velcome the much needed economic :activity to the Coa:;hella Valley during this trying economic time. V,Vjth its total 612.5,000,000 invested cost, the project v'ill rjenerate, 250 -- 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley_ A-dditionally. the ulceration of the hotel ,vould proviclo a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for 'Valley „t�sidents; and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. ll'IS ArnnIr,, i:_iIC, i-G,neral r`1?:-3n igF1', `:tofe Fxi>r'rlence5 FIXTURES LIVING carnold(o)fixturesliving.com 7F,0 C46 8220 760 459 2446 760 707 0057 71905 Holy 111, Suite B. Rancho tilirage. (,A 92270 fixturesliving.r,om facebook.cofnlFixturesl-.iving rr>m: Mark <mark@demillemarble.com> 3ui)iext: Support for Rosewood Resort Date: January 26, 2011 4:53:44 PM PST l o: °rlpippin@me.com" <rlpippin@me.com> Planning Director City of Palm Desert: MilleStone Marble and Tile Inc. supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed: Mark C DeMille To whom it may concern, Red's RV Spot supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Ron Dempster Owner Red's RV Spot May 10, 2010 Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Dear Matt, After meeting with you, our Casa Mia Home Owners Association has decided to fully support PDH Partners, LLC' s Five Star Palm Desert Hotel and Residential Development proposal. Our reasons for positively agreeing with the plans you showed us are: 1. No entrances or exits will face Ocotillo Drive directly across from Casa Mia. 2. Once the hotel and residences have been built there will be little exterior noise due to the underground deliveries and pick-up of trash. 3. The part of the buildings closest to Ocotillo will be within the current height requirements of 35' and the partial fourth floor of the hotel and residential buildings that exceeds height limit will be pushed towards Highway 74. 4. Due to the fact that the prices of the residential units will exceed one million dollars we believe that the property values of Casa Mia will probably increase in value. 5. The landscaping plans such as the wavy sidewalk, wall and lovely desert plants will enhance the beauty of our neighborhood. In conclusion we are highly appreciative of your efforts to be sensitive to Casa Mia' s concerns with respect to development of the project. The Palm Desert community and El Paseo business owners specifically will benefit directly from your luxury development. We are pleased to give our support to the Palm Desert City Council and other concerned government agencies in person and to assist in any way we can to help with the approval and ultimate development of this project. Sincerely, J p L Joan Seeberger Secretary Casa Mia Homeowner' s Association 45696 Ocotillo Drive Palm Desert, CA 9226o (360) 789-9216 NANCY BYLES PO Box 230209 Portland, OR 97281 byles@comcast.net November 29, 2010 Tony Bagato, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Dear Mr. Bagato, Palm Desert has been a part of my life for 30 years. For 12 years I have owned a single story condominium in one of the developments to the East of the project on Ocotillo Drive. I hope to become a full time Palm Desert resident in the near future. I have followed closely the progress of this project since the developer first brought the idea to our attention and I have read the entire Environmental Report and viewed all attachments. I very much support all aspects of this project. I know that change is hard for some and that possible loss of view is a concern. Change in the nature of this wonderful project is an interesting and exciting opportunity for our City. Regarding loss of view, the report reminds us that any development on this site would impact the view and very possibly not offer any of the huge benefits included in the Palm Desert Hotel and Residence plans. I hope that the Planning Commission and City Council are able to issue a speedy approval for this project so that its reality can get underway. Sincerely, Nancy Byles Cky of Pakn De"It cow"Ity De nt NOV 3 0 2010 June 14, 2010 Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC RE: Rosewood Desert Club Hotel Dear Mr. Joblon: RECEIVED A 16 20i0 '0"I' UNITYDEVELOPMENTI) ART,gENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Email: mjvbli: m,4ri �d D.ari« .corn Thank you for taking time to present the Rosewood Hotel project to me. Please accept this letter indicating my full support of your project for the following reasons: The addition of a high -end hotel to the El Paseo corridor will significantly drive pedestrian traffic and sales volume on the street in turn making El Paseo properties more valuable and become attractive to high -end retailers currently not present on the street (increased leasing activity and investment sales of properties); 2. The image and branding of this project will drive the awareness of Palm Desert from a wide array of businesses (potential new corporate tenants to the area and/or companies coming to the area for meetings to retreats); 3. The Hotel's revenue generating potential is superb ("COT, property value increment taxes, and additional sales tax revenues from their affluent customer base will be beneficial to the City, its retailers, and its residents) and will create tremendous job growth not only directly at the hotel but from other businesses growing or coming to the area. "There is no question a project of this quality will dramatically benefit the City of Palm Desert in multiple ways. From a professional standpoint, I believe this project will stimulate leasing activity and investment sales in the area from both a retail standpoint and corporate standpoint, which will create a profound trickle down affect to the City of Palm Desert. I wish you great success in executing this project and if I may assist your efforts in any way, please let me know. Sincerely, l Dick ey BAXLEY PROPERTIES, INC s 773.3310 Fax: 76o.773.3013 73-712 Alessandro, Suite B-4 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 _y_pr9Perfies.:.corn Elias (Lee) K. Morcus Kaiser Restaurant Group 74.361 Highway 1 11; Suite 5 Palm Desert, California 92260 Office Telephone: 760.568.2144 Mobile Telephone: 760.219.9999 Email: IvV1i)i Matthew )oblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Email: injohlon(�%fri�dm��r�ecf.com Subject: Rosewood Desert Club — Palm Desert Date: Friday, June 11, 2010 Dear Mr. Joblon, Thank you for the pleasure of your introduction and the courtesy of advance review for your exciting project, The Rosewood Desert Club — Palm Desert. Please accept this letter indicating my full support of your project and its development for the following reasons: • Palm Desert and our Desert Community benefit from having a fresh, progressive, ultra luxury lodging and residential component that will stimulate travel, tourism and hospitality, fortify retail sales, and create jobs. • The image and branding credence this provides to Palm Desert and the El Paseo Brand and Brand Experience is greatly enhanced and significant. • Your project should generate significant tax revenues to the City of Palm Desert in the form of Transient Occupancy Tax, plus the trickle down stimulation of retail sales taxes. • Your project will appeal to a well-heeled, more youthful and progressive market than many other projects. This serves to diversify our Desert, Palm Desert and the exposure for our Desert through well -placed marketing with the Convention and Visitors Authority and various other marketing approaches. I am certain that our Convention and Visitors Authority and our Coachella Valley Economic Partnership will be in full and robust support of your development and will be delighted to assist in a variety of cooperative ways that support the vitality of your project while contributing to the vitality of Palm Desert and our Desert Communities. I wish you and your team great success. If I may assist your efforts in any way, I am delighted to oblige. Most Sincerely, Lee Morcus Chartwell I'r�,����t l i��,. I I w. FOUNDATION FOR LIFE. INVESTING WITH WISDOM, October 20, 2009 Mr. Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Re: Rosewood Desert Club Hotel and Residences Dear Matt: It certainly was a pleasure meeting with you the other day to discuss your luxury hotel and condo project slated for the lot behind Imago Galleries on Highway 74, What an impressive concept! I am so looking forward to a hotel of this size and caliber to be located in such close proximity to our retail buildings on El Paseo. Especially considering the recent upgrades we made to The Shops on El Paseo, your hotel will be a perfect compliment. Not only will this hotel enhance the reputation of the City of Palm Desert, it will serve as a tremendous asset to the businesses on El Paseo. There's no doubt it will be a win -win for everyone. 1 support this development 110 percent. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to assist you with this project. Very truly yours, CHARTWELL PROPERTIES, INC. Fred A. Fern Chairman Commercial Real Estate Services 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200 Palm Desert. CA 92260 tel 760.341.4888 fax 760.568,9958 www.chartwellproperties.net svbmt�� SHAR DON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PALIkI DESERT, CA 92260 NIAMING ADDRESS: PO BOX 230941 PORTLAND OR 97281-0941 503-684-6986 hyles(a comeast.net February 11, 2010 Re: Proposed 5 Star Hotel/Residential Development Gentlemen: After several meetings and discussions over the past months, we believe that your proposed hotel development meets the interest and concerns of our Association and its members. Most of us are long time owners who have wondered what would become of the huge parcel of land across the street. We are excited at the possibility of such a wonderful new neighbor. We, the neighborhood association, can now lend not only our approval but our support of this project. Our desire is to ensure not only the suitability of the development of this parcel but the positive impact that the development now conceived will bring to the Palm Desert community and our neighboring properties. To that end, we believe it is appropriate to itemize those concerns that we had expressed in prior meetings and conversations that we deemed prerequisite to the granting of our support for this project. They are as follows: 1) Traffic —All of the vehicular traffic access will be directly off of Hwy 74. There will be no vehicle access from Ocotillo. Guests, Trash, Delivery, Employee entrance, and underground parking will all be accessed from Hwy 74. 2) Height — The project is within the current zoning height requirement of 35' except for portions of the Hotel along Hwy 74 that exceed that height to accommodate a partial fourth story. 3) Noise —This being a 5-star hotel, there would be relatively small exterior noise especially late at night. This protects the neighbors from any significant noise issues. Underground deliveries and trash will further control noise issues. 4) Landseaping/Streetseape — The plans demonstrate beautiful and lush landscaping all around the property, especially on Ocotillo where plans include a meandering sidewalk and beautiful landscaping which will further enhance Ocotillo Dr. We further understand that in addition to the landscaping, a 5 to 6 foot wall is being considered that would augment the landscaping for potential privacy/screening, and additional noise control purposes that are yet to be determined. 5) Land Values — We understand that the projected prices of the residential units range from $1.1 to $4 million, which will likely increase the values of homes in our neighborhood. In conclusion, we are highly appreciative of your efforts to be sensitive to our concerns with respect to the development of the project. The Palm Desert Community and El Paseo business owners specifically will benefit directly from your proposed new development. We remain happy to convey our support in person and to assist in any way we can to help with the approval and ultimate development of this project. Sincerely, Shar Don Homeowners Association Nancy Byles Treasurer 72-825 Willow Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-5725 June 6, 2011 Mr Robert W. Roark Mr. Robert L. Pippin 73-111 El Paseo Drive, Suite 205 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Gentlemen: Thank you so much for your invitation to attend the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting on June 21 s`. I will be there. This is such an exciting event for Palm Desert and at times, it appears our city has chronic indecisiveness when it comes to approving items in a timely matter I believe they will listen to the people and this will be approved. We need a five star Hotel and will benefit everyone. I had the privilege in my early career to work for Developer Bill Bone owner of the Sunrise Company when he developed Rancho Las Palmas Co. Club and Hotel. He then sold it to Marriott and that started my career with them for almost 30 yrs. We became a five star hotel for one year and then remained a four star I was Director of Memberships for the 27 hole golf club and became Club Manager the last 10 years. A wonderful career and to grow with Palm Desert was equally wonderful. No El Paseo only a few businesses, and several homes here in South Palm Desert. As I said in my e-mail, my sons worked for the Iron Gate Hotel as bus boys and Le Peon Restaurant on the property you own. I would love to help in any way I can. I am involved with the Rancho Mirage Republican Club, the Rancho Mirage Women's Club and they say I am great at speaking. I will call on my neighbors to attend this important Meeting. We will win approval. Thank you again, Lois Haskell Zuber MARRAKESH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (MCA) MARRAKESH COUNTRY CLUB (MCC) IOTNT MEETING OF THE ROARD OF DIRECTORS December 21, 2010 Those present: ROBERT WULF, PRESIDENT WALLY GRIMM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT/FINANCE MARY RUSSELL. VICE PRESIDENT BUTCH FRANCIS, SECRETARY JOAN ANAWALT, DIRECTOR LINDA GOODRICK, DIRECTOR TONI GROSS, DIRECTOR RICK KIRK, DIRECTOR GUY HUTCHINSON. DIRECTOR SANDY ROSENBERG, DIRECTOR WILLIAM SWAIN, DIRECTOR Also present: KHAL BUTLER, GENERAL MANAGER/V-P ASSISTANT SECRETARY, GARY FESSENDEN, CONTROLLER; GENE LEMMERS, MEMBERSHIP & COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIRECTOR Ahcent: TTM CORRFTT F3(_0FFTCI() EXERPT FROM THE MINUTES: Wallv Grimm informed the Board that the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce had contacted the Club requesting support of a new five-star hotel proposed for Hwy 74 and south of El Paseo. He had viewed the website and learned about the project and spoke about it favorably. Several individuals Board members made comments of support for the project. After an open discussion, Rick Kirk made the following motion: MOTION establishing support of the building and development of the Rosewood Hotel & Residential proiect in Palm Desert by the Marrakesh Board of Directors; seconded by Butch Francis, approved unanimously. morn: Anne LaConde <ken.anne7@verizon.net> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Development Orite: June 7, 2011 8:15:46 PM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com We are eight year full time residents of South Palm Desert. We support the development of the 5 star Rosewood Hotel as long as it conforms to the architectural requirements of our area. We want Palm desert and El Paseo to be financially successful and to bring in visitors that appreciate this beautiful community. Ken & Anne LaConde ,crn: LINDA HALL <linda.kelsoe@gmail.com> ct: 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development June 7, 2011 2:26:55 PM PDT rcl: rlpippin@me.com This is to voice our support for the Rosewood Hotel project. We own a home a few blocks from the proposed hotel site. Not only will the project give a much needed boost to the local economy and enhance Palm Desert's image as a world -class destination, we believe in the long term it will increase property values in the area. For these reasons, we urge the Planning Commission to approve the project. Linda Hall & Jeff Kelsoe 45885 Verba Santa Dr Palm Desert, CA 92660 619-295-8520 4A, =-11r. PWij iam Gobi 46346 State HA P.Im Desert, C9-1-16 1) h. 1.-J =rr_•rr: Michele Faracy <michele@faracy.com> > June 6, 2011 1:12:14 PM PDT F - rlpippin@me.com Hi Robert, I am a resident of Palm Desert and live off of Hwy 74. I think the Rosewood will be a much needed boost for Palm Desert. I enjoyed the website. I am looking forward to taking my golf cart down and having a drink on the patio when it opens. Michele Faracy Faracy Distinctive Cabinetry and Millworks Faracy Construction Corporation 760-345-2300 760-345-2250 FAX From: Michael Kurtz <michaelemic@cs.com> Rosewood Hotel Development Support Nate: June 6, 2011 10:51:07 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com We are full-time resident owners of the property at 73-369 Willow St., Palm Desert, CA 92260 and fully support the development of the proposed Rosewood Hotel on the vacant land on Hwy 74. Please advise the Palm Desert Planning Commission of our full support of the project. Sincerely, Michael E. Kurtz and Kevin M. O'Melia Phil & Vikki Cracknell <crackersaway@gmail.com> Re: Rosewood HoteVPalm Desert June 6, 2011 1:35:06 PM PDT ROBERT PIPPIN <rlpippin@me.com> ' 1 Attachment, 37.9 KB Fantastic! We are in favour of the project. Phil and Victoria Cracknell 45864 Shadow Mtn. Drive, PD 92260 Many thanks, Vikki On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:14 PM, ROBERT PIPPIN <ri T , n c wrote: Vickki: The new Rosewood Hotel will be 100% ADA compliant in all rooms. Pippin. VAN -- 44 C1111 L ('f OIFC S, LLC Van -Cal Projects, LLC c/o Robert L. Pippin 73-111 El Pasco Dr., Suite 205 Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: 760.862.1111 est. 23 Facsimile: 760.776.4197 Cell: 760.835.5602 E-mail: **************************** *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE* **************************** This electronic message and any accompanying attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above as the recipient and may contain privileged, confidential and personal information protected by attorney -client privilege, attorney work product privilege_ obligations of confidentiality or applicable law. Any use, disclosure, distribution or reproduction of this message or its contents (including any attachments) (a) by any, person other than the named recipient, (b) for any purpose other than its intended purpose. or (c) without the consent of the sender, is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please (i) notity the sender immediately by return e-mail or call 760-862-1 1 l I. (ii) do not disclose, distribute or reproduce this message or its contents in any form, and (iii) permanently delete this message (including any attachments) and destroy all copies thereof in any form. (hank you. On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Phil & Vikki Cracknell wrote: -r r, try ,tiii 1irn !art ,iy I fi ( 1-1 i St i)t Rfl :�U.A Y 'S.1lf ir1t J11'-_St !"l. V'rs f SO- any II7 eA(1y f =:)fll J'? .,n Jerry Dunn <jerrydunnretired@hotmail.com> c=_ct: Support for the Rosewood [ ai?: June 6, 2011 10:51:03 AM PDT . �: rlpippin@me.com Dear Mr. Pippin: My wife and I are longer term, full time residents of Palm Desert. We have not made an in depth study of the Rosewood Hotel Development, but our general consensus of what we've read is that it's a well thought out plan that has taken into account the neighborhood and the impact both environmentally and socially. It's time to put a useful commercial project on that land that has been vacant since we've lived here. Please accept our support for your project. Sincerely, Gerald & Donna Dunn =rc, daniella92691 <daniella92691 @yahoo.com> Building Hotel Ci+r June 6, 2011 10:22:30 AM PDT (o: ripippin@me.com Hello, My name is Monika Berg and I support and welcome the proposed hotel on Hwy 74.Palm Desert. Unfortunately I won't be able to attend the meeting, but wanted to express my support via email. Regards, Monika Berg n : Ronda Ostergaard <reoster2@verizon.net> t; t,,j "ct: Hotel Development 1.3�.. June 5, 2011 9:49:23 PM PDT rlpippin@me.com support the 4 Star Rosewood Hotel Development on Highway 74, Palm Desert. I am unable to attend the meeting June 21. Ronda Ostergaard 73350 Desert Rose Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 whippets@dc.rr.com Rosewood Hotel June 4, 2011 2:17:42 PM PDT u: rlpippin@me.com Dear Mr. Pippin: I am a neighbor off Highway 74 (directly across from the proposed site) and wanted you to know that I fully support the building of the Rosewood Hotel. It will definitely be a plus for El Paseo and the Palm Desert area. Please use my e-mail in the record as an affirmative response. May I ask how many stories are anticipated in the design of the hotel? Regards, Carol Friedgood 45769 W. Verba Santa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 POMPEWS Apparel<pompeiifinemensapparel@verizon.net> Rosewood hotel C3 ate: June 4, 2011 12:55:18 PM PDT i D: rlpippin@me.com Just a short email to provide my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel. My name is Chester Pompeii and as owner of Pompeii's Mans Fine Apparel on the EI Paseo I feel that a Hotel of this caliber would be a significant boost to the streets economy. Anything to generate any type of foot traffic is a welcome and given these times of the changes in our economy we need to look at all the positive aspects for the success of the El Paseo & the city of Palm Desert. Thank you, Chester J. Pompeii JDufloth@aol.com ?: 6/21 Planning Comm.Mtg. June 4, 2011 11:11:29 AM PDT i o: rlpippin@me.com Yes, we will attend the Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting, June 21, —2 6.00 PM. Palm Desert Residents, Buzz (James) & Diana DuFloth Thomas Moore dmmooreiii@gmail.com> Rosewood Hotel June 4, 2011 10:13:18 AM PDT r rlpippin@me.com Robert: We are long time residents of Palm Desert and reside here for about 8 months of the year. We are very much in favor of the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel on highway 74. Regards, Thomas Moore Peterfdesert@aol.com Rosewood. June 4, 2011 9:39:21 AM PDT i" ,: rlpippingme.com Dear Robert L. Pippin Both my Wife and I are totally in favor of you building a S Star Hotel on Hwy. 74 in Palm Desert. Not only will it enhance the area, hopefully also to improve the Real Estate property values. The main reason behind our decision is that it will bring in badly needed revenue through taxes, employment etc. to the City. Finances that we need to keep Law Enforcement on the streets to help eliminate the crime which has been on the increase in the past few years. Good luck with your anticipated venture. Sincerely. Peter F. & Alcira E. Thompson pddesertgal@dc.rr.com is Rosewood Hotel June 3, 2011 7:10:10 PM PDT rlpippin@me.com This message is to convey my support for the 5-star Rosewood Hotel in Palm Desert. It would be a great asset to the community. (Ms.) Jerry Salomon 72-567 Hedgehog Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone: (760) 773-2641 i ror t Paul Graham <p3ul0thelatc.org> Palm Desert 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development O.;te: June 20, 2011 3 21.08 P%l PDT F mroarkQme.com Cc: ripiopin@me.com, Paul Graham <paule-)thelatc.org> i Attachment, 26.0 KB Dear Mr. Pippin, Good afternoon. bve support your project in our neighborhood, VVe cannot make the Tuesday, June 21 meeting; however (if we rould attend ;ve ,vould unequivocally support your project. m truly believe this 5 Star Hotel is the perfect cornplirnent to our Palm Desert El Paseo neighborhood, and to the surrounding Coachella Valley community. Good luck with your project and please call upon us for your future support. Sincerely Paul Stuart and Andrea Graham 72787 Tamarisk Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Best regards, Paul Stuart Graham General Manager Los Angeles Theatre Center 514 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 2t D 239-v994. -xf 105 � grin-tA51 f ZFcd�3'e� i� 1� Ginza Bagato, Tony From: Hermann, David Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:27 PM To: Aylaian, Lauri; Bagato, Tony Cc: Becker, Tony Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel Good afternoon, We received another communication below related to tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Please share it with any other staff members, etc. as appropriate. David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6380 From: Bruce Maizermailto:maize(abempirewestdev.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:37 PM To: InformationMail Subject: Rosewood Hotel Dear Chairperson Sonia Campbell and members of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: I am contacting you today to voice my support for the Rosewood Hotel project, agenda item Case No. DA/PP/CUP 09- 507 and TT 36284. As a 25 year resident of the Coachella Valley, I have witnessed several cycles of development and today we are in what is arguably the worst development cycle of our lifetime. No one has been immune to the downturn in the economy including the city. This one project has not only the ability to add a phenomenal flagship hotel in the heart of this fine city but to also provide an economic catalyst at the perfect time. This project alone will generate over $1 million per year in annual revenue directly to the city, 250 — 300 permanent jobs and 100 — 150 construction jobs. The positive economic impact of these specific dynamics are enhanced with the additional benefits derived from the shopping, dining and lifestyles of the guests and owners of the hotel and condominiums. The development of this luxury property is without question a project that is deserving of the city's unqualified support. Palm Desert, although positioned in the heart of valley and well appointed with wonderful hotels, is lacking a luxury hotel property. Other cities in the valley have benefited at the expense of Palm Desert. The developers have worked diligently and openly with the community to ensure there is compatibility with this new hotel and the adjacent properties and they are deserving of your support. Thank you for this opportunity to submit this message of support and I trust this Commission acts favorably by approving this project at this evening's meeting. Thank you, Bruce D. Maize President R 14,1 42575 Melanie Place, Suite S Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 568-2850 - office (760) 568-2855 - fax From: "k. plann" <kmplann@gmail.com> Subject: We support your project Date: June 21, 2011 10:19:09 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Martin and Karen Planaysky 46252 Verba Santa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 We highly support the Rosewood Project 43-088 Madison Street G ��� Indio, CA 92201 Prone: 760 342-2221 ��6Q�M Fax: 760 342-4607 To: Bob Roark Regarding: Rosewood Hotel. :•. I will be out of town so I am unable to attend the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 21 ". I just wanted to voice my support for your project. I find it hard to believe that in these economic times that local planning departments are not doing everything in their power to promote economic development. Adding a viable business to a community that will expand the tax base and increase retail activity in that community would seem to something a responsible body would want to pursue. Again I want to reiterate my support for you project and applaud you willingness to take a financial risk in these times of economic uncertainty. Good luck. Sincerely, Brock Babich 43088 Madison St Ste 101 Indio, Ca 92201 760 899 7591 From: Paul Graham <paul@thelatc.org> Subject: Palm Desert 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development 031e: June 20, 2011 3:21:08 PM PDT To: rvroark@me.com Cc: ripippin@me.com, Paul Graham <paul@thelatc.org> 1 Attachment, 26.0 KO Dear Mr. Pippin, Good afternoon. We support your project in our neighborhood. We cannot make the Tuesday, June 21 meeting; however [if we could attend] we would unequivocally support your project. We truly believe this 5 Star Hotel is the perfect compliment to our Palm Desert El Paseo neighborhood, and to the surrounding Coachella Valley community. Good luck with your project and please call upon us for your future support. Sincerely Paul Stuart and Andrea Graham 72787 Tamarisk Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Best regards, Paul Stuart Graham General Manager Los Angeles Theatre Center 514 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 J2131 1489-3994 .axt 1O5 213) 489.18,51 f UEA43E CcMU4 From: Alan Pace <apace@petra-inc.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Project Support Date: June 20, 2011 3:18:36 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Hi Bob — Just a note to lend my support to the Rosewood Hotel. As a businessman living in the Coachella Valley and with an office in Palm Desert, I think a Project such as the Rosewood Hotel and the business a 5-Star hotel would bring to Palm Desert would increase the appeal of the area and for residents and visitors. Good Luck and let me know how else I might help. Alan Pace Vice President/Geologist Petra Geotechnical From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Date: June 21, 2011 3:25:50 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwroark(a me.com Begin forwarded message: From: richard danskin Galleries <danskinaalleries@richarddanskin com> Date: June 20, 2011 9:49:02 AM PDT To: Christian Hohmann <email@christianhohmann om> Cc: rwroark@me.c r4m Subject: Re. Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Reply -To: danskingalleries@richarddanskin com Bob, We can not attend the meeting, as we are out of town. However, we do support the Hotel. The hotel will be good for the city, new jobs in construction, new jobs upon opening, new visitors to the city, many of whom will visit El Paseo, shop and eat. Having looked at the site of construction, we can see no down side to anyone involved. There may be slight views effective by residents on Ocitillo, but I am sure that can be kept to minimum. Other than that, we are amazed you are getting negative reaction - perhaps people (residents and nearby businesses) are just looking for a little payoff in these tough times. Count us as part of your support when you speak to the city. Go ahead and provide our contact information if required or asked for. Geoff and Vat Douglas, Gallery Owners richard danskin Galleries LLC 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert CA 92260 760-568-5557 On Wed 15/06/11 13:18 , "Christian Hohmann" emall@christianhohmann.com sent: After attending a meeting for the proposed Sstar Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 we were approached by Bob Roark with the request to speak in support of the Hotel on behalf of the Gallery Association at the Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6pm at the Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers (73-10 Fred Waring Dr.) The hotel would bring very affluent shoppers to El Paseo and I feel it would be important to show our support. Would someone be interested in speaking? I offered to go, but now there is a chance that I won't be back from L.A. in time for the meeting. More importantly, before anyone speaks on behalf of the association, could everyone in favor write a few lines back in support of the hotel and copy Bob Roark ( rwroark0me.com) in. In case none of us can go, at least they would have our e- mails in support. Many thanks, Christian From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Date: June 21, 2011 3:26:34 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark nwoark,82me com Begin forwarded message: From: Jonathan Stahl <istahl@shasiafire com> Date: June 20, 2011 11:22:40 AM PDT To: rwroar_k@_ me com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Bob, We completely agree with you. The Coachella Valley needs this project. We will not be able to attend the hearing, but support your efforts. The construction industry in the Coachella Valley is in desperate need of a project this size. The potential for future development in the surrounding areas once a hotel is established is great, as I'm sure you are aware. This would only benefit our community. Thanks for the heads up on the project, and again good luck at the hearing. Sincerely, Jonathan Stahl Vice President Shasta Fire Protection, Inc 3584 La Campana Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 (760)323-5993 Fx (760)323-8895 www.shastafire.com From: Robert Roark awroarkome.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:27:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin(ome.com> Robert Roark noark�nn Begin forwarded message: From: Charissa Lee <charissale came om> Date: June 20, 2011 2:13:40 PM PDT TO: 'Robert Roark' <rwroark@me om> Subject: RE: Rosewood Hotel Robert, I am not a bid tired of hearing from you and completely support your project. We need jobs and revenue and visitors. No brainer. Unfortunately I am out of town tomorrow. What can I do to show my support. Should I send an email to all of the council members. Do you have a list? Thanks, Charissa Charissa Farley Farley Interlocking Pavingstones Located at The Paving Stone Place 75135 Sheryl Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.773.3960, tax 760.773.1910 Cell 760.219.1089 charissa@farlgvoaverscom www.farleypavers.com -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Roark [mailto:rwroark@me.com) Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: charissa@farleypavers.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Charissa: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really Jo need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing Before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, ?011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic Imes, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though 'evelopment is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show le Planning Commission that there is Support for a new development in Palm 'esert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend You can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short -mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will sure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in ipport helps. Thanks. Bob Roark )bert Roark roark@me.com From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Support for new Proposed Rosewood Hotel In Palm Desert California Date: June 21, 2011 3:28:21 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark mroarkrii.mu.com Begin forwarded message: From: faw3grouc)@verizon.net Date: June 20, 2011 3:29:52 PM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Support for new Proposed Rosewood Hotel In Palm Desert California To Whom it May Concern: My name is Frank Walsh and I am freind and colleague of Bob Roark. In my experience with Bob, His projects have been in well positioned locations and are carefully chosen to enhance a community while being mindful of its surroundings. It is my personal opinion this proposed five-star resort will definitely enhance the property while immediately bringing the area to higher level of property values and immediate sales tax revenue to the surounding area. Bob,and his group I believe will create a new level in hotel service too an already A+ zip code. I am also a frequent guest at Rosewood resorts and will tell you they are truly above the rest, with a quaint almost home feel! I believe this project would be a huge benefit to the area and thats why I fully support this project. Thank you, Frank Walsh FAW3 Group Inc. Consultant to Walt Disney Family Trust 1187 Coast Village Rd #217 Santa Barbara, CA. 93108 faw3grouo aAverizon net fawalsh3CZDaol.com (805) 252-8075 Cell From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.conv Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:29:39 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <ripippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwroarknmc.com Begin forwarded message: From: Nick Roche <ndroche@verizon.n Date: June 21, 2011 5:54:09 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Mr. Roark, My wife and I fully support the construction of the Rosewood Hotel. The hotel will be a great asset to the Palm Desert Community and a boost to the local economy. Nick & Joyce Roche Palm Desert, CA From: Robert Roark rnvroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:30:09 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwroark/hme.com Begin forwarded message: From: "McCracken, Shelby" <Shelby.Mccracken@bbvacompass com> Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT To: "rwroark@me.com" <rwroark@me.com> Cc: "rininnin@me.com" <rlpippin@me.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Dear Mr. Roark and Mr. Pippin, I very much support this project I have heard about it for several years and I think its a great attribute to our great city of Palm Desert and I feel property values will go up and our economy will benefit from the boost. Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass B utk 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood project Date: June 21, 2011 3:30:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark nrroark,ii.me.com Begin forwarded message: From: Mike Collins <Mike@twfaw.com> Date: June 21, 2011 11:24:40 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Cc: Ron -Desert Contractors' Assoc <ron@desertcontractors.orcl> Subject: Rosewood project Bob, I am planning on attending the hearing if at all possible tonight but in the event that I do not, then, please accept this Email as evidence of my support for this project. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be a benefit to the community and to business's in this valley as well as Palm Desert itself. As qualifications for this opinion; I declare that I have lived in the Coachella Valley since 1960, 1 represent a licensed, bonded and insured contracting company that regularly employees upwards of 50 pay rolled employees. I have been a business owner in the Coachella Valley for 30 of those years. M1C ael-C'011111S The WORKS Floor & Wall www.twfaw.com 979 So.Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs CA. 92264 mike ontwfaw.com 0- 760.770.5778 F- 760.770.5715 C- 760.250.7862 From: "McCracken, Shelby" <Shelby. Mccracken @ bbvacompass.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT To: "rwroark@me.com" <rwroark@me.com> Cc: "rlpippin@me.com" <ripippin@me.conu Dear Mr. Roark and Mr. Pippin, I very much support this project. I have heard about it for several years and I think its a great attribute to our great city of Palm Desert and I feel property values will go up and our economy will benefit from the boost. Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass Bank 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax Paul Graham <•paul(a?thelatc.org> Palm Desert 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development t.� June 20, 2011 321.08 P%l PDT To r,vrcark@me. corn Cc: rlpippin@rne.com, Paul Graham <paul<-)thelatc.org> 1 Attachment, 26.0 KB Dear h1r. Pippin, Good afternoon. We support your project in our neighborhood. We cannot make the Tuesday, June 21 meeting; however f if we could attend] we ',voufd unequivocally support your project. We truly be!ieve this 5 Star Hotel is the perfect compliment to our Palm Desert El Paseo neighborhood, and to the surrounding Coachella Valley community. Good luck with your project and please call upon us for your future support. Sincerely Paul Stuart and Andrea Graham 72787 Tamarisk Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Best regards, Paul Stuart Graham General Manager Los Angeles Theatre Center 514 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 ?t 3) 489-0994 (%'13i dN9-tASf f Qn-16R From: Robert Roark <rwroark(9me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood project Date: June 21, 2011 3:30:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rw aka r ma c ,m Begin forwarded message: From: Mike Collins <Mike@twfaw com> Date: June 21. 2011 11:24:40 AM PDT TO: jpn oarkQmecom Cc: Ron -Desert Contractors' Assoc <ron@desertcontractorc n.�> Subject: Rosewood project Bob, I am planning on attending the hearing if at all possible tonight but in the event that I do not, then, please accept this Email as evidence of my support for this project. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be a benefit to the community and to business's in this valley as well as Palm Desert itself. As qualifications for this opinion; I declare that I have lived in the Coachella Valley since 1960, 1 represent a licensed, bonded and insured contracting company that regularly employees upwards of 50 pay rolled employees. I have been a business owner in the Coachella Valley for 30 of those years. �WIi-h el-C'O�I1S The WORKS Floor & Wail Mm Iwfaw.com 979 So.Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs CA. 92264 mikg(afwfaw com 0- 760.770.5778 F- 760.770.5715 C- 760.250.7862 From: Robert Roark vwroark@me.corro Subject: Fwd. Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 20113:30:09 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin vlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark ay—roarkrtbmexonp Begin forwarded message: From: "McCracken, Shelby" <$helbv MCCrar kunno hh. „„,,, Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT M> To: "rwroark@me com" <rwroark@me com> Cc: "rloiooin@me com" <rtoiooin@me comma Subject: Rosewood Hotel Dear Mr. Roark and Mr. Pippin, I very much support this project I have heard about it for several years and I think it's a great attribute to our great city of Palm Desert and I feel property values will go up and our economy will benefit from the boost. Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass Bank 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax From: Robert Roark < wroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:29:39 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpipptnQme.com> Robert Roark m rkr eca Begin forwarded message: From: Nick Roche <ndroche@veri nn , Date: June 21, 2011 5:54:09 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Mr. Roark, My wife and I fully support the construction of the Rosewood Hotel. The hotel will be a great asset to the Palm Desert Community and a boost to the focal economy. Nick & Joyce Roche Palm Desert, CA From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.corru Subject: Fwd- Support for new proposed Rosewood Hotel In Palm Desert Californla Date: June 21, 2011 3:28:21 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin vlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark ffimar— � r— dim Begin forwarded message: From: f!A o verizon net Date: June 20, 2011 3:29:52 PM PDT To: rwroark�m Subject: Support for new Proposed Rosewood Hotel In Palm Desert California To Whom it May Concern: My name is Frank Walsh and I am freind and colleague of Bob Roark. In my experience with Bob, His projects have been in well positioned locations and are carefully chosen to enhance a community while being mindful of its surroundings. It is m five-star resort will definitely enhance the property while immediately bringing the area to higher level of property valuesersonalr nd ithis mmediate sales tax revenue to the surounding area. Bob,and his group I believe will create a new level in hotel service too an already A+ zip code. 1 am also a frequent guest at Rosewood resorts and will tell you they are truly above the rest, with a quaint almost home feel! I believe this project would be a huge benefit to the area and Chats why I fully support this project. Thank you, Frank Walsh FAW3 Group Inc. Consultant to Walt Disney Family Trust 1187 Coast Village Rd #217 Santa Barbara, CA. 93108 faw3oro4o(awerizon net l�walsh3na aol om (805) 252-8075 Cell t a E if e in sL From: Robert Roark vwroarkQme.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:27:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.corn> Robert Roark nnalknm com Begin forwarded message: From: Charissa Lee <char�atee@mm� Date: June 20, 2011 2.13:40 PM POT To: 'Robert Roark' <rwroark_ ra . SublW: RE: Rosewood Hotel Robert, 1 am not a bid tired of hearing from you and completely support your project. We need jobs and revenue and visitors. No brainer. Unfortunately I am out of town tomorrow. What can I do to show my support. Should I send an email to all of the council members. Do you have a list? Thanks, Charissa Charissa Farley Farley Interlocking Pavingstones Located at The Paving Stone Place 75135 Sheryl Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.773.3960, tax 760.773.1910 Cell 760.219.1089 charissa@farleyoavers co_m www.farleypavers.com Original Message ----- From: Robert Roark Imailto:rwroark@me.comj Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:04 PM ro: charissag6leypavers.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel :harissa: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we realty fo need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing tefore the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, '011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic mes, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though evelopment is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show ie Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm esert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend You can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will Wre that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in pport helps. Thanks. Bob Roark Robert Roark rwroark@me.com From: Robert Roark awroarkome.corro Subject: Aft Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Date: June 21. 2011 3:26:34 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin,@MG.corm Robert Roark nvr Sri m Begin forwarded message: From: Jonathan Stahl <tstahlpshastafire ��++> Date: June 20, 2011 11.22:40 AM PDT wroark_ Q To: rm Subject: Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Bob, We completely agree with you. The Coachella Valley needs this project. We will not be able to atte Potential for future development in the surrounding areas once a hotel is established is nd the hearin support your efforts. The construction industry in the Coachella Valley is in desperate need of a project this size. The would only benefit our community. great, as I'm sure you are ea g, but are. This Thanks for the heads up on the project, and again good luck at the hearing. Sincerely, Jonathan Stahl Vice President Shasta Fire Protection, Inc. 3584 La Campana Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 1760)323-5993 "x (760)323-889s NWw. astafjr co From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.corn> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Date: June 21. 2011 3:25:50 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rfpippin@me.corn> Robert Roark nvroark/rr�m rnn Begin forwarded message: From: richard danskin Galleries<danskinoalleriPcraricharddanSkin com> Date: June 20, 2011 9:49-02 AM PDT To: Christian Hohmann <email@chriatianhohmann com> Cc: rwroark@me com Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Reply -To: danskinaalleriecnricharddanskin com Bob, We can not attend the meeting, as we are out of town. However, we do support the Hotel. The hotel will be good for the city, new jobs in construction, new jobs upon opening, new visitors to the city, many of whom will visit El Paseo, shop and eat. Having looked at the site of construction, we can see no down side to anyone involved. There may be slight views effective by residents on Ocitillo, but 1 am sure that can be kept to minimum. Other than that, we are amazed you are getting negative reaction - perhaps people (residents and nearby businesses) are just looking for a little payoff in these tough times. Count us as part of your support when you speak to the city Geoff and Val Douglas, Gallery Owners richard danskin Galleries LLC 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert CA 92260 760-568-5557 Go ahead and provide our contact information if required or asked for. On Wed 15/06/11 13:18 , "Christian Hohmann" email @chrlstlanhohm @chrlstlanhohmann.com sent: After attending a meeting for the proposed 5star Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 we were approached by Bob Roark with the request to speak in support of the Hotel on behalf of the Gallery Association at the Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6pm at the Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers (73-10 Fred Waring Dr.) The hotel would bring very affluent shoppers to El Paseo and I feel it would be important to show our support. Would someone be interested in speaking? I offered to go, but now there is a chance that I won't be back from L.A. in time for the meeting. More importantly, before anyone speaks on behalf of the association, could everyone in favor write a few lines back in support of the hotel and copy Bob Roark ( rwroark(mme com) in. In case none of us can go, at least they would have our e- mails in support. Many thanks, Christian From: Alan Pace <apace@petra•inc.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel project Support Date: June 20, 2011 3:18:30 PM PDT To. Robert Pippin <rtpippin@me.corru Hi Bob — Just a note to lend my support to the Rosewood Hotel. As a businessman living in the Coachella Valley and with an office in Palm Desert, I think a Project such as the Rosewood Hotel and the business a 5-Star hotel would bring to Palm Desert would increase the appeal of the area and for residents and visitors. Good Luck and let me know how else I might help. Alan Pace Vice President/Geologist Petra Geotechnical GM 43-088 Madison Street � i Indio, CA 92201 Phone: 760 342-2221 �GG Fax: 760 342-4607 To: Bob Roark Regarding: Rosewood Hotel. Hi Bob, I will be out of town so I am unable to attend the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 21 s1. I just wanted to voice my support for your project. I find it hard to believe that in these economic times that local planning departments are not doing everything in their power to promote economic development. Adding a viable business to a community that will expand the tax base and increase retail activity in that community would seem to something a responsible body would want to pursue. Again I want to reiterate my support for you project and applaud you willingness to take a financial risk in these times of economic uncertainty. Good luck. Sincerely, Brock Babich 43088 Madison St Ste I01 Indio, Ca 92201 760 899 7591 From: "k. plan" <kmplannOgmall.corn> Subject: We support your project Date: June 21, 2011 10:19:09 AM PDT To: ripippin@me.com Martin and Karen Planaysky 46252 Verba Santa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 We highly support the Rosewood Project From: "McCracken, Shelby" <Shelby.McCracken@bbvacompass.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT To: "rwroark@me.com" <rwroark@me.corrtm Cc: "ripippin@me.com" vlpippin@me.com> Dear Mr. Roark and Mr. Pippin, I very much support this project. I have heard about it for several years and I think it's a great attribu up and our economy will benent from the boost te to our great city of Palm Desert and 1 feel property values wig go Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass Bank 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �? Ij � Business: Name: ('€ 1 A _ Address: -� c. (c L Telephone: �� C- �') (L -?1 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: (0/3 Business: Name:�� Address: 7?— oWo 6Z- /�� Telephone: 0 70 O E-Mail: >torc \lanagcr Cos Bar at El Paso The Slu,ps on El Paseo -3-()SO El Paseo ,Mite Paint Ue�rrt, California 9.22( i P--6P;-i14,699 F- -64 } 3 } 1-66` 8 sciLacc.rucker sco�bar.com l U: Palm Desert City Council 'FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: l . J Business: AS Name: SW `d Address: _T�bs_o al Telephone: (-7, E-Mail: IJ SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. / Dated: G l 3 f Business: [Name: r Address: Z 3 1 I f ��i �� L n P?,E2 tr:- CA: �2z6 Telephone: b G - l — b! J '_5 E-Mail: ("MI % kt;p - 1 2 moadip_o v SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the E1 Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 0 6 ,�0 f Business: Name: Address: ��'5 - 5 ___� 4 — El 1pq J e 0 " S_ tt ( Je .4 Telephone; ,L 1 f GC A4 CP 0Jex- d'0 E-Mail: / Gel SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �� 1 Business ��� UZ-`k c`�'I�,Y S Dame: �C' ��w�' c VI 6kti-,_ Address: C' �1< F h'Ct��G ti _k - Zy -41 (Vyx II;/ILK C, CQ;� Uo Telephone: - icy _ W 3 E-Mail:SY SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: /I Business: Name Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: Telephone; ! S E-Mail: 1 -f c�r� i SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ... f Business: � �r' 41 l i� Name: Address: lL Telephone: E-Mail: ,J SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the E1 Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: � s � /� Business: A C Name: < J,` A/ y l4 /iT it Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of E1 Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: U C—C Name: tj rCc. /L (_'� / ' Address: 1 ( �Ci1s C-� G �Z �( Telephone:C E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 2 Business: �6_6 6�2 Name: �� � �c_o' \ C4 Address:�� Telephone:�� E-Mail: '-D64 4a,,,-e SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the a prova of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: / �'� Address: 1520 ND Sf_A�:_ c Telephone: E-Mail: �� L (�� I -all SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: (P 13 � I I Business: Name: Address: Pp C, 92-z�_o Telephone: Il -c-) 113 - o�U' E-Mail: -� Ot2�, �� �1 � SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: !O J- /) Business: Name: '7 Address: �a�b �� Telephone: 7� 0 ,pi- `����C-/) E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 10 - = Business Name: Address: / L Telephone: E-Mail: &r %, C�` v'y� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business:%/< Name: -313 Al A/ Address: Telephone: E-Mail: A /V S(jIL-l','T14 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price For the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: , Business: ~ 9 Name: }A Address: f .J �i�.�C - v_F 131 q adv)'� (.0 Cl)-)uO Telephone: (--�( 0 )'SU K. - q U 2L---) E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the appro al of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: a 61 Name: z //;-Jl � Aser Address: 3S 7 r&J�y Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �,-'� /it Business: Name: Address: Telephone: �! C __ 77 (_'/ E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: / i Name: '3 Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the E1 Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: Telephone. L� E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: M T-- 4 3 90 11 Business Name: -C Address: Telephone: E-Mail: F� s 6 N 6� ?as � U qLn - __3 �/) - / a 31/ T1.1--7r(n �.L ias.n SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: &L Business: "t-J ! / � &_ !' ' i J� Name: Address: .J Telephone: E-Mail:_(i SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: i Business: Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: 7 Address: J Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the �approval oftheRosewood Hotel. Dated: l�/ t „l ��' / Business: � L l Name: Address: 7 S_ ( BLS C C`) Telephone: ` Gl ? r S C E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. 05 Dated: - g-/ / Z M -�I Business:1 Name: �`��/�'\�Cr�i /mot e✓�c�C f �/, l 1 Address: 6 �cz% 1 " �c��.ti�f'< o-. 1 1 L7,' Telephone: 7 E-Mail:S=CQn. SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: j 1 Address: _7 ? -3 1 r.. Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: I ! n t Lot( Business: Name: t4O, HZ WOP�5—uk Address: 41-c)0A At) cVIJ F(ACE Telephone: Ib 0 — 2I � E-Mail: WU�eb - l.S4 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 'IN � l Business: Name: Address:�`�—�� L t 1 rn Telephone co- E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 5 - QIA • aD\\ Business: Name: Address: -1-7• -T-t-1 c-0 T Telephone: E-Mail: J� �+� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Business: Name: ,) ,7 Address: '� G k) 1'4 Telephone: E-Mail:_ SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. i Dated: x �i Business: J Name: t-)IL L i I\rl Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: P O&y �� � d 1 Business: Fa C E� S e)/�j (�'/ pa 5-- L) Name: VJ Address: " � 3 - `7 `� (,� � 5 cq_n Fz IVM 1��s��-t 03 9 aaG0 Telephone: r� � 0 - 3 �6 - 1 ,;Z- 3 4 E-Mail: C2) A d -- SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: `� lint 3 �6 Business: S �v Name: 7-2 kLAS a a A� d "S'C" S 0 (U Address: q ,3 6( 7asEp 2,31 ! Qc-� Telephone: r 6 o 1, 5 `-' QI�6 cv E-Mail: i P,. Cc � SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to supportf t a jp/pr val of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: I p r r / V Business: ul Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: CO- ' 3 l - k k Business: [Name: Lac y c_5 X. �� L..) P LG` Address: ^13 , t�)LLO E � PC -S � �tg C Q:LL� s�t U Telephone: -� CEO - sL g - 14q1� E-Mail: CUC't, eI( fln fl.L1E� �tw5�•1.�5 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: S "'3 t -- Business: ��P CA.Q.P&�,i CAS' NJ V ste ue' � . Name: RbLALIN � Address: -i3 54p EL P s E,,, ter— C i Telephone: 16b -s(y�, E-Mail: & ca .?, O�lrC SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the apprVX f t Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ; Business: Name: Aaa.e. �- (e60 V/ /�piiC'o SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be Iocated just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: 4>. 4 k.) t- y c�''=•, Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to he located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: C( be-tv, Y 1 Address: �36(�� ��(m �eccC? ' CA `/Zz 6o Telephone: E-Mail: cc C1/ ek ) SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on fly. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the EI Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated ISO construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address:7-3 ee In - I dn' Telephone: l �� 6 0 / E-Mail :� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: )3L1S1riCSS: j % r Name: Address: 7J��" Telephone: E-Mail: l'C l; SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to he located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. l am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the E1 Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: Telephoner E-Mail: ��/�-2�7�?�%'l/�".5 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. l am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 1 Business: Name: Address: CC c; �{. Ci Telephone: E-Mail:_10 CL'�'�/ f L SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission l would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. l am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the E1 Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: .� Business: 4 Name: .Address: � io7- Telephone: E-Mail: %/h �J� ��c° G-• ��U ✓1�1 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. l am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: l Aii Business: ,1z{ 65V -Y Name: Address: — A. & C P/ 1 Telephone: 7�C 3X� ��51G' E-Mail: '%�� d'�7 �i' �G'�1 /vl ��v �� 1v)Ct&" . C CAI SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name:�� �7�_�%, Address: 1� Telephone: E-Mail: ;� �� �7,1, L '� -/ALL !A SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would Iike to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert,, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. . The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I Iook forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business Name: Address Telephone: l' 1 E-Mail:��i'- SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert,, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. . The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I Iook forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �— zj %/ Business: 7t7s / I Name: a&'M Address: 3 — qn-40 d Telephone: v E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the EI Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I Iook forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: J, It c� / , ,_ - / / Business: � -5 C - .) c( -� Flame:. 1` Address: Telephone; E-Mail: /'6JL z,_,�_�%'. �,rr_ � ',11Sr► c�.-y:� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert,, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business Name: Address: Telephone: E-MaiI: �'\ I G'it.�i � V 1~� Lt 'y C.i �i �� ���✓{F A SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: J Y l fZ l % DA Address: Telephone: r c0 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the E1 Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: i Yl` Business: Name: \ Lof ro t' �a Address: `" bW 1 (.1' Telephone: U L) _ U_ i G, __ zI (fir'( E-Mail: 'J SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: t_ Business: ( c Name: Address: / Z Telephone: E-Mail: /, SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ti • ;�4 2), 1\ Business: Name: elle-k- Address: R—::> =�, Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 5 • a,4.2.L_D1 1 Business: Name: Mom..-r V__ ?> tz_r-.r,-ems Address: 1'2%SCD f2-Q---'k�� 7e 1-Po-\- �* r , • J —, ZZ�k Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: J a` -A • a-0 1 Business: Name: -\- %-A3 SC.1 r-1 Address: C_X'.A� 0-y- Telephone: E-Mail:�n�<-_�� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 5/,—? q/ / / Business: r') 1 Name: �� 1 A, Address: 7 rAxy�/!)Zzufill :l! e �S Pjl) Telephone: 5 119 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the nRosewood Hotel. Dated: '7 Business: Name: Address: Telephone: 6L2�- �r �� �� E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: >��i/ / // Business: Name: Address: ION Telephone: E-Mail: �� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the ap rov l of the Rosewood Hotel. z Dated: ✓ Business: �, ' l f /Jy 110-1AIVIV `I 1111L- jG Name:X" Address: Telephoner E-Mail: ��r!�1 L' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 2SO-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: G-3_k� Name: Se'o,(` ?0 Address: Telephone: 160 " 'l b6 —S 1't0 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. rr Dated: J "r Business: i' 1 +� ��� c'du Name: Address: 1% Telephone: V �� 0 " 1) i� �2� ram. a r'' E-Mail:��jt�'y'/+����,'li.,"� a ;� DtSr?T CA SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL 201� ese Chy or PeIm Dnj�IN 13 PM 1 ' 03 Communhy Development TO: Palm Desert City Council JUN 10 2011 Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 6 1�111 Business: Name SJ3 �C�I��Scm % 15l�S 8'.o J---bhnSc,' Address: 73-7d 81 �� (rr► Dewd) I & 1 z2-6 c) Telephone: 6 7� - 17o9 CO E-Mail: c' 1 ! 2-L q �/r7 r COPY TO 2 DATE SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 2S0- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 7 Name: Address: Telephone: % E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. (/l Dated: ` 1 t I Business: 1 Name: . �� _ v- G'�_. Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Name: � �>il �� Om-yd'_�t d Address: c lHl t� Telephone: 7 b(;' E-Mail: 4 IL �� C . Y ✓ = L'yl SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: C 7 20 1 Name: Address: C' -Z2 Telephone: S-G t ' (JG 7CC7 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: J Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: .11 �_�J CCj �QiYYi SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: vri E Name: Address: � ZL6 �) C Telephone: �. E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of t e Rosewood Hotel. Dated: hc_� -� i 1 Name: I� p Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the, Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Name: IC46 Address: C Telephone: E-Mail: aZ'I'_'C vl SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 4% I Name: V it Address: q 2- % c) Telephone: 1 b o E-Mail: W�lIV:1 Gil SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Name: Address Telephone: 7 M — / 3 6 -5 E-Mail: �L,�ir �C �L.4>I//� % Cv ` SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: -; w 7 . / / Name: Address: 7ti� 1 Telephone: E-Mail: a SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Name: G Address: �' '� - �CdTelephone: y,� Jv" E-Mail.f / t�C�,� ` i' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ti ` Name: Address: %' 1 -iil Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 6 ` .4 ' ? v I I Name: , ✓v� Address: I (l J c) Telephone: -T (:;, C) _-:1 ei-0 ° E-Mail: _ __ m _� r SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 7 ZO// Name:/�� //�i� l,�✓r'�%fiu Address: ///O Telephone: 7AI / c637 — 9700 3 E-Mail: 141CA '-5 &r Ap: - /Iu. 4::.�W SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer, on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sadpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 2S0- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert'�and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to suppor,,t the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated:',' Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: /, Name: ( C;c 11�►� l�� he WV I Address. j ►� c Telephone: � � � (0 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: Ijw'G/.0 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident in or owner of a unit in the Sandpiper project, and am well aware of the economic benefit an upscale project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on Sandpiper and the City of Palm Desert. The up scale nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums will certainly bode well for the values of the Sandpiper units. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250- 300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the hotel guest, will add a needed economic boost to Palm Desert and the area surrounding the hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the /osewood Hotel. Dated: -� ! Name: Address: l Telephone: E-Mail: / G% C37 elK(511414� wUc.- SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: �0, `3 -�� 4 ` 6 Lo J �0 �>_ S I � Q, Name: �}!✓� \ 9� n Address: ! 3 QX_ Telephone: %y �?Z E-Mail: N i /� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: _ s' ZU� Business: o4h, Name: Address: _7Q Telephone: 7(e, 0 7�) , ) ((�O .— �� E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: i Business: Name: ��y�J 5 C� Address: d )-�� -�w t.,. {�✓LI h C Telephone: �( � `> ly E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: r t Name: Address: Telephone: %CG ` " 7G; 6 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: / Business: --7_�IA) /2,4 �Y Name: �/�li� J Address: Telephone: 4o-47 ;3 440161)-� E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: e� 0 Business: Le 0 i Name: C Address: �56���� Telephone: 7z�y J ac+() E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: -7 `'7�az (/ p J )6- 6 CJ Telephone: 1��lOQ/ �J ` -Lo E-Mail: ��� e SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to he located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: (� o, j� 6/�� Business: j� (Name: �ILx�11)11 A._ Address: _41L-11A 4 , �22Yo Telephone: 766 — 12 E-Mail: �V� Pi i�y�� i ( '/L —. SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. t I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �0 Business: Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: /� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 19 I 'q Q 1 Business: I t ry\ot y W �NeL-IC' e- 531(10P4 Name: A U-'�L Address: 73 89 3-�'`�"'�""� 1 C Telephone: `� �'�J J 8 `7 E-Mail: l w bz c ,_3�6 1 7 0 (\ca k co ►,� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �f Business:(�C,i(;' Name:'�� Address: P6, 00, Telephone: (—)w) 3 � 364- E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of E1 Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: ��� J G CQ o �� ��v„ 1 Jt'�`( �� 1lU t� Name: J� rA M =U d K) �i If I I-E_) P'3 d !U Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: t 3 y6 IWO/ Business: Name: /6 le /�q //c Address: tJ�t (1e '4 _119-al6tr <4 vQ-Zsc9 Telephone: moo. G -7—. c�f? �Fi E-Mail: �a r '7 d IA4 alpsP� "Roos, Marv" <MRoos@msaconsultinginc.com> RE: Rosewood Hotel June 16, 2011 3:02:54 PM PDT Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> "Smith, Bob" <BSmith@msaconsultinginc.com> Robert: We are certainly supportive of quality projects like the Rosewood and can't believe in these economic times that the City of Palm Desert politicians and commissioners would act negatively on the project. Other than folks from Sandalwood has there been any effective opposition? I'm not convinced, however, that planning commissions and city council folks see support from the general development community as a compelling part of the public testimony --particularly from those who aren't headquartered in that city. We don't share the same stake that residents have and I have experienced that the commission/council folks regard us as the evil dark side that would support anything under consideration. Getting letters of support from PD residents, service organizations and businesses should prove far more effective politicalIy.. That said, I will craft a fabulous letter of support and wish you well. Marvin D. Roos Director of Design Development MSA Consulting, Inc. -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Roark [mailto:rwroark@me.co@ Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: Roos, Mary Subject: Rosewood Hotel Marvin: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of E1 Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 6 — 7` 11 Business: b 0 ` i U e I /'�et, Name: `^ Ur Address: 3 � VU e/ A S4 f) Telephone: E-Mail r-roin: Ed Schiller <eschiller@1 ilc.com> ',uhI; ct: RE: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 17, 2011 4:14:32 PM PDT ra: 'ROBERT PIPPIN' <rlpippin@me.com> Reply -To: eschiller@iilc.com 1 Attachment, 16.5 KB To: Honorable Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Concerned local Palm Desert residents Re: Rosewood Hotel Dear Honorable Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, As a concerned Coachella Valley Resident since 1886 and Palm Desert property owners, I am writing this letter in support of Rosewood Hotel As you know, the El Paso Retail/Restaurants are very economically depressed with several vacancies. With the current State of California new AB32 and SP375 laws on green house gases and restrict sprawl, project like the Rosewood Hotel make very good sense to reduce green house gas and help create a critical mass to support the retailers, restaurants and business on El Paseo. Please approve this project as it provides real solutions for the residents, retailers and restaurants and businesses of Palm Desert. Respectfully, Edward J. Schiller Property Owner 72740 Pitahaya Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Cell (714) 404-9270 e-mail, eschillerla)dc.rr.com From: ROBERT PIPPIN [mailto:rlpippin@me.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:14 AM To: eschiller@lilc.com Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel Ed: Just send me an e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel. I am printing them and delivering them to the City. Looking forward to seeing you on June 21. Pippin. VAN 4. CAI SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. — Dated: W�� f l�� /f� � �tli�I , A-. i Business: � � /t //c /�'t E `'� 1g11 Name: -J FA/►// ,V E S64&1vr iu Address: Telephone: E-Mail: N//1(-S) /t �, Nd s-P /e• i�G 6b Al SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: /„' Business:^ Name: Address: 0 --, '2 Telephone: (� �l E-Mail: � � rJ ��� t i ��� i O � C? • (- L SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: z//.> , // Business: T-/,Izj � e ,( Z 7 C Name: �1�=��C >��� (J� Address: Telephone: 5/ E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: -{ ' /-?- ©'/ Business: C 7-d S Name: 1:9/, , e l TZ,e1W d7 A� Address: T -3 - 4410 Z_Z U Telephone: E-Mail: %IW� G� /�� I/ � SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Qe Business: Name: Address: ����- ����- U Telephone: c-)^ E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Wr Name: Address:(, } l �/ % V o Telephone: E-Mail: (--/I q) a 3,:!5 q�-q I SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: Telephone: (U ) '�(p - \C� S� E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: z" cf?, .6az-,5 717 A01" 171--_Sfr7L-�I_?r2 Telephone: T 0 ,F3/— /02cc E-Mail:c?om SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: J. Business: Name: lam} fqhEC_0:_S Address: T/� 1 %-f LC3 CCL Telephone: w E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business c e, V k G" ' Y, 0 c Name: 7 Address: ( % i S 5 Telephone E-Mail: Cl r Y 1 (�C 1/G �Z C r' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: /p%1 W I Business: Name: A� Address: Telephone: ! ' . 113 —1 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the /approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: O MAID, and MORE Business: r Name: �/� D°�. /VZ Address: /I w y �� 1 �o Telephone: E-Mail: f1/�i.� ��D/�L= ��. �cJ 67. /QiG SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated:_-- r�i7 Business: Name: Address: 4 Telephone: 2�1 Zr'I '? I SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: It ST Business: �� Name: L �h2C�il Address: (D a Pa4_e6 -43 <7 �o - Telephone: q'f (©o E-Mail: G6LA{ U� t Ul�t Q� ��S�CX ?�yi elate SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on the El Paseo Business district and the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the El Paseo business district by the upscale hotel guest, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, the El Paseo business district, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 7 / / / Business: 6G Arnnn2 Ms t Maa a /" P a L G� i Name: &Zcaore/Y- Ct rl r 6-e &1) /% e Address: —73 /// Z—I i3o x e Q Po w't Telephone: V — 7 / /y7 / 7�(O E-Mail: Uall fq Cv G'e Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Tf Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name:k,�P,"'e?P�rint Signature: gn E-Mail: deA-luC_ &Q Afi -rr (2Will u----- Will not be s ared with other, Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: 'y7q0e.) Street (Will not be shared with others) P� 1w.._ I CJ gzz� a city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. NamE Signa E-Mai Phony Will not he shared with others Address:10(o k1ei'.,\N- jk �Q MStreet jCWill not e shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel, 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: '14 dx /�G� -46�re S _F L_ C% lease Print Signature: ao_& // Sign.. E-Mail:A /` PiJ 4� �'o,t &&z o d Will not be shared w' others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others 11 � QQ Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new S-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Z. : /�.S Please Pr' Signature: -/l Sign E-Mail: /,P/f .s r,✓yzn1ait Will not be shared with others Phone #: _,76a- " -- :5,?96 Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support ,.,Rosewood Hotel & Residences V Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: � " `P � C'`��f ' ��� Sign I E-Mail: ����7 o1V k (C t,t.(G Will not be shared with others G Phone #: (2� Zj Z�2 Will not be shared with others _ Address: ���' r (L� `Q<p G ti Streenot bwith others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. I r -`Z-4 -10 V -r- Name: � C Signature: Sign E-Mail: / Will not be shared with others Phone #: (7 b 0) 31 5 -_ S -7 d 9 Will not be shared with others Address: q7r l4 chi/✓QY� g�, Street (Will not be shared with othe s) �",IIKilm 6l . l a-� 3 city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences [Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: P in Signature: Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and E1 Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: `.1 Please Print Signature: qLACle-1-01, 1AQU4,4 Sign E-Mail: )42 •1�'I� u�a��•Cc�tM Will not be shared with others Phone #: R5;L— ! " ?J3 Will not be shared with others Address: �C61CRLIX- Street (Will not be shared with others) 9 QQZ Ca , qW7 City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: 1.4 4 I V oa r -e-- Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. NamE Signa E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip nsideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences (VJ Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name:,r i Please Print Signature: /T Sign E-Mail: / Will not be shared with others Phone #: l %lam 62� Will not be shred with others Address: = c 4- 0 T 1'¢ r !r, 14 Street (Will not be shared with others) l city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. i1-24-1[7 -r L C, Name: ,)q'Vie Please Print Signature: Sign Will not be shared with others Phone #: 7d:�9 __� 14/ 9 % Will not be shared with others Address: % ��?441 1PIA47 Street (Will not be shared with others) _T /Pr p City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences NA Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The E1 Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signatt E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and E1 Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The E1 Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name Signat E-Mai. ZE Willlot be shared with others Phone #: 7% U` c�& ?'' C2,�5� Will not be shared witthh�others/ Address: 15 QZ joe f tv / Street (Will not be shared with of ers) oZ S city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: &1� "L1( f f1 N Please Print Signature: Si n E-Mail: S L�`�L Q `�A-l�D� L Usi Will not be shared with others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street (YVi not be shared with others) v City State Zip Co sideration for Support 7Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Nam : Please Print Signature 4 Z E-Mail: ' 71 ✓C �� ��'� �- c Will not be shared with others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street CWill not be shared with others) City State Zip Co ideration for Support "Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: acer� ne, ease Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: �QAe,5Dof a1yakoa CoM I Will not be shared With Phone #: (���� 7 y L9 - pLi ( Will not be shared with others Address: E (I4h AVCA tub Street (Will not be shared with others) L01 umbuS 00 4� 36) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. I 1 2.. ,4 - i Q Name: Signati E-Mail Phone #: _. L Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: D� _ A / ea Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Ii-2-4-10 Name: PleaVoc�SiWA�_�_ ' Signature: Sign E-Mail: AkLbo u 40 QO Will not be shared with others Phone #: 419 • (�0% 4,z o Will not be shared with others Address: QX`1'o QL-� .�PQNNA�Qi&_�� - Street (Will not be shared with other C N city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1 ' A 2-4 , 1 6% Name: , �4 Please int Signature: Si kk nn�� E-Mail: (o,�-c)u p,'� L � � ✓'TUC, C, Will not be shared with others Phone #: 3tt o �(c1--q ycf-,�J_ Will Z�z d with others Address: Ld __JJV Street (Will not be shared with others City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: G .- Please Orint Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: 7(QU - 1 "' o -45C>( Will not be shared with others Address: St ree (Will not be shared with others) city State zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences ® Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to E1 Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please "nt Signature: Sign E-Mail: rr�� Q �e� . h CO—, Q iz& / C4?r Will not be shared witfi others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: 4.-� _ ` J. Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shyse� it�e�s� Address: Y G Street (Will not be shared with others) a� M C.& • l0 City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences '] Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signati E-Mail Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. I - 1© Name: o-, e-SC.0 rcr r T' Please Print Signature: C Sign E-Mail: �l�G'�(i�1a-�SC,q 1���./ cl��hOC7 • c,�nn Will not be shared with others Phone #: 7f) Q - (28 1- -1 2 2 Will not be shared with others Address: N alp la_ n.- Street (Will not be shared with others) M 0L_1-Ace:✓\ Cn" k/\ C? Z J G I city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to E1 Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: PleAse Print Signature:,/ 1 Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: IL4. Street (Will not be shared with others) V,A M<,A � Da6z> City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to E1 Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signati E-Mail Phone #: Address: not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and E1 Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. h U � 1-_-) Name: I Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: / eUi n Q it n0' / e se Print / — Signature: f//2 Sign E-Mail: �! 3 C-) Will not be shared with others Phone #: Iq L(1� — j 13 19- Will not be shared with others Address: 4- Z - 000 '3a3 I-LQP C U't_ Street (Will not be shared with others) 12J-t CA- �2Z� City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. j 1 -Zq- -10 TL-C:. Name: Signati E-Mail Phone #: Address: win not De snarea with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip 1 Lr y C U/Y_\ Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. fie Name- P ease Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: of 6e red w others Phone #: Will not he shared with others Address: Street (Will not he shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Y 1fASATV Please Print Signature: IV Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name:LL- Please Print Signature: Sign �- E-Mail: dA1Q,14/d1*M1ebZ11 Q 44lio o. a o wl- Will not be shared wi others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: rvl? 6e ) ) Ple Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Dom) 2e5 - ag ( 0 Will not be shared with others Address: 106 14bV" o.&- 2 & - ""e Street (Will not be shared with others) GZ7- city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel, 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will notbe shared with Phone #: �M%;�OtKill not Address: J1/C.] S, trill not be shared ' others) V () city IState Zip onsideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signature: E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Please Print Sign Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1 Name: J001 6.(airmakitl Please Print Signature: auv Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences �] Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Prin Signatures Sign E-Mail: ill not be shared with others Phone #: __ 4� lc % Will not be shared with others — Address: e:�0-4 ,g �iS�✓T��-s.e..t� /� Stre not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The E1 Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. �l-Z4-10 Name: �t Please Print Signature: 1 Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo.. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: — Pleas6 rint Signature: E-Mail: Sign Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others I Address: � ' 5 15— Street (Wil t be shared with others) 4�A— city S to Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 2S0 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. iI-24-ICE Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: 7c;�y c* — ;7 Will not be shared with others Address: 0 0lG : � Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences r] Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: --� PleaseJFrint Signature. ken Sign E-Mail:S C AG \ 1�6 . C p r+1 Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip onsideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: It," Ik ►1( l L,V" C Please Print Signature: CC,,..,,'' Sign E-Mail: �,n l �- (1t 1� (�1� V^f 0 1 Cnpn Will not be shared with others Phone #: -kp — "M 4 G Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: _T ioni6IL—W-i PI se Print Signature: Sign r E-Mail: _ cor, Wi not be shared with oth rs Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address:(5 Street (Will not be shared with oth s) a k, k " c or - city—J State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: J 0 W6"r d-W Please ,nt Signature: Sign E-Mail: KD Will not be shared with others Phone #: 1)5 1r !XX-7d b 0 Will not be shared with others p Address: 7 I (Pki� 120 Street (Will not be shared with others) Gor0r7 � CA eP>- _ city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences ® Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new S-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 2S0 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signatupe—C E-Mail: Ai 2M Address: Will not be shared with others no D - w06 a Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Please Pri Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared wit thers Phone ' 7 dinot 6e shared with others Address: a.Sf/Ui%L A4V6 Street (Will not be shared with others) �AL�r /21 < C,4 i ZZl% city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. (-Z-4 —i o Name: A Signature: E-Mail: Phone #: be sh re with others be shared with others T- L L Address: Str ill not be shared with others / h /3� 12T City State Zip 1 ?3 Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 6 I -Z.4-10 Name: Please Print Signature: ign E-Mail: S Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: ad/`O�-t"X l f` ,c lk-%— Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The E1 Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 11-2-4-)0 7 L_ (il Name: f VIV �LO(jq Please Print r Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will be shared with others Phone #: � I— �8T Will not be shared with others Address: 7 3 -CLe I C`1 Jk5eB 5tf . ZOO Street (Will not be shared with others) QQ l matwt- CJ 9ZZILO city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sifr( and City Council approving a new S-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 2S0 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Pleas P� Signature: rint E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. II-Z4-1® Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: �� s�i`J �..0.�� • Cam-. Will not be shared with others Phone #: SSA �J Will not be shared with others Address: Street (Will not be shared with others) City State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Ju 1;4 10 l I e S,0-V] Pleas Prin Signature: Sign E-Mail: Will not be shared with others Phone #: Will not be shared with others Address: 2 2-2 i Jo K Nwi hq Lim 10 2l Street (Will not be shared with others) S� alc �2 z city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: Signatt E-Mail: 3 3 [atiy� Cam. Will not be shared with others Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip The Rosewood Resort i nr Billing out this lorm to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the t:o,ichella Valley every year, visitors �vho will he new to the valley. A new stream of �ve��ithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It • ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. 1111S resort will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local emergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in tail -time, permanent jobs. in every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide ! copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so 1 can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: Piease Mot Company Na pie Signature:✓ Si yr: E-Mail: Phone #: � � �,� V, Address: �.� Street nc - VT ) ft',� State ZIP The Rosewood Resort i'm tilling out this torm to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I knokti Lhit a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the ;oachelia Valley every year, visitors who tivill be new to the valley. A new stream of 'weaithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It will attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. Flr;s resort will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local <mergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in lull -time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide a copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: j-C' VIVy Gi�T J picric Print Company Name:'�?� Signature: s yn E-Mail: c=J Phone #: ;Ej., �) 3 address: i -3 - ' ;> C7 , �� - Street L7r,' State Zip The Rosewood Resort i'irr ziiiing out this form to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. 1 know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the Coachella Valley every year, visitors who will be new to the valley. A new stream or ,v-edithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. it ,ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. ('iris resort will aiso provide more than one million dollars every year for local �rnergency and police .services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in iuil-tune, permanent jobs. in every vvay this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide I copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: '�yv:q L z' /c Z ✓/7/�j Z Nieasc Print Company Name: Signature: S;yn E-Mail: %/��y _3 �.�� % z S/V Phone #: 71G) 1-1-6 ,lei iAddress: 73 2� ! zr Z Strcer C,ti- stare Zip The Rosewood Resort i'lll r'iliing out this term to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the Coachella Valley every year, visitors who will be new to the valley. A new stream of :veaithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It will attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to E1 Paseo every week. Bills resort will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local emergency and police set -vices. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in full-time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide a copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name:.- Aq Z_,E_ Picase Print Company Name: ;"�Z_J_-7_ Signature: /z,y ./I,._►---- s;y„ E Mail: e2t,k,/ =H 7— ��J/ i /f C5 / Address: _ l s - 3-7i [z eZ City stare zip The Rosewood Resort l 111 fng ;)ut this form to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the ,U),ichella Valley every year, visitors who will be new to the valley. A new stream of .vcaithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It v ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. i"Ills resort will diso provide more than one million dollars every year for local emergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in luil-time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide a copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. l � Personal Name: � 4 L- Nease Prier Company Name:t Signature: E-Mail: Phone #: Address: ��)� `f-�l ►. L, �,�*-Pt � �,���� �treer u)., -itY" stare zip The Rosewood Resort i`m tilling out this Corm to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know tilat a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring; thousands of affluent visitors to the C o,ichella Valley every year, visitors who will he new to the valley. A new stream of "ve'aithy people corning into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It v-ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. IFills resort will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local emer ency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in roil -time, permanent jobs. in every way this resort will he a major boost for the local economy. Please provide :_r copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: ' (� Ck, A �� T /�.-1��AdI11 ,, Plea1e Print Company Signature: Name: S i Stye. E-Mail: UcJ, CU^ Phone #: (-766� -7% S -- ,S— 6 r C � � " :-address: � � 7 Sr L= � �Cts-eg � Street City State Zip The Rosewood Resort i"" milling out Lids Corm to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the Coachella Valley every year, visitors who will be new to the valley. A new stream of tieaithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It �.V ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to E1 Paseo every week. 1;s r-esurt will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local �:mergency and polio services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in roil time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide a copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: Pleu.se Print Company Name: �w •�,v?/,d1y��j�,Q�T Signature: Sign E- Ma i I: liri.Wo Phone #: ,,?/0 L/ ¢ / jp� :address: �,337.<4; // / .C"� l/%�•�'�-,fl Street City State Zip The Rosewood Resort i'nr tllli<<g :gut this form to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the Coachella Valley every year, visitors who will he new to the valley. A new stream of wealthy people coming into the valley will increase sales for ail valley husinesses. It will attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. This resort will aiso provide more than one million dollars every year for local emergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in mull -time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide a copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name: �_4�*(Kiw Piea w Print Company Name: q0 �,vi Signature: S;yn E-Mail: Phone #: - C Address: Street City State Zip Jrhe Rosewood Resort irn riliing out this l:arrn to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the C:oaci�elia Valley every year, visitors who will he new to the valley. A new stream or ,Xeaithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses, It .vlil attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. 111:� resort will aiso provide more than one million dollars every year for- local � mergency and police services. The resort wviil also hire more than 250 people in fr.rll-time, permanent jobs. in every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide 11 copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name:. Z4�I p ��--aAI3ti Piease Print Company Name:444� Signature: ( z2l&�� S}yn E-Mail: Phone #: Address: St reer City State ZIP The Rosewood Resort lrn tiliing out this Corm to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know that a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the Coachella Valley every year, visitors who will be new to the valley. A new stream of "Vea thy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It 'A ill attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. This resort will also provide more than one million dollars every year for local emergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in tuil-time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide J copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal Name:�'�i=il'�i�= 7 A),'G j/ Piease Print Company Name: % /f 1 6 7 Signature: Siyo E-Mail: Phone #: 76 0 716 //a l Address: 7.i' Street City state z,P The Rosewood Resort i,ni iliing out this ior*m to support economic growth in the Coachella Valley. I know tt!at a 5-star Rosewood Resort will bring thousands of affluent visitors to the (Io,ichella Valley every year, visitors who will, be new to the valley. A new stream or Vellithy people coming into the valley will increase sales for all valley businesses. It till attract several hundred wealthy shoppers to El Paseo every week. Thi-)' resort Zvi!! aiso provide more than one million dollars every year, for local emergency and police services. The resort will also hire more than 250 people in roil -time, permanent jobs. In every way this resort will be a major boost for the local economy. Please provide -1 copy of this form to the Palm Desert City Council so they will know of my support. Please keep me aware of when the project goes to the Planning Commission and the City Council so I can show my support by being in the audience. I know it is important for city officials to see local support for this project. Personal .Name: G( Piease Print Company Name: Signature: � �,`yJk7JiC( %� SiCJ(1 E-Mail:G�.(2L- - L'�'lYl/l , Phone #:?��t3-ZL/0 I Address: "T76 70 JJ(3C i� 5- Street C 2 Crz Z. City State Zip Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signature: yitlea Please Print —i Sign E-Mail: �� Z/G �c�� 'e"4,7-elltw (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to E1 Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signatu E-Mail: �ti2 v , (W I not be shared with others.) Phone #: %6� 3 y/ 394� (Willn otbe shared with others.) Address: %�5 y� l (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip E; a Ay just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. i r Name:<<iv' a� ►Z �� �- Please Print Signature: < E-Mail: T-r`�y,= R (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: `? ! , i =? Please Print Signature;_" Sign E-Mail: L _ 3 0 \-,[ "^\ q b0 , co ni (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: _ G U -3�_,--I `(; L 2 U q (Will not be shared with others.) Address: !�''�►v �` f (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: ell - Please Print Signature: A& fl� 1n^,,'A,� n fir, Sign E-Mail: V Y� -V�dt Oq, / (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: 7GO a0,� 0gS0 (Will not be shared with others.) Address: �ST W (Will not be shared with others) treet "f ?2 city I State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: der l I lease Print Signature: �' i1 / Sign E-Mail: (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: (Will not be shared with others.) Address: (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. It-Z4 -1O T I_ (' - Name: n MaSW Please Pri Signature. Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Address: Street ill not be shared with others) City State Zip Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signatu E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: ✓ Plehse Print Signature: A11/11 Sign E-Mail: �c� 2 G 5 u5a*\- `GaYA (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: �1 GOO 3 Y 3 -9 z i l q (Will not be shared with others.) 11 Address: Z l z. W,)10,6 (Will not be shared with others) Street pynSr,i,�- GA gZz�O city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: L-x%-Lcen �L Please Prin Signature: (3L ,( Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street C City C,,tU,5 State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along E1 Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: 1, C C'� S�;d)l Z�Cytf Please Print 'j Signature: / '�i G� 1���=_� :' � r 6' � f- Sign E-Mail: (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: -�?333 (Will not be shared with others.) Address:S C�Zr�G S (Will not be sharch with others) Street cityState Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Please Print Signa re: Sig E-Mai , -�A% s AtY_CqVn -'] (Will not be shared with others.) Phone # 0 !C-) K (Will not be shared with others.) Address: (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along E1 Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Pleas(' Print Signature: L Sign E-Mail: ��;,y,- le ;x_vn;c.finch L c c vi (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: 76 C Address: 23 ,�T / (Will not be shared with others.) /�z q c , --t -e- (Will not be shared with others) Street P,,Ot� S PIC i "e5 c"I `1ZL k Z_ city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: [ 1 0� Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: - X,-\) OY- J O (Will not be shared with others.) Phone (Will not be shared with others.) Address:-- _( '3'W3_7 S krA..CF czk� M clUt'1 �Y\ (Will not be shared with others) Street V_45��� De <� -e- v- City State Zip MIOI C just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to E1 Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signau E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along E1 Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the Name: -IDA m Signature: E-Mail: V Phone #: v t Address: �1 (k just An Hour o ing, please sign to show your support. Your Time ill Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signatu E-Mail: Phone #: (4_21�_� TA (Will not be shareD'others.) Address: (Will not be shared with others),Ftreet city State Zip 41A t4r� just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the -hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: v / LJ Please Print Signature:( E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Sign (Will not be shared with others.) .f- (Will not be shared with others.) (YVill not be shared with others) Street city State Zip C just An Hour of Yo Time Wil Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along E1 Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: a Vin Pl rint Signature: E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Sign (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name:1" I Signature: E-Mail: (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: 7( (0 O ` * S(oQ (Q & 5 q (Will not be shared with others.) Address: (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip V\ SP �� Just An Hour of Your Time Will ake a Big ifference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name; Signat E-Mail: uY V F-6 0 oA 1 e v,4L CAJ cU m (Will not be shared with thers.) r3 -� 0 Phone #:�° i q br (Willnotbe shared with others.) (� Address: (Will not be shared wit o Street U � ers) aid city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: f Piease Print f". 1 Signature:''"�-- Sign E-Mail: N V iZ f c cC — (Will not be share with others.) Phone #: 1 G' " _ 4 (, u- . Z (Will not be shared with others.) Address: _-)DU (Will not be shared with others) Street ( 2 city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: l Z� _ Please Print ---" "-- Signature: Sign E-Mail: �- (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: V 3 �> J Q� (Will not be shared with others.) v Address: (Will Nt be shp d with other treet 1 city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't s ow up for the hearing, ple s ign to show your support. Name: Please Print Signature: 1 0 E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip C WWSUA J just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: CVO% t V�1 k L W 12- I t Please ° Print I Signature: vti � ice' �� f I% Sign 0 E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: %) KL� ti ' / E✓' C� �� D0, 'aI (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: (Will not be shared with others.) Address:�ii •�y (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: . E-Mail: Phone #: Address: ' Please Print Sign (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: 11' rA6 Please Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1'. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: I G cv } Ay) Ci2 // Please Print Signature: 4 �k owd Sign E-Mail: ; ri a� ,-iJ • Ccrfvt (Will no e shared with others.) Phone #: a) 7�— Fla% (Will not be shared with others.) Address: Z,31/00 9J PS2d -* A52 (Will not be shared with others) Street ,Z2 �O ty In State Zip Just An Hour o Your Ti a W' Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: �� �, 4,jL-- Please Print Signature: ""� " - - " Sign E-Mail: �-S w .4r� L La CU*-t.,, G G. C-OAl (Will not be shared with others.) Phone#: 7(oo- 5�7- d/41% (Will not be shared with others.) Address: not be shared with others) Street City State Zip C R`a5 _� 6 e#4&5) just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. i Name: 4 'Please Print 16Signature: v'- �-- J (^ Sign E-Mail: ill not be shared with others.) Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Please Pri t Signature: Sign E-Mail: (Will not be shared with others.) Phone #: `7 (Will not e ared with others Address: Will not be shared with of rs) Street �-- Cit State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to El Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 Jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Growthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! Just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: Signatur - Sign E-Mail. Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street city State Zip Just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Benefits of the Rosewood Resort Locals will benefit from the Rosewood Resort 1. $1 million per year for emergency services. The Rosewood Resort will generate more than $1 million every year to Palm Desert to pay for police and emergency services. 2. Affluent Customers. Affluent visitors from the Rosewood Resort will in- crease business for shops and restaurants along El Paseo and within Palm Desert. The Rosewood Resort will bring more than 30,000 affluent visi- tors per year to E1 Paseo and Palm Desert. 3. 250 jobs. The hotel will generate 250 permanent jobs with full benefits. Anti-Gr.owthers Are Trying To Kill The Rosewood Resort Anti -growth people want to keep things just the way they are today. They are threatening to show up at the planning commission hearing to kill this project. You Can Make A Difference You can save this wonderful resort simply by being in the hearing room starting at 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 18. You can make a difference! just Your Signature Will Help Even if you can't show up for the hearing, please sign to show your support. Name: � A14� ' Please Print Signature: vrnK Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others.) (Will not be shared with others) Street City State Zip just An Hour of Your Time Will Make a Big Difference! Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences 19 Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. - 2..4 -1© Name: Please Print Signature: ign E-Mail: h q j yr a _,44 A o, Go 4,1„ Will not be shared with-dthers Phone #: 7(Zy - --7-?3 . V Will not be shared with others Address: �? 3 b C / V /010 Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Consideration for Support Rosewood Hotel & Residences 21 Yes, I support the City of Palm Desert Planning Commis- sion and City Council approving a new 5-Star, boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences. 1. Boutique Rosewood Hotel & Residences generates well-being. ■ Over $1 million every year in taxes directly to the City of Palm Desert. ■ 250 permanent jobs in the boutique hotel. 2. The Look and Use is Harmonious with El Paseo. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission embraced the design as fitting into the city and El Paseo's architectural style. 3. Affluent Clientele. Rosewood's established clients who already know Rose- wood's high hospitality standards elsewhere, want to use Rosewood when they experience the Coachella Valley's many celebrity events, restaurants and natural beauty. 4. The El Paseo Business Improvement District (BID) views the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences as augmenting and complementary to El Paseo. Call for Action! Please keep me informed about Palm Desert's handling of the Rosewood Ho- tel & Residences. I would like to be alerted when the Planning Commission is going to review the Rosewood Hotel & Residences. Name: J7 k lle�_ 1,5� ease Print Signature: Sign E-Mail: Phone #: Address: Will not be shared with others Will not be shared with others Street (Will not be shared with others) city State Zip Barbara deBoom From: Barbara Conly [barbaraconly@me.com] Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:22 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Beach House Yogurt Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <Barbara Conly, Owner Beach House Yogurt Palm Desert Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Khal Butler [khal@marrakeshcountryclub.comj Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:12 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Cc: mjoblon@friedmaneq.com; 'Robert F. Wulf Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Attachments: Board. 12.21.10.doc To whom it may concern, <Marrakesh Country Club> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed < Marrakesh Board of Directors Barbara, The Marrakesh Board of Directors supports the Rosewood project. Please open and review attachment. Let me know if you have any questions. Khal Butler, CCM, CCAM Executive V.P./General Manager Marrakesh Country Club Ph: 760.568.2688 x104 12/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Stuart Markus [smarkus@worldviewtravel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010101 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Importance: High To whom it may concern, Stuart L. Markus and Worldview Travel Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Stuart L. Markus x WVTIogoSigVirtuoso448x85 Stuart Markus, Regional Manager of Business Development Worldview Travel 73-160 El Paseo Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (760) 340-6661 12/15/2010 Message Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Angela Roman (CI-PLM) [aroman@clubintrawest.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:21 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, I Angela Roman support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Angela Roman Guest Experience Manager Club Intrawest Palm Desert 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Chris Marsack [cemarsackl @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:14 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Christopher E Marsack/ Artistic Solutios> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <Christopher E Marsack 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Chris Marsack [cemarsack1@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:24 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Nima Pauline and Artistic Solutions> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <Nima Pauline> 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Yvonne Babb [ybabb@PDNB.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:14 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Yvonne Babb with Palm Desert National Bank Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 5€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed: Yvonne Babb 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Yvonne [yvonne@palmdesertdoor.com) Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:31 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Palm Desert Door & Hardware, Inc. supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 -300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Dale & Yvonne Paul Owners, Palm Desert Door & Hardware, Inc. 73605 Dinah Shore Drive, Bldg. 300C Palm Desert, CA 92211 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Ruhl, Theresa [truhl@CBIZ.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:40 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Theresa Ruhl and CBIZ Payroll> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 5€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Carlotta.DCR [Carlotta.DCR@sunriseseniorliving.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:28 AM To: 'barbara@pdcc.org' Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Laureen Kearney, The Fountains at The Carlotta> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a?? 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here Su Anse Senior L!ving offers the truest senor iiving and care options to senicrs and trieir families _eam more about Sunrse at tEp-r�www sunriseseniorliving om Th;s communication contains information fmi Sunrise .Senior Llv;r,g that -nay be conficentia; Except for persona! use by the intenaec .e- ip- nt Or � . expressly autn lri _d bJ 'he sender any person whp receives lris .rlfl. ^matiU l is i i ohiblted from disclosing opi ing, d,s,rib long and or ising it if you !ave received this oDmminicatiOn in error please irnm.ediateiy dilate It and all � pies and pruiiptly !iotifv the sender 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Milt Jones [milt@palmspringslife.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 6:09 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Desert Publications Inc Publishers of Palm Springs Life Magazine Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 5E" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Milton W. Jones Publisher. 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: rita jackson [dese rtsu n @live. cal Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:28 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: proposed 5 star rosewood hotel To whom it may concern, rita jackson, two rajas/sculptrx. Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a?" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. i think this would be a definite asset to the valley and to the permanent residents along with the snowboards that come each year. sincerely, rita jackson 12/13/2010 Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 1 of 2 Barbara deBoom From: Gloria R. Franz [gloria@franztatum.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:55 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: RE: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Great! I hope it gets approved. Gloria R. Franz, UP REGISTERED PRINCIPAL X Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CA77F8.06254120 34 220 Gateway Drive Suite 100 Palm Desert, Ca 92211 Office: 760.770.2003 Fax: 760.770.2770 gloria@franztatum.com Securities & advisory services offered through National Planning Corporation (NPC), Member FIN RA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Franz Tatum Wealth Management, Inc. and NPC are separate & unrelated companies. From: barbara@pdcc.org [mailto:barbara@pdcc.org] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:19 PM To: gloria@franztatum.com Subject: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Greetings Gloria Below are the links to the proposed 5 STAR ROSEWOOD HOTEL on Hwy 74 and El Paseo. At the Palm Desert Chamber June Board of Directors Planning Conference there was unanimous support of this project. We are asking for your support. Read below: This project, if approved, would bring much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. As you might have already guessed, there is some opposition to the project by the usual NIMBY suspects. One can wonder about their motives for opposing a project that provides so much benefit to the business community and surrounding property owners and City, but they are indeed out there, and pose a threat to the completion of the project. To counter the naysayers, we must convince the elected and appointed officials of Palm Desert that this project has the support of the people and businesses of 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Graham Balog [grahamb@teserraoutdoors.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:34 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Graham Balog and Teserra support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Graham Balog Graham Balog Vice President of Sales X Teserra P.O. Box 1280 86-100 Avenue 54 Coachella, CA 92236 Tel 760.398.9222 Fax 760.398.9255 Mob 760.275.1171 www.TeserraO utdoors.com 12/14/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Meegan Sullivan [meegan@propersolutions.biz] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:23 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Meegan Sullivan and Proper Solutions Inc. support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250-300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Meegan Sullivan Meegan Sullivan I Proper Solutions 74-900 Hwy 111 Ste. 2211 Indian Wells, CA 92210 (760) 862-1818 DIRECT 1 (760) 862-9938 DIRECT FAX meegan@orooersolutions.biz 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Michael Shepherd [michael@theshepherdgroup.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:50 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, I support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Respectfully, MICHAEL SHEPHERD President/CEO The Shepherd Group, Inc. www.theshepherdgroup.com Riverside County Office 367 Muirfield Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760)340-9300 - tel (760)340-4199 - fax Orange County Office 4695 MacArthur Court, 11th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)798-5595- tel (949)798-5501 - fax 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Faye Jones [fayejones1@vedzon.net] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:13 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Faye Jones Interior Design> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <Faye Jones -Banks 12/13/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Tim Esser [tim@esserac.com] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:18 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here Tim Esser Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Lenore Rabinowitz [lenore@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:47 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Lenore Lee Rabinowitz, L & A Enterprises, Inc.> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <Lenore Lee Rabinowitz (L & A Enterprises, Inc. 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: David Rosenthal [david.rosenthal@intentusgroup.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:11 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, THE INTENUS GROUP Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. David E. Rosenthal 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: gregory goodman [mylittleflowershopps@gmail.coml Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 7:29 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, My Little Flower Shop Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Alan H. Kelly 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Jeanne [Jeanne@lsapconsultants.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:26 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Land Survey and Planning Consultants support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Jeanne Erpelding, Partner for Land Survey and Planning Consultants (760) 288-2232 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Ryan Brown [RBrown@classicpartyrentals.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:35 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Classic Party Rentals Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the Coachella Valley business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ryan Brown Ryan Brown I General Manager Classic Party Rentals 72009 Metroplex Drive Thousand Palms, CA 92276 o: 760.343.5110 xl 18 1 f: 760.343.5111 1 c: 760.275.7114 rbrown@classicpartvrentals.com I www.classicpartyrentaIs.com 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 2 Barbara deBoom From: dougbalog@aol.com Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:31 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Cc: grahamb@teserraoutdoors.com; brook@dc.rr.com; marnie@teambalog.com; chris@teambalog.com Subject: Re: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Barbara I am in total support for the development. Please let me know what I can do to blow out the NIMBY's! Cheers Doug -----Original Message ---- From: barbara <barbara@pdcc.org> To: dougbalog <dougbalog@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 1:19 pm Subject: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Greetings Doug Below are the links to the proposed 5 STAR ROSEWOOD HOTEL on Hwy 74 and El Paseo. At the Palm Desert Chamber June Board of Directors Planning Conference there was unanimous support of this project. We are asking for your support. Read below: This project, if approved, would bring much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. As you might have already guessed, there is some opposition to the project by the usual NIMBY suspects. One can wonder about their motives for opposing a project that provides so much benefit to the business community and surrounding property owners and City, but they are indeed out there, and pose a threat to the completion of the project. To counter the naysayers, we must convince the elected and appointed officials of Palm Desert that this project has the support of the people and businesses of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. My objective for this email is educate and inform you about this project, and for you to have the opportunity to discuss the project with Managing Director, Matt Joblon (310-734-2018) if you are interested. Thank you very much for your continued support. Please feel free to call Mr. Joblon if you have any questions. I am including some extra information with the below links. To send a quick email in SUPPORT of this project CLICK THIS LINK TO SEND AN EMAIL OF SUPPORT Website: http://www.desertfifthstar.com/index. htmI YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ99WKYnTng Best Regards, Barbara deBoom, CEO Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Sharon Wyler [SWyler@classicpartyrentals.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:37 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Sharon Wyler Event Specialist with Classic Party Rentals Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000,invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Sharon Wyler 12/13/2010 Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: GM Palm Desert [gmpalmdesert@ruthschris.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:30 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, I Tim Snyder general Manager of Ruth's Chris Steak House Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 SC" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Thank You, Tim Snyder General Manager ,Palm Desert Ruth's Chris Steak House 760-779-1998 760-773-5490 Fax gmpalmdesert@ruthschris.com Find us on Facebook This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please notify sender of the delivery error by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of confidentiality or privilege. 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Veronica Slaughter DC [veronicals@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:14 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, As a Chiropractor and business owner on El Paseo, support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a?" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Thank you, Dr. Veronica Slaughter 12/13/2010 Barbara deBoom From: lisa.slam@thedvba.com Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:31 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern; I, Lisa Slam, a long time resident of Palm Desert, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the E1 Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Lisa Slam Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® 1 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: tschufelt@ufpb.net Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:50 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, The User Friendly Phone Book and WWW.thedesert247.com Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Bob Schneider [redjeepbob@gmail.com] on behalf of Bob Schneider [bobs@red-jeep.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:28 AM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Bob Schneider of Desert Adventures support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here Bob Schneider President Desert Adventures 760-898-3327 Direct bobs(o-)-red-ieep.com Life is an Adventure... Make it a Desert Adventure www.red-oeeD.com 12/13/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Thibault, Marc [marc.thibault@avisions.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:17 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, AUDIOVISIONS Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Marc Thibault Marc Thibault Systems Designer AUDIOVISIONS 75430 Gerald Ford Dr. Suite 201 Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-340-4555 main line 760-285-0679 mobile line 760-557-1559 main fax www.avisions.com<http://www.avisions.com> 1 Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 1 of 2 Barbara deBoom From: PSAM Sales [sales@palmspringsairmuseum.org] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:49 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: RE: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Hi Barbara; Thanks for your email. Yes; I and the Air Museum encourage any local development that will enhance the economy of the valley. Bob Roark is a personal friend and he said he will keep me advised of the progress of this development. Best Regards; Jerry Ripp From: barbara@pdcc.org [mailto:barbara@pdcc.org] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:18 PM To: sales@palmspringsairmuseum.org Subject: Support Needed for Economic Boost from proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Greetings Jerry Below are the links to the proposed 5 STAR ROSEWOOD HOTEL on Hwy 74 and El Paseo. At the Palm Desert Chamber June Board of Directors Planning Conference there was unanimous support of this project. We are asking for your support. Read below: This project, if approved, would bring much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. As you might have already guessed, there is some opposition to the project by the usual NIMBY suspects. One can wonder about their motives for opposing a project that provides so much benefit to the business community and surrounding property owners and City, but they are indeed out there, and pose a threat to the completion of the project. To counter the naysayers, we must convince the elected and appointed officials of Palm Desert that this project has the support of the people and businesses of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. My objective for this email is educate and inform you about this project, and for you to have the opportunity to discuss the project with Managing Director, Matt Joblon (310-734-2018) if you are interested. Thank you very much for your continued support. Please feel free to call Mr. Joblon if you have any questions. I am including some extra information with the below links. To send a quick email in SUPPORT of this project CLICK THIS LINK TO SEND AN EMAIL OF SUPPORT Website: http://www. desertfiifthstar.com/index. htmI YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ99WKYnTnq Best Regards, Barbara deBoom, CEO Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Jerry Patton opatton@collegeofthedesert.edu] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:12 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Jerry Patton, President, College of the Desert support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Jerry R. Patton, President College of the Desert Palm Desert, CA 92210 760-773-2500 Ofc "It is good to have an end to journey towards, but it is the journey that matters in the end." Ursula L. Le Guin 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Pampered Bath [pampered bath @verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:14 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Adam Ochoa [aochoa@thepracticecpa.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:23 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Adam Ochoa and The Practice Certified Public Accountants support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 to 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed: Adam Ochoa CPA x practice_footer_AO[1] We are required by IRS Circular 230 to inform you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (11) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Kimberly Nilsson [kimberly.nilsson66@gmail.com] on behalf of Kimberly Nilsson [kim@red-jeep.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:43 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Desert Adventures supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert, and will help support for the myriad of businesses in the Coachella Valley that count on tourism for our survival. X Kim Nilsson cn — 1 G k '� (760) 831-4440 Direct / Mobile (888) 440-5337 ext. 101 Toll Free (866) 221-5318 FAX kim@red-jeep.com Email www.red-ieeD.com Website Desert Adventures 74-794 Lennon Place, Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 0; 04 6 WX "_ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail This communication contains information from Desert Adventures that may be confidential. Except for personal use by the intended recipient, or as expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, and/or using it If you have received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and all copies, and promptly notify the sender. Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an electronic signature under applicable law. 12/10/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Dave Mourhess [dave@suntreksolar.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:31 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Dave Mourhess and Suntrek Solar Energy Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Dave Mourhess 1 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Charlie Myrick [charlie.myrick@heart.org] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:47 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Charlie Myrick and the local American Heart Association> Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 S€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Charlie Myrick 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Rollins, Patricia [Patti. Roll ins@camoves.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:34 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern: I am in support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000.000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 dIF" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the E1 Paseo business community. permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Sincerely, Patricia Rollins Desert Region Branch Manager Coldwell Banker residential brokerage 72605 Hwy 111, Palm Desert CA 92260 PH 760/776-9898 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: mmichela@desertbusinessinteriors.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:24 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Marian Michela, Desert Business Interiors, 12-10-2010, resident of Indio, CA. 12/ 10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: craig@bananaz.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:26 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Craig A. Marlar Conga Capital, LLC BANANAZ TROPICAL GRILL 69934 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-2863 Ph: (760) 324-5613 Fax: (760) 770-0225 Mobile: (760) 275-1234 Web: www.Bananaz.com E-mail: craig0bananaz.com 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Yourpp [yourpp@dc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:17 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Your Promotional Products supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Respectfully, Dennie & David Marks 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Nancy Luckritz fnluckritz@heritagesecurity.com) Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:26 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Nancy Luckritz from Heritage Security Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Nancy Luckritz 12/ 10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Gloria Landau [glandau@glowmnm.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:43 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Glow Media and Marketing, Inc. Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here 12/ 10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Art Works Gallery & Frame [artworksgal@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:39 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Art Works Owner Linda Jacobs Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 to 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Linda Jacobs, Art Works Gallery & Frame Center 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Isabelle Hutton [ihuttonl @cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:25 PM To: Barbara PD Chamber Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, I Isabelle Hutton President of Prime Prospects Inc, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a?" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Isabelle Hutton 12/10/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Bill Hansen[bhansen@southlandcapitalmanagement.comj Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:58 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Bill Hansen Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Bill Hansen 1 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Kevin Ha [kevin@mayfieldcollege.edu] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:53 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Kevin Ha, President of Mayfield College, supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Kevin Ha Campus President Mayfield College 35-325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 101 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Office: (760) 328-7511 Mobile: (650) 776-3320 kevin@mayfieldcoUege.edu Accredited by the Council on Occupational Education 12/10/2010 Barbara deBoom From: pslakerfan@live.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:31 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed John Graham Owner Platinum Pools and Spas Palm Desert 760-275-7359 Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry 1 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Mark Fruchtman [mark@mydesertcow.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:27 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Cc: Dominique Fruchtman Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Barb —Thanks for bringing this to our attention. To whom it may concern, Desert Cow Computers supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Mark Fruchtman, PMP Owner (T) 888-MYCOW-02 (T) 760-992-5562 (F) 815-331-5269 Desert Cow Computers 68269 Pasada Rd. Cathedral City, CA 92234 www.mydesertcow.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Frisco's Ofrisco@dc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:04 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern,: We own Salon Suites on El Paseo and have been residents of the Desert for over 30 years..We Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 -300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Additionally, the area has been approved for a hotel for years and would be an asset, originally, a hotel and resturant was on the sight. Signed Jeff and Joyce Frisco 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Ronald Fisher [ronfish25@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:56 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, KB Home Coastal, Southern California Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed; Ron Fisher, Project Manager 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Kelly. Fernandez@macys.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:25 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Kelly Fernandez and Macy's Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 OCb 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Thanks, Kelly Fernandez I VP Store Manager Palm Desert I Macy*s Inc. 2 760.346.9300 x2989 1 7;�! Kelly A. Fernandez@macys.com 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: sales@haymanandsummers.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:22 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, My name is Eveleen Farzaneh with Hayman and Summers Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 P" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Eveleen Farzaneh. 12/10/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Charissa Farley [charissalee@me.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:26 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the E1 Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Sent from my iPad Charissa Farley Farley Interlocking Paving Located at The Paving Stone Place 75135 Sheryl Avenue Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92255 760.773.3960 760.773.1910 fax 760.219.1089 cell 1 Page I of I Barbara deBoom From: Greg Eberly, LICM [info@designergreens.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:49 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern: Designer Greens Plantscapes supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Greg Eberly, LICM 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Art Davis [art@globallylocally.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:14 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Art Davis supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Art Davis Globallyl-ocally 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Cole, Margaret [Margaret.Cole@Tiffany.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:33 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Margaret Cole with Tiffany & Co. Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 5E" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Margaret Cole The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying,disclosure, dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intended recipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you think that you have received this E-mail message in error, please reply to the sender and delete this email promptly. 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Pete Carlson [petecarlsons@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Pete Carlson, President of Pete Carlson's Golf & Tennis 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Dave Carden [dave@nedrac.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:52 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 aE" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the E1 Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Cordially, Dave Carden dave@nedrac.com NEDRAC, INC. http://www.nedrac.com 77621 Enfield Lane Suite 3 Palm Desert, CA 92211-6256 Tel: (760) 345-9621 Ext. 104 Fax: (760) 345-9641 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Sue Bell [subell@calclosets.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:16 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your Susan Bell, California Closets 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Paul Bambauer [PBambauer@ironsmith.biz] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:27 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, IRONSMITH, INC. supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 to 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Paul Bambauer President & CEO IRONSMITH, INC. 12/10/2010 Bagato, Tony From: Matt Joblon [mjoblon@friedmaneq.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 8:31 AM To: Bagato, Tony; Aylaian, Lauri Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel & Residences Palm Desert Tony and Laurie: FYI below an email from a Sandpiper resident. Best Regards, Matt Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Office: 310-734-2018 Cell: 508-344-2557 Fax: 310-734-2011 Email: mjoblon@friedmaneq.com From: doua0dougbalog.com Finailto:doua(Q)dougbalog.comJ Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:34 PM To: Matt Joblon Cc: cindy(Ugugbalo .com; graham bOteserraoutdoors.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel & Residences Palm Desert Matthew I am a long time resident of Sandpiper and our family collectively own 3 homes in Sandpiper. I want you to be aware we are supportive in your efforts and impressed with the presentation handed out to all residents of Sandpiper. If there is anything we can do to assist your team in the approval process, we would be delighted to provide our time and services. Cheers Doug Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Zwierankin, Bill [bill.zwierankin@citi.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:52 PM To: 'barbara@pdcc.org' Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, as the branch manager of the Citibank branch here in Palm Desert supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 5E" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed <enter your name here 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Neil Zwack [nzwack@abc-seniors.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:52 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Neil and Bonnie Zwack and our company Always Best Care Senior Services, Palm Desert strongly support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Neil and Bonnie Zwack 42549 Saladin Drive, Palm Desert 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Madeline Zuckerman [madeline@zuckerman-marketing.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:40 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Importance: High To whom it may concern, Madeline Zuckerman, a resident of Coachella Valley and a business owner in the Coachella Valley, I Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Madeline Zuckerman, President of Madeline Zuckerman Marketing & Public Relations ,Inc. << ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! www.ellaforspam.com 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: nicolapd@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:22 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Nicola C.Wong Palm Desert Resident and Business Owner 12/13/2010 Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Michael I Wellner [michael.imellner.rk31@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:17 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Michael Wellner > Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 SC" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed: Michael Wellner 12/10/2010 Page 1 of I Barbara deBoom From: Jim Sullivanj Usullivan@dc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:37 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, I would support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. James Sullivan, Palm Desert, CA r �y 1 FREE Christmas Animations for your email — by IncrediMail! ! Click Here. l 12/13/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Richard P Smetana [richard@desertsunbelt.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:50 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Richard Smetana CBI CBB Certified Business Intermediary Sunbelt Business Brokers Coachella Valley 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Office: 760-568-1511 Cell: 760-333-1118 Fax: 760-773-0668 Email: Richard@desertsunbelt.com Web sites: http://www.desertsunbelt.com/ and http://www.desertbizbroker.com/ and corporate site http://www.sunbeltnetwork.com/coachellavalley DRE CA ID 1441594 We add businesses to the web sites weekly. The Place to Sell & Buy a Business. 12/13/2010 Barbara deBoom From: Brent Schmidman [brentsch m idma n @yahoo. com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:10 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Sent from my iPhone Brent Schmidman 1 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Camille Victour [crvictour@yahoo.coml Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:46 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for Rosewood Hotel Hi Barbara -- I went to the website link and found out just what a wonderful project this is proposed to be. As a former architect that also did a lot of sustainable design work I applaud the developers for taking on such an impressive endeavor that is also LEED certified. I am so happy to see someone who wants to move forward with a development project of this caliber in these uncertain times. I honestly cannot see any reason for objections to this project. It's scale is appropriate to the area, and they are only developing 45% of their site, with the majority of the parking under ground. I am sure the architecture will be stunning as well. If there is anything I can do to support this project, please let me know. Camille Victour Century 21 Mirage, La Quinta office Cell: 760-636-6989 Office: 760-564-9444 Camille.Victour@Century2l.com www.YourDesertRea ltor.IN FO CA DRE LIC # 01884400 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: jrsjaguar@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:18 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 — 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed, J.R. Thomas 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Blake Tatom [btatom@dc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:46 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, VIP Urgent Care Supports the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 - 30o needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. My business will directly benefit as we provide industrial medicine services for companies and injured workers and, when complete, we will benefit as we provide excellent urgent medical services to local residents and visitors to our valley. Sincerely, Blake Tatom, Executive Director VIP Urgent Care 7263o Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 9226o 76o.674.1923 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara cleBoom From: Said, Annette [annette.said@twcable.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 2:19 PM To: barbara@pdcc.org Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, <Insert Name and Company Here> Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 a€" 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed Annette Said 12/10/2010 Page 1 of 1 Barbara deBoom From: Fred Saunders [faunders@animalsamaritans.org] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:51 PM To: 'barbara@pdcc.org' Subject: Support for the Proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel To whom it may concern, Fred Saunders Jr. Support the proposed 5 Star Rosewood Hotel and if approved, would welcome the much needed economic activity to the Coachella Valley during this trying economic time. With its total $125,000,000 invested cost, the project will generate 250 to 300 needed permanent jobs and 125-150 construction related jobs in the Valley. Additionally, the operation of the hotel would provide a substantial business boost to the El Paseo business community, permanent jobs for Valley residents, and significant tax revenue for the City of Palm Desert. Signed: Frederick L. Saunders Jr. 12/10/2010 Ba ato, Ton From: Matt Joblon [mjoblon@friedmaneq.comj Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:15 AM To: Bagato, Tony; Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Mc Carthy, Justin; Moore, Ruth Ann Subject: FW: Support letters Tony and Laurie: Below is an email from Stephen Horwitch of Sandpiper. Stephen was one of the original skeptics who attended the large meeting at Sandpiper. After meeting with Stephen numerous times, and making the compromise on the massing, as you can see from below, we have his support. As before, the issue is that he is uncomfortable voicing his support because of his relationship with his neighbors, and as you can imagine, there is quite a bit of this going on. Best Regards, Matt Matthew Joblon Managing Director Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Office: 310-734-2018 Cell: 508-344-2557 Fax: 310-734-2011 Email: mioblon(Ll)friedmaneq.com From: stephenjames816@gmail.com[mailto:stephenjames816@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:05 AM To: Matt Joblon Cc: Marilyn Irvin Subject: Re: Support letters Matt: I have reviewed the letter(s) with marilyn and after much consideration I feel it is best that I stay neutral - since I am the president of the largest assoc. In Sandpiper. Although I personally think the project is going to be win, win for all parties - at this time I cannot put my name on a letter. I can however help you do outreach That can help your cause. As I stated at lunch - I would be more than happy to provide you with the mailing labels of our homeowners so you can speak to them directly. Marilyn - will provide you with her letter of recommendation since she is not an officier of our assoc. This is really the best I can do at this time. ity of Palm Desert co/ d,,-q. ' 'JUN S 12011 723,50 C/apd �&AW �Adn Oeaer, C#rua 92260 LIP . .......... PIERSON & KAREN FORBES 252 SANDPIPER STREET PALM DESERT, CA 92260 May 19, 2011 Tony Bagato Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: "Rosewood" Hotel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Bagato: As a resident of the Sandpiper community I am significantly impacted by the "Rosewood" Hotel development project. I have read the Initial Study and object to the findings leading to the City's conclusion that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is warranted. I find a number of inaccurate statements and exhibits as well as pro -developer biased statements in the Initial Study. I believe that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Although a case can be made for other significant effects on the environment, I submit the following with quotes from the Initial Study: Aesthetics (page 8): Does the project "Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?" Does the project "Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?" Does the project "Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?" The conclusion reached by the City is that, in answer to all of these questions, the project has a "Less than Significant Impact". In the discussion on Page 11 comments about Sandpiper residents' views: "The views of the foothills are currently obscured by existing Sandpiper development and landscaping. The proposed project will have a very limited impact on viewsheds in this and comparable areas within the Sandpiper development." This is not true. From many Sandpiper units the proposed development will have a substantially adverse effect on our scenic vista It will also substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings Moreover the proposed development will provide a new source of substantial light and glare on our roperty that will adversely affect our both day and nighttime views Consistency With General Plan Community Design Goals & Policies (page 15): The requirement is that the project is consistent in "following goals and policies from the Community Design Element of the General Plan." The Community Design Element specifically states: "Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds." With heights ranging from the maximum height of 50'6" to a minimum of 36'. the project is unquestionably incompatible with existing single story residential development on three sides of the project. Cultural Resources in which the Sandpiper is acknowledged: (Page 32, Policy 1): To quote the Study: "The Sandpiper design turns residential living space inward toward centrally located pools/spa/ramadas and away from Highway 74. The viewshed analysis indicates that views beyond the Sandpiper project are already impacted by buildings on the Sandpiper property and demonstrates that the proposed project will not significantly impact any viewsheds currently available to Sandpiper residents. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy. " This is unquestionably false The proposed project will definitely impact my viewshed along with many other Sandpiper residents' viewshed. In regard to the line of sight studies showing views from the Sandpiper, they defy reality. They are nothing more than computerized visuals made to promote a preconceived opinion. I am not against a hotel project on this site that,meets all the CEQA requirements and the City's General Plan, Community Design Element and Zoning requirements. With the documentation so far submitted by the City, the project does not meet these requirements. Before consideration by the Planning Commission, an Environmental Impact Review should be done. Sincerely, Pierson Forbes cc: David J. Erwin, City Attorney Dear Mr. Bagato: 711 We are 23-year residents of Palm Desert and we have several concerns regarding the proposed project on Hwy. 74 that will be discussed this evening at the meeting. Due to some medical problems we will not be able to attend this meeting, but we would appreciate having our concerns and opinions voiced, if possible. 1 Hnw will thin nrniat^t imn_ art the traffir in the araa hnth di,innn the rtnncfn_rrtinn anri i,mnn rmmnlotinn and occupancy? The traffic is already quite heavy and commonly exceeds the posted speed limits on Hwy. 74. 2.Why is this project even being considered? A hotel that was built on El Paseo and completed over one year ayu 6i 5iiii Ilui uuuupied, wiih uie exGePikili ui a resWurani on Uie lop rluuf ii•iaif naS only been open tot a Few months The rest of the building remains unoccupied. 3-Why would you consider another restaurant with a still vacant/unopened Proposed Steak House directly across the street from the above mentioned building? The Steak House was supposed to open Decemtier 2010, yet when we called cCity Hall, we were told that they had no information about iL Today we were told by Tony Bagato that the people had "pulled ourand it was slated to openl 4 NoT We live approx. one mile up Hwy. 74 and are extremely concerned about all of these factors, plus the added noise factor it will create. in closing piease give this your utmost consloeratlon: vvt NOW HAVE A LOVELY CITY —COMMUNITY, IS THIS PROJECT REALLY NECESSARY AND BENEFICIAL TO OUR COMMUNITY_ OR V01.1. IT.)I)ST rRFATF A 81 IGHT1 M Tuesday, June 21, 2011 America Online: B 19261920 I d dLZ:CO 1.6 LZ unr K Ton K From: Marla Paasch [msmposh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:40 PM To: Maria.laganga@latimes.com; sjohnson@Mercurynews.com; Bagato, Tony Subject: [SPAM] - Faulty natural gas infrastructure in direct area of proposed Rosewood Resort, Palm Desert Hotel. Dis�yusted member of Palm Desert City Council, The City of Palm Desert has proposed a multi million dollar project on Hwy 74, near El Paseo. A five star resort with multiple units. Although clearly free enterprise and business is good for the community. The Rosewood Resort is located on a aged and faulty infrastructure of water lines and natural gas lines. My home is directly West of the proposed resort. For the past 4 years I have protested the city to upgrade the dilapidated aged natural gas infrastructure system in the roads . The Gas company was slated to re -pipe and upgrade 35 lines to and around homes on Pitahaya St., Beavertail St., Hedgehog St. and Shadow Mountain, directly West and 100 yards from the project. This warranted fixture of the infrastructure of the street surrounding my home where placed on a moratorium by the city of three years, for no street construction for newly paved streets. These streets where repaved in 2006. The moratorium has since lapse and the Gas Co, have not gone forward with need upgrade to lines which are at least established in 1959, the age of my home, many street around, East, North and South of the proposed Rosewood are as old as the streets West of the project. In 2007 a major natural gas leak was discovered by the Gas Co. on Pitahaya St. West of the new resort. The discovery was by "wanding" of the street a procedure done every five years, a procedure that should have been conducted before street where repaved, but was not requested by the city according to the Gas Co. The Pitahaya St. leak was at least 500 yards long, calcifying the dirt, killing vegetation and sickening people in effected areas. The natural gas leaks, decimated six of the surrounding properties due to the large leak. Gas asphyxiates, animals, plants and humans. The leak can be documented by googling map of area, the area is baron in the google map circa 2006. Their is now calcified dirt under the road and surrounded private property, the area has since grow back, excluding large trees on both side of the street. It is a misnomer to assume gas smells and always explodes, Gas will exploded between 13 -17 percent saturation, with a spark, a gas leak can be lingering for many years, with common fatigue, flu symptom can be disregarded as something other than gas asphyxiation. During this gas leak my son was fainting and breathing difficulties, which was mistaken as asthma. Fainting is not a symptom of asthma I was told after multiple hospitalizations over a long period. I have asked Representative Mary Bono -Mack to investigate if the Gas company has actually put smell in the gas, since test days after leak patched where positive on my private property, from the leak in the street, yet still no gas smell. I question the relationship between elected officials and contributing utilities. The gas leak came from the street on to surrounding private property and had no smell, The damage was a result of plastic piping from the 1970 house East of my property, connected to the metal piping from lines laid in circa 1950's. This couplings are not properly fitted. I believe this be true for the 35 homes slated for infrastructural upgrade, yet not completed as of June 2011 by the Gas Co. In addition to the major natural gas leak on Pitahaya St. There was a gas fire coming from the street on the East end of Shadow Mountain a few years before the Pitahaya leak, in 2006 a leak was detected on El Paseo, all three of these failed infrastructure where in aged areas surrounding the proposed resort. In addition water mains have deteriorated. Shadow Mountain and BeaverTail St. had a water main erupt, as did a main on San Pablo, and on Hwy 74 near St. Margaret's. This area, with heavy equipment, earthquakes, and increased traffic from the hotel is detrimental to the area. There is no reason to believe additional traffic, from resort guest traveling to hiking trails West of the proposed resort would not contribute to a already dangerous situation. I propose the city instead of spending, 12 million dollar for a public pool, 7 million for surveys to inform neighbors of energy consumption and expensive trips to Spain to explore solar deals, actions better facilitated by the private sector, to stay on target on public safety through maintaining public roads and infrastructures of utilities, community goals are not to increase taxes through project to fund council grandiose project, but for facilitate safe community, and facilitate proper infrastructure of utilities in public commons. In this email I have included articles, (LA Times, Mercury News, Fox News) in regard to natural gas leak and the natural gas explosion from San Bruno, where people died and criminal investigation for practices of utilities and elected officials where believed to be skewed at the expense of the citizens and private land owners. I wish to have this email and corresponding articles present to public and council for review in regard to proposed expansion of area with the Rosewood resort. I will also forward this email to the news organizations noted in this email. Thank You for address this important concern pertaining to the community of Palm Desert. Marla Paasch Pitahaya Street, Palm Desert, CA. please do not make my private email public. THE PROJECT Palm Desert Hotel & Residences Program 90 luxury hotel rooms 59 Residential units consisting of 117.830 Square }feet. 30,000 Square Foot Spa. Fitness ('enter and serenity garden 9,600 Square Feet of flexible meeting, ballroom and pre -function space 52-0 Square Foot Business Center _ 2.5.'() Square Fect of l3outigUe retzd shops it) the hotel • 2,100 Square Foot Si2yna(Ure Restaurant spilling out to the eottrtyarrl ;ardor, • Outdoor Courtyard I.-ounge 2,070 Square Foot UICra Lounge 1,360 Square Foot Roof -deck bar and grille • Roof -deck pool area will, cabanas. day -beds, lounge chairs, hot tub, bar, etc. • 1,640 Square Foot Lobby lounge • Residents will have their own separate pool area (courtyard level) • ,376 undergroui,d valet parking spaces for both hotel guests and residents • LEED Certification • Over ` I million per year in annual revenue directly to the City of Palm Desert in support of additional Police, Fire, Public Parks and other municipal services * 250 300 pe:rnrartent jobs at the hotel and restaurants • 100 - ISO non -permanent construction jobs • $125,0OO,000 in total project costs invested in the site and community • Condominiums pricedat an average of $2.000.000+ per unit are expected to significantly improve neighboring property values • Will generate significant business for local sub -contractors and service providers • Will create a synergistic relationship with El Paseo, providing an anchor rand enhancement to the 'El Paseo Experience' • Will increase pedestrian traffic in El Paseo > increase sales volume > increase sales taxes `> increase property values > increase leasing demand > increase employment The hotel with its brand awareness, strong corporate relationships, and marketing will brim* a significant amount of new people and businesses to experience all the desert has to offer • Will help differentiate Palm Desert frorn other Cities in the Coachella Valley and will solidify Palrn Deset as the luxury destination for- businesses and leisure. travelers • C'on,anitted to delivering afive-star project by capturing one of the most well known high -end brands • Over $1 million per year in annual revenue directly to the City of .Palm Desert in support of additional Police, Fire, Public Parks and other municipal services • 250 — 300 permanent jobs at the hotel and restaurants • 100 - 150 non -permanent construction jobs • `(;125,(X)0,000 in total project costs invested in the site and community • Condominiums priced at an average of $2,000,000+ per unit are expected to significantly improve neighboring property values • Will generate ,significant business for local sub -contractors and service providers • Will create a synergistic relationship with El Pasco, providing an anchor and enharice rnent to the `El Pasco Experience, • Will increase pedestrian traffic in El Paseo > increase sales volurne > increase sales taxes > increase property values > increase leasing demand > increase employment 'File hotel with its brand awareness, .strong Corporate relationships, and marketing will bring a significant amount of new people .and baasinesses to experience all the desert has to offer. Will help differentiate Palrn I)csert from other Cities in the (:'oa.chclla Valley ,rnd will solidify Palm I)esert as the luxury destination for businesses and UNI-Ire traIVCJCf:S t70111mitted to delivering a five-star project by capturing one of the most well knowri high encl brands 3 The Project Location Click Marc to Oew the Project site snap. The area picture is surrounded by depleted utility infra structure built in the 1950's and as early as 19300 San Bruno Explosion Investigation: Are Pipelines That Run Under Homes Safe? (ABCNEWS.com) START:AUTO 4 The natural gas pipe that leveled part of San Bruno, California was packed up and trucked out by the National Transportation Safety Board today as its most critical piece of evidence -- even as residents just down the street from where the explosion occurred finally returned home. Last week's massive gas explosion in San Bruno destroyed dozens of homes -- killing at least 4 and leaving more than 60 people injured. The y explosion is believed to have been caused b the gas pipe rupture underground. The people who live on the street where this are still nervous, and there are still PG&E workers using electronic sniffers to check for more leaks under the streets. The pipe which was installed in 1956. Investigators say the has a Ion where pipe g seam ere it was welded together and may have been susceptible to corrosion. Also, they've also found a hodgepodge of small pieces called "pups, each individually welded in place to help the pipe dip under a road. More 5 mnciprn ninP.qqrP Simn1v bent to shape, which leaves fewer weld points that could fail or catch fire. Pipelines elsewhere have been ignited by sources as ordinary as a nearby stove or a spark from a car. Investigating the California Pipeline Blast watch video Are Gas Pipelines a Danger to You?watch Video What Caused the Explosion? Watch Video Investigators now say they have found no hard evidence that neighbors formally 6 complained .g p p ned about the smell of gas leaden u to the blast. They're now asking people to report p p whether they noticed any brown or g d in grass or Y trees near the pipe that could have indicated a leak. Meanwhile residents whose homes suffered only minor damage are just trying to clean up and get their lives back in order on a street that is still anything but normal. "You go back into the house and you close the door, and everything is like normal until you come back out of the house, and then you see all the construction, you see all the homes completely gone.,� p said San Bruno resident Michael Sah. Pipelines Run Under Neighborhoods Across the Country In a suburb of San Diego last night, more trouble seeped from underground. The smell of natural gas forced dozens of people from their homes. In Illinois, hundreds of workers scrambled to contain crude oil that gushed for three days from a ruptured main. According to Carl Weimer of the Pipeline Safety Y Trust, There is a pipeline accident ever other day y and ever five days someone is injured or killed, y so there's still way too many incidents. It's something we need to get a clear handle on before it gets worse." San Bruno Explosion: Could One Happen Where You Live? There are two and a half million miles of pipeline crisscrossing the nation. Much of that infrastructure is at least 40 years old and.often in decay. According to Weimer, a vast majority of transmission pipelines do not require inspection. Only pipelines near natural resources or pipelines near population centers are subject to mandatory inspection. Of those, only 7 percent of those major lines run anywhere near a neighborhood. However, while utility companies know where pipelines are buried, residents may not. Residents of a Chicago neighborhood near a large natural gas pipeline claim they had no idea the pipeline existed, and there are no signs there to indicate a major pipeline there. Utilities are required by law to mark pipelines clearly and notify residents about the oil and beneath them. gas lines running How Do I Determine if There's A Gas Leak In My Home or Neighborhood? ABC News talked to Consolidated Edison, the utility company in the New York City area, about the top signs of a natural gas leak. Here are some things to look for to keep you and your family safe. • Smell: Natural gas is colorless and odorless but utility companies often add an odor to the gas so that leaks can be detected. At the start of heating season, some utility companies will send scratch -and -sniff samples so that you know what to look for. Typically, it's a rotten egg smell. c(alE'tcsV LJS I'i E.`i°S, 11 C3t'Ii�ri t{Jli . 4. iTli{19;y i'id iCl l U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Network, 2009 Investigating the California Pipeline Blast Watch Video Are Gas Pipelines a Danger to You?Watch Video What Caused the Explosion? Watch Expert panel: PG&E culture played role in deadly blast By Steve Johnson sjohnson@mercurynews.com Postcad: 06/1:2/2011. 06:33:19 AM PDT Updated: 06/12/2011 06:33:53 AM PDT Three years before the deadly San Bruno disaster, PG&E received an ominous warning: Its natural gas system, an internal review found, posed a "catastrophic risk." But the utility's management and board of directors failed to take critical steps to reduce the danger. 10 That telling lapse was one of many distur g signs that the company's culture had turned ,functional," according to a five -member expert panel picked by the California Public Utilities Commission to look into the explosion. The panel's report, released Thursday, drew headlines for its suggestion that improperly monitored work on a nearby sewer pipe may have led the San Bruno pipe to rupture. But what may be more important in the long run are the report's insights into how the company operates internally. While PG&E's stated goal was to be "the leading utility in the United States," the panel faulted the company for being too bureaucratic, lacking management expertise, giving mere lip service to public safety and failing to take measures that might have averted the San Bruno tragedy. Lee Cox, the company's acting CEO and chairman, on Friday said PG&E officials still were reviewing the panel's report but so far had found nothing to dispute in its conclusions about the company's culture. But, he added, instead of examining its past mistakes, "we're focused on what's happening now." Asked whether he believed the company could quickly change, he said, "I'm Advertisement very confident. There is no reason it can't be done. However, in presenting the report to the commission, one panel member -- Paula Rosput Reynolds, former CEO of an Atlanta energy service holding company and a onetime PG&E executive -- termed the findings "a huge challenge" for the utility. Given how much is wrong with PG&E, she said, "there is no silver bullet" for fixing it. According to the report, the company's cultural problems stem from a wide range of deficiencies. For instance, the panel noted that an internal PG&E review three years before the San Bruno explosion had listed the company's gas system as among several catastrophic risks facing the utility. Then, just four months before the Sept. 9 San Bruno disaster, which claimed eight lives and destroyed 38 homes, the group issued another advisory that the system's safety was "weak" in some areas. Yet when the expert panel checked to see how PG&E had responded to the red flags, it was dismayed. Although the company managers and board had been alerted to the gas -line risk, it said, "we saw no evidence of any in-depth strategic discussion about the alternatives, level of investment, trade-offs, or other factors" to lessen the risk. Changes in PG&E's workforce further diminished the company's focus on gas safety, the report said. "Over the past decade, there have been retirements and reorganizations that have undermined the continuity of institutional knowledge of the system," the report said, adding that PG&E's management became top-heavy with legal and financial experts, but underrepresented with engineers. "As leadership changes occurred throughout the decade at PG&E," the report said, "they included selection of a number of individuals in top management with little or no previous experience in the natural gas industry and/or no direct operating experience." Those managers also became increasingly insulated from the rank and file. In reviewing PG&E's operations, the panel found "as many as nine levels between the CEO and the front line employee. As a result, the management that is setting the direction is distant from those who know the business the best." That has contributed to communication glitches that have hindered the quality of work being done and led to misunderstandings about what records needed to be kept, the panel concluded. Moreover, the report said, many of its managers were exclusively focused on the bottom line. A PG&E document that described the company's goals said nothing about safety, according to the panel, but "it did include an aspiration for financial performance." 11 And the report noted PG&E in recent years An delayed making critical repairs of its pipelin- Itern, despite the warning that it posed a catastrophic risk. In addition, it said, "there appears to be an elevated concern about the company's image," which "may get in the way of concentrating resources on the most important things." Consequently, it said, PG&E's "rhetoric does not match its practices." The report wasn't entirely negative. It heaped praise, for example, on PG&E's off -duty employees who rushed to shut off gas to the San Brun( inferno after the pipe exploded, calling them "among the true heroes of this tragedy." Bernstein Research, which does detailed financial analysis of utilities, also pointed out in a note to its clients Friday that "some of the organizational fixes recommended by the report have already been initiated by PG&E." That includes separating management oversight of gas and electric operations, as well as its efforts to replace recently retired CEO Peter Darbee with someone who can "refocus the corporate culture on operational excellence and safety," it said. Nonetheless, the panel's criticisms of PG&E "could bolster the case for a hefty fine to be imposed on the company," according to Bernstein, which previously has estimated the commission could penalize the utility as much as $400 million. Moreover, the panel criticized as poorly thought out some of the technological improvements -- such as automatic shut-off valves -- that the company has promised to make in its gas system in response to the blast. "PG&E has not devoted the resources to determining how it might adapt its system to use of these emerging technologies," the report concluded. As a result, it added, "we are unimpressed by the company's pledge." Contact Steve Johnson at siohnsonamercurynews.com or 408-920-5043. GAS LEAKS: WHAT YOU DON'T SMELL WILL HARM YOU Tuesday, January 09, 2007 FM NEM By Dr. Manny Alvarez AP Foxnews.com Health Managing Editor Dr. Manny Alvarez New York City was the scene of a puzzling mystery Monday. An unidentified gas -like odor made its way across Manhattan and parts of New Jersey and resulted in some building evacuations and mass transit interruptions. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg was quick to assure the city that there was no indication the air was unsafe to breathe. Russ Knocke, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, added his assurances that the department had no reason to believe that this was an act of terrorism. How can you protect your family from the health threat posed by leaking gas entering your home from outside? The most important thing you can do is to learn what to look for so that you can react quickly and appropriately. The first type of gas to watch out for is natural gas. Mayor Bloomberg said that sensors the city was using to monitor the situation did not show any high concentration of natural gas. However, natural gas is commonplace in our homes because we use it to cook our food and heat our houses. For the most part, natural gas is safe and efficient. The component of natural gas that makes it dangerous is methane, which is extremely flammable. A natural gas leak can cause a fire or an explosion. It's not easy to detect a natural gas leak because methane, and the carbon monoxide that it releases, is odorless, tasteless and colorless. Many gas companies add mercapton or some other sulfide -based substance to natural gas. This is what gives it that "rotten egg" smell and makes leaks easier to detect. In addition to the mercapton smell, you can also detect a natural gas leak if there are streaks of carbon or soot on your gas appliances, there is no draft in your chimney, you see a great deal of rust on flue pipes, moisture collects on windows or walls in the room in which your furnace is located, and there is rust on exterior vent pipes. RELATED STORIES 12 • New York Officials Say New Jersey May Be to Blame for Manhattan Sth If you suspect a natural gas leak in your home, take your family and get out immediately. Don't wait to phone the gas company, or even to turn the lights off. Don't unplug appliances, because any electrical spark can cause an explosion if there is a natural gas leak. As soon as you are safely outside, call the gas company from your cell phone or from a neighbor's house and let them handle the situation. Don't go back into the house until the gas company tells you it is safe to do so. The second type of gas to be mindful of is carbon monoxide (CO). Your bloodstream absorbs this odorless gas quickly because red blood cells pick it up at a faster pace than they do oxygen. If a significant amount of CO is present in the air, your body may start replacing the oxygen in your blood with CO. This prevents oxygen from getting into the body, which results in suffocation and eventually leads to death. Low-level exposure to carbon monoxide shouldn't be a problem. Being exposed to high levels can result in flu -like symptoms, including: - Dizziness -- Nausea -- Headache - Fatigue - Irregular breathing Excessively high levels of exposure can lead to loss of consciousness or even death. If the victim has been exposed to low levels of CO, get him/her into fresh air immediately and the problem should reverse itself. If the victim is unconscious because of high-level exposure, get him/her into fresh air at once and call 911. Give the victim mouth-to- mouth resuscitation until medical help arrives. The best way to protect your family from CO poisoning is to install a CO detector in your home. There is a wide selection of CO detectors available with various features. Some can be installed just like smoke detectors. Others require a technician to connect the detector to your home security system. Having a CO detector in your home will give your family the time they need to escape without injury. The third gas to be concerned about is radon. It's a cancer -causing, radioactive gas. According to EPA's 2003 Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes, radon is estimated to cause about 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year. Only smoking causes more deaths from lung cancer. Like the other two gases mentioned in this article, radon is odorless, colorless and tasteless. Testing is the only way to know if your home is at risk from radon. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Surgeon General recommend testing all homes below the third floor for radon. Testing is easy and inexpensive. There are many kinds of "do-it-yourself" radon test kits on the market. If you prefer, you can hire a qualified tester to do the testing for you. Contact your state radon office to get a list of qualified testers. For more information, log on to www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.htmi. January is National Radon Action Month. Why not celebrate by getting your home tested for radon. It may turn out to be the best celebration of your lifel Fox News Health contributor Maria Esposito contributed to this report Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242684,00.html#ixzzlPgaKz6wx 13 r-fty of Palm Desert Cixemunity Dovekh m RfB JUN 21 2011 June 21, 2011 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission To Whom It May Concern: We have owned our Sandpiper unit since 1972. Because we are in Unit 11 of the Sandpiper, we look directly across Highway 74 to the proposed site of the new Rosewood Hotel. We are writing to you to ask you NOT to approve any zoning variances requested by the developer. If something must be built, let it be built to code. It's really that simple. We purchased our unit in the Sandpiper because we loved the mid-century architecture, the award -winning grounds, and the open desert spaces and views. Despite living a stone's throw from Highway 74, traffic then wasn't too bad. Over the years, of course, in the name of progress, numerous complexes up 74 have been built, and El Paseo has been developed as a draw. Traffic has certainly increased, and along with it, more noise. The saving grace, however, has been the views and small-town charm we still get to enjoy. One can't do much the "progress," or about the hotel if they own the land and it's zoned for a hotel. What the City Fathers can do, however, is to control just how high that hotel can be, how far off the street it can be situated, and also its density. After all, the more rooms and units and services, the more cars and traffic and "people" noise. PLEASE stick to code on the building height, including the proposed roof recreation area. PLEASE push the hotel back from the frontage road. PLEASE advocate for the residents who want to retain the charm of the City of Palm Desert. Do we really want to be another big resort town? Is this really an improvement for the people like us who for forty years have enjoyed our home here? Very truly yours, Raymond Berbower Wanda Lee Berbower (S62) 498-7183 Mr. and Mrs. Steven R. Berbower �'munrrynJy91�'` 129 College Park Drive Seal Beach, CA 90740 11-JN112011 June 21, 2011 Members of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: We are writing to protest approval of the zoning variances proposed by the Rosewood Hotels and trustyou will consider our written objections at the June 21, 2011, meeting of the Planning Commission. We purchased our Palm Desert home at 273 Sandpiper in 1988. The home was a mess and boded poorly for the area in which it sat. We invested dearly in this charming community. We hired architects, secured proper building permits from the City, obtained approval of the Sandpiper Architectural Committee, and worked within the required building codes in every respect to refurbish and improve both the interior and exterior of our home. Special effort was given to the Highway 74 side of our unit, where we invested in a lovely patio courtyard to take advantage of the view of pines along the "Palms to Pines" Highway and the open spaces affording us the mountain views beyond. Clearly, the proposed hotel will obstruct those views. Admittedly, we have no "inalienable right" to the open spaces and our view. Someone bought the commercial property across the street, and the City is going to approve a hotel. However, we expect the City of Palm Desert to protect residents' interests by requiring Developers to adhere strictly to the City of Palm Desert Building Codes. Approving variances from our codes makes code protections of our community mute. Why bother putting City Building Codes in place at all if they are "negotiated" away, rather than respected and adhered to? We are insulted by Rosewood's promise to provide "expansive mountain views" for its guests from its rooftop infinity pool when that recreational area and restaurant are above height limits dictated in the Code and so negatively obstruct the views of long-time residents. Not only has the Developer/Rosewood Hotels proposed to build above the City's height restriction, but it has also negotiated to obtain more than a half -acre of City frontage road so they can build their structure even closer to Highway 74 than the Imago Gallery! Their promising to landscape that area is a weak tradeoff for moving the hotel much closer to the Palms to Pines Highway and to the impacted Sandpiper residents. We are very concerned, too, about the impact of increased noise. Question: Has an independent, comprehensive environmental impact study included noise we can expect from such an enterprise? The Principal Planner, Mr. Bagato, has indicated that we Sandpiper neighbors can expect no appreciable increase in noise level. He 1.) Where on the property will hotel employees park their vehicles? 2.) In the absence of employee parking on the property, where do the City of Palm Desert and the Rosewood property team expect employees to park their vehicles? 3.) If hotel employees park on streets on the west side of Highway 74, what safety and liability safeguards (e.g. traffic light and/or crosswalk) will be implemented for employees crossing Highway 74? Respectfully submitted, D re Cou t an a (� Charles Mangan Montecito Condos 45-819 State Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 9226o Bagato, Tony From: chuck mcbride [chuckmcbridel @gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:17 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Rosewood project CUP 09-507 On June 15 I reviewed the plans submitted to the Planning Dept. for the above project. 1. I am concerned about the physical size, scale and the massing of the project along Highway 74. In particular the building heights, uninterrupted building lengths and the "glass walls" at the main entry. The project is too massive for the site and does not act as a transition project between commercial and residential zoning. 2. The general architectural style will be significantly different from that of other Palm Desert commercial projects. Respectfully, Charles McBride, Architect 73015 Bursera Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 760-346-5021 Bagato, Tony From: Scott.Royle@aesbrokers.com Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:44 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Development Hi Tony, I am contacting you to voice my opinion regarding the proposed Rosewood Hotel Development that you will be considering on 6/22/2010. 1 own a home in Sandpiper that will be adversely affected by such a development and want you to know that The guidelines that are in place clearly do not allow for such a development as it is not consistent with the neighborhood. It will create traffic and congestion issues, it will increase the noise level within Sandpiper, it will eliminate a portion of my view of the mountains. More importantly it will not be in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood. I am counting on your committee to not approve this development. Sincerely, Scott & Amy Royle 272 Sandpiper June 15, 2011 1102 9 t Nnr Lauri Aylaian Palm Desert Planning Commission °oo4Y0� 73-510 Fred Waring Drive° "' Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Subject: Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 Dear Lauri Aylain, Secretary: Please accept this letter to the Planning Commission as a complete rejection of the proposed development. 1: We do not want a massive high density hotel and condo project in our residential neighborhood. 2: Four stories is to high. What happened to the two story limitation in our cove? 3: No to a roof -deck bar and grill. Too noisy with potential drunks and police problems. Patrons would look down into neighborhood yards on three side. 4: Location: This is a boring location for a 5 star hotel. The Desert Willow golf course would be perfect for this project. 5: Ingress and Egress should be totally from the highway 74 side. 6: Where are the trash areas? They should be accessed from the 74 side. 7: 35 steps to the front entrance and lobby. Are they kidding? We have lived on Verba Santa Drive for 41 years. It has always been a quiet peaceful neighborhood, yet an easy walk to El Paseo. We don't want it to change. Put this project somewhere else. Some of you may remember the Adobe Hotel and Iron Gate restaurant close to this location. It was single story, great dining, and no problems. We would not object to a new two story Adobe style hotel/condo/restaurant. Please ignore the usual "boosters." They never saw a real estate development they didn't like. The usual credo of maximum density for maximum profit prevails here. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ronald S. Gorman i Dona W. Gorman 45715 Verba Santa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-4634 760 346-8878 CC: Jean Benson, Mayor CC: Sandpiper Home Owners Association Bagato, Tony From: Paulina cone [piacone@hotmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:14 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Robert Cone Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums Dear Mr. Bagato, I am a homeowner in the Sandpiper condominium complex and have recently been made aware of the proposed development on Highway 74 by the Rosewood Hotels & Resorts. Though I do not oppose the hotel and condos in general, I do have several concerns. First and foremost is the size of the proposed structure. The height will obliterate views of the mountains to the south and east from several of the Sandpiper Circles. As you may know, William Krisel was the architect of our development who wanted to capture the beauty of the mountains. Privacy, quiet, and views were the guiding design criteria for Sandpiper, and so successful was he in this achievement that architectural students have been studying Sandpiper since the 60's! Noise is another big concern. Currently, we hear very little of the traffic on El Paseo and Hwy. 74 though our proximity is close. By constructing two buildings, each 300' in length, and by eliminating the existing frontage road (putting the hotel closer to the highway), would magnify noise from motorcycles and trucks that frequent this conduit to Idyllwild and San Diego thus destroying the tranquility we have come to love and enjoy. Those of us who are fortunate to have a home in this historic complex want to preserve it for future generations, though alterations and new development often endanger it. Architecture is an agent of change. It should make a positive impact on society, not a harmful one. Most sincerely, Paulina Cone Bagato, Tony From: Craig Simpson [bajacraig@hughes.net] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 8:26 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: 'Kristi Duncan'; 'Scott Duncan'; magicfingers@hughes.net Subject: [NEWSENDER] - PP 09-507 Dear Mr. Bagato, Our names are Craig & Valerie Simpson, along with our partners Scott & Kristen Duncan we own 271 Sandpiper, Palm Desert. This unit has been in our family since the late 1960's and is a treasured place for us to go for relaxation and enjoying what Palm Desert has to offer. We specifically enjoy the views afforded from our property. While the highway noise is at times unpleasant, we have come to adjust somewhat to the intrusion. We are v= concerned about the impact the above proposed Condominium & Hotel will have on the enjoyment of our property and ask that you please consider any additional noise and potential view blockage this project may have on the neighboring homes. We are strongly against any variances being granted to the project from the ARC, Developmental regulations the city now has in effect, and truly hope the city takes into account the current residents of the area and the potential impact this type of structure will have on the area. Mainly, additional traffic/noise/street congestion and view blockage. Unfortunately, we are unable to personally attend any of the upcoming meetings or hearings relating to this issue, however felt it best to voice our opinion with you. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Craig Simpson 271 Sandpiper, Palm Desert 707-931-0283 Bagato, Ton From: Stefanie A Saccoman [sasaccoman@csupomona.edu] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 9:33 PM To: piers @ pkforbes.com; Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - The Argument Against the Rosewood Project Attachments: PD.Development.ppt Dear Piers and City Planner Bagato, Attached is a one slide PowerPoint outlining why the proposed Rosewood Project is not a good fit at the Hwy 74 location. My parents are owners at the Sandpiper complex (#221) and they are very distressed at the prospect of the loss of a mountain view, an increase in traffic and traffic noise, and the problems caused by the proposed 60' high glass wall (this is just a sampling of the issues). We are hopeful that the amazing foresight and vision of architect William Krisel who designed so many renowned desert modern structures will be maintained as a living history and a testimony to the harmony of mankind's living environment and that of the natural world. Current architects should be able to do the same. Sincerely, Stefanie Saccoman, Ph.D. Science Educator 626/437-1353, cellular number 1 g -n co 0 � 0 o O AT o a o w 00 CD w < w D�'0 CD n s m w 0' —i CD w CD 3 a CD CD < N D a o 3 as X 7 o Ca CD E AZ - CD Q (D I CD n tli C CAD Q CCDD � 3 to c _. 3 CD — < Cn CD O CD — MCD 0 �a CD w- w0 (D CDn o (Dp ��Cn ' < Cn (DC D 0' =oCn Cn zs W CD a CD=O CQ 0O cn CD O <W CO OC a CD O (D i3 O(DCDO (D n = Cn CD0� < (D O -p - (gyp X < p 3 CQ U c a cn m' C m (D O (D x C a CD c0 O cD C) < cn 3a°�-�52--oro-a3n CAD < CD CD Cn CD Cr) CD �, -% o Cn c• (D < W M O (D Cn 0 'O O (0 0 0 Q� C 0 CD Cn CD 0 p O Co cD 0 _ CD a - O 0' = (D Ca � a 3 p (n zr O (D 0 0 CD c�.acQ �, O== � � CD CD (n -0 CD a 3 _m (D = * (D CD cn c/Q� /ate � = _ � 0 —ate 'ten a� CD \V - a CD a 5 v (n \V m � Q 0 (c CD w o o Ca � 2 w w O CD CD Q CD O r+ ((D G a (a (D acn �i CD O CnQ o r- N p' Vo W -+ Q � W Q C-) CD 0 0 (D Q. O n (D :r 0 0 0 � Q r* = M 0 0 a .0 0 � o o �. 14 C� .k 0-0 6. O S N� o m N m N O O W CD Q 0 U) CD 0 O CZ CD 0 r-r r49 Cf) ski✓ � M as O O ;{{ �_✓ G M� fiJ. T ' 4 CD D 3 CD r-F- cn D n� r-+ CD V 0 0 0 w CD Q x CD 0 O a O . CD Bagato, Tony From: John Brookbank Uohnb@interisland.net] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:18 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - ARC meeting June 22 Dear Mr. Bagato: I am sending this to you so that my comments may be recorded at the June 22 meeting of the Architectural Review Commission. I have sent my comments to you before any revisions were made to the developers plans. I find that the changes proposed will still require variances,. and will not improve the impact and disparity of land use between the large commercial development and the long standing (and famous for design) development of Sandpiper. I refer to the opinion of Commissioner Gregory of the May 25th meeting of ARC: I think this is a valid position and agree totally. Commissioner Gregory stated that he had a hard time with this proposal. He stated that the architecture is very well designed but feels that the massing defies the spirit of the code and ordinances. When the Commission looks at residential design we look at things such as how the roof might be sloped so that if a house is taller than earlier codes we still try to respect the neighbors by having the houses at least conform somewhat to one another through some kind sensitivity to the existing homes. He realizes that Palm Desert is growing up and he doesn't have a problem with a large development being built so long as it is massed sensitively on both sides. He thought they did a great job on the Ocotillo side, but as a lot of neighbors are complaining it's obviously not a great job on Highway 74. Contrary to what was said earlier, if you remove some of the height and some of the massing you will lose some of the units and he understands how extremely detrimental that can be to the economic feasibility of the project. However, when the spirit of the ordinance is 35' with the un standing that it might get a little bit higher or a little bit lower from one end or the other he didn't think that was aimed towards something that had such a long axis that parallels the street with a gradient of Highway 74. So when You have a building at 59' tall it is so far off from 35', close to the street and to the neighborhood it doesn't work with the spirit of the ordinance. He remembers when the Amago was built there was a huge negative reaction towards that building and now looking at various images that have been created the Amago looks dwarfed on the north end by this proposed building. He stated there are ways to mitigate it. If you did not follow the aesthetic of having that continuous horizontal line and worked with the grade that would help a lot, however he understands that that would take away from the architectural vision. What he sees is a beautiful building that right now is impacting the neighborhood and flies in the spirit of various ordinances. He stated to Mr. Joblon that based on his many years of experience this project will have difficulty getting through the Planning Commission and the City Council. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 GAPlanning\[assuming Amago = Imago] Judy, Janine From: Sent: To: Subject: jani ',,�dslextreme.com Uani@dslextreme.com] Monday, June 21, 2010 11:59 AM Judy, Janine (NEWSENDER] - Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Development Thanks for your assistance! jan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jani @dslextreme.com <'anl<q>dslextreme.com> Date: Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM Subject: Rosewood Hotel Development To: thaz'a�I-);llm-(Ie,ert ca uti Hi Tony - I plan to attend the Council meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, June 22. IQ� ,.,T CIrYQFPALtf j)4pi8T,iIF,',yT n�.eFRT I wanted to send you the attached, re comments I want t make tomorrow. I would be inclined to reiterate about the massiveness of the project, how it ignores Sandpiper in it's design, the light, the traffic, etc, etc, --, the Committee has heard all of this and I am sure you have not forgotten our concerns, All that said, I wanted to take different approach and look at this project from a different angle. Another question looking for an explanation. Thank you . Can you please e-mail this to the other Committee members. I am sorry, I do not have their addresses. Thanks. Jan June 21, 2009 TONY BAGATO Principal Planner City of Palm Desert RE: Architectural Review Committee Meeting Tuesday June 22. 2010 ROSEWOOD HOTEL DEVELOPMENT consideration Dear Committee: tilany of the Sandpiper owner 'N"have addressed your group. Y0" Low our concerns. I would like to make simple statement that covers all my concerns about this project: As presented, IT IS NOT RIGHT FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I would like to say to Rosewood, "if you cannot design a complex within the Palm Desert regulations and parameters, then your dreams and ambitions are wrong for this piece of property. Please do not ignore our concerns." The design is for 67 "multi -family residential units" and only 81 hotel rooms. I see a condo/housing development. The developers may present a 5 start hotel, that is not the picture I see. If all the condos sold at the desired selling price of $2 million each , grossing $134 million. future income from the hotel would be comparatively minimal, especially considering Palm Desert does not offer year round vacation and thus hotel desirability. Please, do not grant this project variances or make concessions that would have a negative impact on the lifestyle or enjoyment by neighbors on Ocotillo, or Sandpiper, or anyone in Palm Desert. We love this town for it's tranquility, it's simplicity and, yes, it's excesses such as El Paseo, fine restaurants, golf courses. I trust you in your wisdom and knowledge to make the best choice for our Palm Desert. Jan & Bette Coffyn 363 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 760-341-7914 jani@dsiextreme.com 40 Lagunita Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949.494.2940 2 5 J7 Sandpiper ' Palm Desert, Ca. 9226c (in I'll If. r)/I71it), jeau�silsonlh(occux.rtet jeattivits vl�r/h(<<'c�u.r.rrch %dote: f rant: jcanwils��nlh<- cu�.nCt <;can'. ilsonlh(l'coy.nCI> ��.rhlcct: 5andpipc r iufu our hotel devclopurCttl fo: IZltunt.SR0,Rd. c„rn. ON, I haran )in%1,tntCuts c+ant. kIVInisofQI-,I 1)rk'iItrrtutri,C�r`.h�tw4.c,t. 11,teC�00I � dC.rr.cont, (Icnt.)(" vCriiun.net. i:uu-ohco(o'c�n[IiIh k.nc1. 0)1crmuIPIV)[O itIIIh k.net, �ictorandc.uolCt�+`v;rhuu.Cunt 2.rpllp(�i'shcs�lohal.nct, nrikC(���daniCf<ontnd.Cunt. h��ucccuth(r`cartltlinl:.rlet.:fellhcnjarnc.tilli<<<"gur,til.cntn. �_Ireth,irn,ikert�„nt,n.cr,rn. rnarilyniry ill (&carthlink.nct Dale: fhur,da 1. June 17, 20I0, h: 11 11\1 Icl to s,unlpiper owners, I'lease real the info helow and express your concerns about hotel size if you have than--hcfore June 22. thanks. Jean t he Architectural Review Cornrnittee will tltect on Tuesday, June 22mL at 12JO M to make a decision (m the proposed Rosewood I lotel developmcttt across froru the Sandpiper on I Ivey 74. if you are unahle to attend the meeting and want your opinion known by file Cornmissionets. you need to he specific in addressing it to the Architecttu'al Review Commission c/oTony Bagato, Principal Planner. I{is address is City of Palm Desert, 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. 1lis email is tbarTatoQPcitvofpalnulesert org. AS we know, file ;architectural Review Commission was prepared to vote 6-0 against approval of the develop') lent at the May 25th AW' meeting. ['he developer has decided to revise his plans and submit the revisions at the June 22nd nteetin& 0n two occasions we have requested elecu•onic copies of the plans so that we Call distribute them. fie has not responded to our request. I le has met. with some Sandpiper residents and ,hown them architectural renderings of the project. As in the past they aw well done renderings, brit not architectural drawings showing details. Ills only change appeat:s to he lowering, the front of the two huildin�,,s froni 4-stories to 3-stories. On hoth the north and south ends the buildings remain 4-stories. Che heit.;ht next to 1mag0 (:.gallery is 49' compared to the Imago's 35'. The City'.` forting Ordinance allows for an average height of 35'. Tfte revised plans excce(J this, by how much it is uncertain, and will require an exception to the W ing. The important thing is that the "Zoning Ordinance has ether requirements chat rrlu,t be ntct. In order for the At-chitectural Review ('un inksion to approve the project they must bind "Chat the design soul Kahan of the proposed development and its relalionship to rtei llhorittg Cxistirtg ur proposed devclopnicnts and traffic is such that it 1.vill not impair the (Icsir:thility of investrncrtt or occupation in file neigihl)orhood; and that it will not unrcasonahly interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighhoring eri,ting or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or. congestion" and " I'Itat the tlevign and location of the proposed (Ievekq)nwin i, in keeping with the character Of the s(rrrotrnding uci"tthorhuod and is not dettiruetttal to the harmonious. orderly and attractive dcvelopnrcnt ContCnIplatcd by this title and the general Plan of the city;' Ili,, proposed hotel devClopnrCnt is surroundCd on thrCc sides by single story residential. Nl;ut}of to think that the MUSS of a 3 ,rnd J-story structure ri�tht across the street is not col patihlc to the cristing" nCiLdihorhood and clues not erect the requircnn•nts of the Mling OnHI ,rncc as ,tatN aho%v, I'he Loningr Ordinance i, dcrivcd front the ('it)', (knool Flan Pao of "Idch is the ('ouuruurity L) syll 3 1',1'.111cilt. I III: II'.ICIIIk IIt 11ilAI\' ithill !Ilk2 k Iolltcrl oI c tll T 111d .!I`llrt,pnr ll� ne\\ ,Illle:tltfes 'Mould 11, .11llt;ll' ill hwi',lit It) .lull ctmil)a(Ible \AItt, .�I�ll�l' hlliltlin 'lie \ 16111ty. A\ ilft the `_ual t)t l)re�,crvill" and :nIlMlCill1-' Ilt,i�.�n Illl,llitie" lit the built ginv irumnlent Mille Ill;lint;linin�l inlht�rt;tnt ic\„hed,;" Alpo "till hci4aht anei \\ illill ut building .huuld not be dramatically out of t Ilaracter \cith irl>thq� neiillbltrhood dcvc1opmem. the ,ircctscape or ilatliral ,cents \le\b'�hetl� It .eels; clear that this proposed devclopntcnt, cycn as revised, 1. nut consistcut with the Amin, I)r the C olnmuniry Design Elclllcnt. It ,oil Illea"e Ict the ,architectural Rev ic%%- Uommisslmi knout, your opinion. No virus Pound in this incoming lrles�5a�e. Checked by ;AVG - wlvw.av,,xom Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2954 - Release: Date: 06/21/10 IS:;6:UO FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediNlail! I Click Here[ n Bagato, Ton From: blytheb@earthlink.net Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:05 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: piers@pkforbes.com Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Case PP 09-507 Please be advised that we are strongly opposed to the proposed construction of the Rosewoode Hotel and Condominiums The project will destroy the environment of many of the owners in the Sandpiper Units and impact all of the units with the increase of traffic and noise. This is a ridiculous plan, greatly impacting our enjoyment of our homes in the area. Please add us to the list of those who do not want to see a large commercial enterprise in our back yard. Thank you. Blythe and Donalde Bacci 1702 Sandpiper Palm Desert 1 Bagato, Tony From: Betty Campestrini [BCampestrini@lundandguttry.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:37 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Development I am a Sandpiper owner and I feel that the project, even as revised, is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or the Community Design Element. Betty Campestrini SCami)estrini@lundandguttry.com Tel: (760) 568 2242 Fax: (760) 346 8891 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 309 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 www.lundandguttry.com l!,-.;LfTY N07.iCE of! t,� 3 d '110 (,onfld')IlJllal a'teinlvf (rum !--dosu"t? foo/. Any !oVi-'?w' "'Se. of if 01 i"m'?.)ediat'),ley ool� lt""Ct lho so"'i"t �f by e-1 c' 0 ��Iniy ih ;Str"')v f! �";Wies of 111 !e of ;qinal I r;'oss'age- F-11 7<Iily' the ""'t sh";:jfid d 0iis 'n;"e v;r" "'V "'61 'ov tj0injqo 1"'Y'my vi'tos L)y- th';"; e CIR,G'c""ANO TP1 C,A T;(Y V Al') 117� ';),w nuew', fi017 011cluding ntt' ch!-.,ori of iw fof" i '0 bo ) wo "0 'k3f?d, fol' Ii)Q PUfAX)(?,:S Of (i) "I'vaidi Jy peVfiu's ".nd';/the li';""o"'il -'Vc� 00 Code, or (fi) pmol'Ai"'Iy, o7"tAoiOg 1?1 Oiny to "Ifwthet p,'vtv 'iny of omfter *iJ0rq,3.,.34,?,,I f7eruin / uo15 G �,Itfv IJ-P. www lundandguttry. coin Bagato, Tony From: RCorey1223@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:02 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: piers@pokforbes.com; rsc@efn.org Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert. CA Good evening, It just came to my attention that a huge hotel development is being considered on Highway 74 across from the Sandpiper development and a hearing was held May 11. We have been homeowners at the Sandpiper since 1973. This is an inopportune time for adjacent property owners to find out about the proposal when most of them are gone. I want to get a note off to you so that you know we are opposed to the high density, height, noise and congestion, and traffic congestion it will add to 74.The traffic is very fast coming down the long hill. I will send more information as I learn more ,but I wanted you to have my Oregon a mail address so I could be informed. thank you. Robert Corey Bagato, Tony From: paulina ospina [pospina1959@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:36 PM To:. Bagato, Tony Cc: piers @ pkforbes.com Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood hotel and condominiums Dear Mr. Bagato: I am a resident of Palm Desert, and even though I will not be directly affected by the construction of the Rosewood Hotel and Condominium project in highway 74. I think the city most be careful not to sacrifice what makes the city pretty and likable to cater to big business. It is essential that all the building requisites are not only met but that the interest of the general public are taking into account even beyond these requisites. Tall glass buildings in a town characterized by desert style construction, low roofs and friendly landscaping is riot an enrichment to the city, or to its permanent and temporary residents. Palm Desert in particular and the desert in general is loved because everyone, no matter where we live can enjoy the mountain views and the light. If the city begins allowing building that restrict these two features to the general population, slowly and surely we will loose our greatest attractions. So as the principal city planner in whom we have trusted the rational development of our city, I ask you to consider the plans proposed by the Rosewood Hotel and Condominium carefully and in agreement with the interest of the citizens of the city that trusts you. Sincerely, Paulina Salk Grisa, Melissa From: Aylaian, Lauri Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:05 AM To: Grisa, Melissa Subject: FW: [NEWSENDER] - Fw: Sandpiper Hotel Development Another letter on Rosewood. Please share with the ARC members. LA Lauri Aylaian I)in�ctor of Cunununity [�ev:lopirent City of f"drtl t)e"elt J 3 10 f�rr1 IN -it [)rive P<tlrn Oesort, CA 92260 750. W6.06I I phone If,07Tt;.t 4V f;tx From: Bev Smith [mailto:bvsmith@shaw.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:32 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Fw: Sandpiper Hotel Development Lauri: Attatched note to Nir. Bagato re ar�lin� Rosewood Hotel. -------0rl,k:iltal Ales ya", '------- f'rent: Bev Smith /)ate: 6/211 /2_01() 8: 30:37 PNI 7'o: tbaeatoC)cit otpilnulesert oi-e C'c: Patn Harknett Subject: Sa1idpiprr Hotel Dc�cloputcnt Dear �tr. l3aLi;tto: We have rcad ;uul C011011. strorilrly with the ti>Ilowing Ictter from :Antictte Skates-Pi"uillcnl 'sent ran hehalf of the o�� ncrs ol' Circle 6 at Sandpiper. ;�V'er visiting Sandpiper for several ycat�s we rlecirlc�l to purchase n unit in this cotrtplr.e alon; �k ith uur spou�cti dtte to the (luiet, convenient location for Sandiper. \Ve strort��ly fccl a nc%v hotel ul, Ill' nut,�nitudc will spo I the anthicnct anal tranyttility ol' the Complex. lead to incrcawd vehictdar trathc. com2cstioil gild too [latch Hobe �dlich will nr�_ati%dy impact hoth the rluict atttto.,phere :uul potentially our plro perty %aloe. We believe the letter writtcrt I) lnnctIc Skatc;- Pig�uilietn addre�,cs ;> > >ru �riatcly the /rhino* . I (( f uul d�;i�,n rlctici�ucic� t�� ,I p�>iilt "tug! implore yuu (lot to poll 111c atntospltcre ,uul property � aluc of our itvi<"houilloo 1. WC trust [Ilk is ;;lti:l�,tctorv. t Bagato, Tony From: Joe Wachsmuth Uoewachsmuth@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:43 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [SPAM] - Proposed Hotel on Hiway74 Mr. Bagato, I am OPPOSED to the hotel planning on Hiway74 across from the Sandpiper. The development is too tall and does not fit the decor of residents in the area. Many have cited the proper city bylaw, or directives involved. I echo those statements. Anything taller than the current art gallery there is too tall and will block my view of the mountains. Thanks for your time. Joe and Carol Wachsmuth 609 Sandpiper The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. Get busy. 1 Bagato, Tony From: rnladavison@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:13 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Development We own a condo at 443 Sandpiper which is going to be greatly affected by this monster of a hotel. Why, when Palm Desert already has a height restriction ordinance is this even an issue? No one else has been able to go above the established restriction so it does not make any cense for this one hotel to be able to go around this restriction. We certainly do not want to loose any of our views of the mountains and skyline because of this. That is certainly one of the beauties of having a condo at the Sandpiper. Please do all of Palm Desert a service by not allowing this hotel to go above the height restrictions that are already on the books. Thank you for any consideration in this matter. Ron & Linda Davison rnladavison@verizon.net 1 Bagato, Tony From: ms [swancutt@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:39 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Proposed development on Hwy 74 across from Sandpiper Dear Mr. Bagato, (tbaaato@cityofpalmdesert.org) I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed hotel development on Hwy 74 across from the Sandpiper development and ask that the committee vote against approving the permits for the hotel as planned. I understand the proposed hotel will be 3-4 stories high (greater than the 35 ft height restriction) and will obstruct views of the mountain vistas we enjoy from the Sandpiper community. The height and encroachment on Hwy 74 (loss of the frontage road) of a 3-4 story hotel does not adhere to the established zoning ordinance in Palm Desert. This proposed development is definitely not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood known for its mid-century architecture and low-rise buildings with amazing mountain views. I believe that the excessive height and location of the proposed hotel will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. We at Sandpiper will bear the brunt of increased traffic flow and noise not to mention negatively impacting our property value. We enjoy the peace and serenity at Sandpiper and chose this area in Palm Desert for just those reasons. We believe the city of Palm Desert will respect the current residents desires for peaceful surroundings including the established zoning ordinances. We understand the need for progress and new buildings in Palm Desert but also see the wisdom in approving projects that fit the community and blend into the style and esthetic of the area. We urge you to reject this hotel as proposed. Respectfully, Max & Nancy Swancutt 1014 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 Bagato, Tony From: MAWIHI@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:31 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Project. Dear Mr. Bagato: Among others, I'm due to be one of the most affected property owners in Sandpiper. My address is 313 Sandpiper and my property is literally at the corner of Highway 74 and Pitahaya. I purchased three years ago because of the location. Your proposed project will bring additional traffic, noise, congestion, and a late night crowd to the hotel's lounge(s). Not to mention, the proposed height of the development which is absolutely out of the question! The gallery that has been set to example is the tallest structure allowed in our area. You must take into account that the grade elevates as one procedes up Hwy. 74. We are very proud of our community and are so lucky to be homeowners in Sandpiper. Should you do your homework, you'll know that Sandpiper is of historical importance. If you must develop, I would suggest that the design be reduced to a more area friendly number of units and a profile that also respects the indigenous design habitation. My suggestion is that the overall profile be no more than two stories, or two and one half for roof top pools and patios. In addition a word to the wise, having lived in Sandpiper for some years now, Highway 74 is a major artery. Weekends are especially noisy with the motorcycle gangs that come off the mountain and head up as well. Any guest rooms or condos with patios or balconies facing Hwy. 74 won't sell or rent for the traffic noise, it can be deafening. Although there is a beautiful mountain to our North, people will not find it pleasing to sit out viewing it and braving the noise and smell. Again, I would suggest that the design be rethought to interior courts with sound walls on the Hwy. 74 side. In addition, it is my hope that a signal at the intersection of Hwy. 74 and Pitahaya not be considered; you can only imagine the ramifications! Thank you for your time and consideration: Sincerely: Michael L. O'Neill Bagato, Tony From: Robert Parkin [rwparkin@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:14 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Pierson Forbes; 'Tom Rasmussen' Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Proposed Rosewood Hotel Dear Mr. Bagato: I e-mailed my concerns to you about the proposed Rosewood Hotel on May 10th. Since that time the developers have revised the plan by making insignificant changes to the proposed development and leaving the height of the structure at 52' on both ends. I still have all of the objections to the project that were expressed in my earlier communication to you. I am still of the opinion that it will be terrible mistake for the City of Palm Desert to allow this project to move forward, even with the proposed new design, as it will set an awful precedent for future development in the area. Robert W. Parkin 243 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 Bagato, Ton From: Robert Parkin [rwparkin@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:49 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Pierson Forbes; 'Tom Rasmussen' Subject: Proposed Rosewood Hotel and Condominiums I am writing in opposition to the proposed Rosewood Hotel and Condominiums being planned for construction adjacent to Highway 74 south of Highway Ill. I do not object to the hotel as such, but my objection is to the proposed height of 52 feet. I am an owner of a condominium in Circle 2 of the Sandpiper complex which is immediately west of this proposed development. Sandpiper was developed over a period of years commencing in the late 1950s and continuing in to the 1960s. Circle 2 was one of the first of the seventeen circles which make up the Sandpiper complex which has a total of 306 private residences. Sandpiper existed long before E1 Paseo as we know it today. As E1 Paseo was developed, height restrictions were imposed on the buildings which limited them to two stories. The reason obviously was to not cause interference with the view of the desert landscape from all directions. This view has been one of the attractions to ownership in Sandpiper. If this hotel development is allowed to go forward at the height being proposed the result will be that many of the owners in Sandpiper will have this view taken away and most certainly depreciated property valuation. There are other factors to consider as well. It is my understanding that as a part of the development, a sound wall will be constructed along Highway 74 to dampen the traffic noise along that road. This may be a benefit to hotel guests but the wall will cause the noise to be reflected into Sandpiper disturbing residents there, particularly in Circles 1, 2 and 3. Finally, I fear that allowing this development to go forward at the proposed height will only open the door to future high rise development along El Paseo causing a dramatic change in the entire skyline of the city. I don't believe that most residents of the city will approve of such a change. Please give this development thoughtful consideration before recommending approval. Robert W. Parkin 243 Sandpiper Palm Desert 1 Bagato, Tony From: K Keith [kitkeithl @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 2:34 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - objection to proposed building at El Paseo and 74 As a new Sandpiper owner, I am absolutely horrified that the commission is even considering the proposal of such a massive structure across from our condos. In addition to increased traffic, noise, and shadows, our view will be obstructed by this hotel, which will BY FAR exceed the 35 ' height (by 27" and be TWICE AS TALL AS EXISTING TREES). In addition, the proposal to eliminate the existing frontage road willid bring the hotel closer to the road, while the massive glass wall will reflect and magnify the sounds of motorcycles and trucks on highway 74 (since it will be 50' closer to 74). I want to be clear, I am not against a boutique hotel being built there, but I am 100% opposed to the a structure of that magnitude - and the SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND EXCEPTIONS currently being considered by the commission. I realize that Palm Desert will benefit from the increased revenue, but this should NOT occur at the expense of one of the oldest architectural landmarks in the area and its residents. Please reconsider! I do not need to remind you that your job is to further the interests of the RESIDENTS, who are voters and taxpayers, not big business. If you approve these plans as they currently exist, I will aggressively participate in groups opposed to this structure, as well as support forces calling for your recall and opposing your re-election. Sincerely, Katharine Keith 1 Sqq i Bagato, Tony From: Gretchen Jordal [gakjordal@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 9:39 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Development Architectural Review Commission I am a owner in the Sandpiper Development located on HWy 74 and El Paseo. I am concerned with the Rosewood Hotel Development which is under review for construction off of Hwy 74. This structure is designed to exceed the city's present zoning ordinance of an average height of 35'. A mass of 3- 4 stories is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Has there been consideration to the noise factor and the increased traffic and congestion on roadways leading to the development. This is a neighborhood environment and this development would greatly change the atmosphere which we now presently experience. El Paseo is a retail center but it does not invade the privacy of those living adjacent to it. I hope that you will give serious consideration to the needs of those who will be impacted by this development, especially in the Sandpiper Complex. Thank you Gretchen Jordal 463 Sandpiper Palm Desert, Cal. 92260 Gakjordal@2mail.com Bagato, Tony From: Bradley Fritz [largs@telus.net] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:00 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Against The Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 Dear Mr. Bagato, We are writing to you to express my concerns about the proposed hotel development across from Sandpiper on Hwy 74 and ask that the committee vote AGAINST the approval of the hotel development. I believe the hotel exceeds the maximum height requirement of 35'. 1 understand the proposed hotel will be 3-4 stories high and it will block our view of the beautiful mountain vistas we so enjoy from our patio at Sandpiper. A 3-4 story hotel does not adhere to zoning ordinances. Also, this proposed development is definitely not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood which is known for its mid-century architecture and low-rise buildings that respect the valley and mountain vistas. We believe that the design and location of the proposed hotel will negatively impact the neighborhood. We will lose our mountain views and experience an increase in traffic and noise; this will in effect have a negative impact on our property value. We enjoy the peace and serenity at Sandpiper and believe that the extra traffic and noise will take away from our enjoyment of the tranquil neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance is derived from the City's General Plan part of which is the Community Design Element. The Design Element specifically says "Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds." Also "the height and width of building elevations should not be dramatically out of character with existing neighborhood development, the streetscape or natural scenic viewsheds." It is very clear that the proposed hotel does not meet the City's zoning ordinances or the Community Design Element. We urge the committee to reject the proposed development. Sincerely, Brad Fritz and Deborah Money 605 Sandpiper Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Bagato, Tony From: Don Johnson [djinsb@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:17 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Please maintain the legal height limits that the City of Palm Desert has established in law in regards to the PDH Partners/Rosewood Hotel development Dear Mr. Bagato: I am a part-time resident here in Palm Desert at Sandpiper. Please keep our city's views unobstructed as per the statutes. Please visit La Jolla Shores, and Cove area to see the sad consequences when exceptions to height tn restrictions were allowed. Please preserve & protect Palm Deserts most valuable resource for future generations to come. Thank you, Don & Fawn Johnson 353 Sandpiper Penny Stock Jumping 2000% Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today! AwesomePennyStocks.com 6/ 18/2010 re_ Case No. PP09-507 (Rosewood Hotel/Condominiums) Yd O:tiftfL 17TY Dear Mr. Bagato, CITYOF p DEVELOP E,YTDEP.gRpVE A! 1f DESK y I am writing this letter to protest the building of the proposed hotel on Hwy. 74. 1 am a itive of the Coachella Valley, having been born in Palm Springs and grown up in Palm Desert, where I now reside in the Sandpiper complex. I have always loved the surrounding mountains and have a deep appreciation of the beauty in this area. To me, the building of this hotel on Hwy 74 is the equivalent of dropping the Queen Mary into my backyard. It is my understanding that the city of Palm Desert has a building ordinance that restricts buildings to a limit of 35' in height. Along with this ordinance is the city's general plan that was adopted in March of 2004, a blueprint, so to speak, for all future building in Pain Desert, the likes of which 1 am sure you are familiar, but I will quote anyway: I ) "New structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity". 2) Residential neighborhoods should be viewed as refuges from the noise, Light traffic and commotion of the city business district". 3) "Preserve the value of the community night sky and avoid unnecessary light and glare from signage, buildings and landscaae illumination or other sources of outdoor lighting'. The building of a structure such as this violates all that the city of Palm Deserfs general plan tries to preserve for it's citizens. Not only will the overall ambiance of Palm Desert he forever changed, but the traffic will also become a nightmare at the junction of Hwy 74 and El Pasco. As a resident of Sandpiper, I have already witnessed the impact of J. Russell Salon here on El Pasco. Suffice it to say that traffic accidents and congestion have increased dramatically. I can only imagine what a hotel of this magnitude with its guests, residents, vendors and support staff will do to further increase this problem, not to mention the increased noise level along Hwy 74. I am also concerned about the ability of the local utility companies to maintain adequate service to our community with such an increased demand on an already antiquated system. We have had two blackouts between yesterday and today already, just in Palm Desert alone. According to Matt Joblon, So. Cal. Edison and C.V. Water District are already to go forward with this project, yet the burden will be substantial and 1, for one, am not convinced that these companies are up to the challenge. In conclusion let me state that I am not opposed to progress, nor am I opposed to an increase in the revenue for the city of Palm Desert that this project would, no doubt, bring in. I do wish, however, that the city of Palm Desert carefully consider the impact that this building would have on its local, year round residents that call Palm Desert home, and keep in mind the community at large with any proposed building project. Sincerely, Heidi Hensgen 211 Sandpiper, Palm Desert 1 � July 13, 2010 Palm Desert City Council 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert CA 92260 To Whom It May Concern, This a letter stating our objections to the size and placement of the proposed hotel project located next to Imago Galleries. Leisa and I were contacted by the developer this week and told the proposed building was being reduced from 59 to 49 feet in height on the north end adjacent to our building. This still makes it 14 feet higher than the Imago building, in addition to the slope of the land. This is 40% taller than Imago. It is important to recall some of the strong objections to the scale of our building, which we faced from some council members, even though no part of our building exceeds the 35 foot code limitation. The developer is also asking to push out 20 plus feet towards Highway 74. During our design and construction we were not allowed to do so. In fact we could not even use this space for parking. We designed our building after reviewing the guidelines, and any neighboring projects should be required to follow. Ignoring those guidelines will have a negative, damaging effect with regards to visibility, aesthetic, and the value of the Imago building. Leisa and I would welcome a Rosewood hotel as a neighbor provided that the design complied with both the existing guidelines and even more importantly the aesthetic of our community. This proposal does neither, and exhibits an absolute disregard to the Imago Galleries property. Sincerely, David Austin Imago Galleries Read Message - dc.rr.com Page 1 of 1 ;'!eb AVAILABLE THIRD -ROW SEAT' ... I il-,-;_. -at .rs .o.:d at. ,ar %t!p Horne News Sports Shopping Games Entertainment Travel Dating Video Radio Health Net Medicare... Free Info On Health Net Medicare. Compare Plans 8 Save. EnrdL_ ri, . Drafts Sent Mail Deleted Items Junk Mail Manage Folders Staples(E) Weekly Ad Hurry! computer clearance a great deals on GIPS, digital fPmenas It, Obama Urges... If you owe less than f729k you probably qualify for Obarras... Log Out ail T Lis:: r,qs Read Ailessage Compote Grit '.'ail Se itch `Rail address BookttIri;s Reply Reply All F,).: and View Header CPIete Report SPAM Mail TV Listings Log fF_ft Pnnt the V:ew Move to: PP < ;'rev ( Next "''���/// » .Y. _ Brenda and Chuck <cgbumett@orAi.com, /tJ�� T o- � � carol.fanelli@dcrr.com Subject: From Dorothy Knebel '�1� DEVELOpyE i Priority: Normal Date: Tuesday, June 15. 2010 4:53 PM Size: 3 KB fTp DE �FpALMDESERT �RTdfEST To Whom it May Concern: I have been informed of the current situation regarding Rosewood Developments. I am against this development. I have the following concerns: 1. As I understand, the buildings on the property in question will exceed the height restrictions currently in place for the City of Palm Desert. In my opinion these height restrictions, regardless of the current economy and growth in the area, are still valid and should not be changed. 2. The development on the property in questions has the potential of decreasing the property values of the residences in the Sandpiper community. Property values will decrease due to loss of view, increased traffic and noise. 3. Has it been determined that Hwy 74 has the capability of handling the expected traffic increase that will happen as a result of this development? With an 83 room hotel and 61 condos the extra traffic alone may be more than the highway was originally designed to handle. Sent by email on behalf of Dorothy M. Knebel Resident 181 Sandpiper Previous ,Vessage I Next Message �; leb hooping Search denef,ts :+cad Rwv ,Hall., http://webmail.roadrunner.comldolmaillmessage/view?msgId=INBOXDELIM 1590&1=en-... 6/15/2010 Bagato, Tony From: Evelyn Connors [echucko@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:39 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [SPAM] - rosewood MY NAME IS EVELYN CONNORS AND I LIVE AT 172 SANDPIPER. WE HAVE ENJOYED THE SERENE ENVIRONMENT OF HISTORICAL SANDPIPER AND THE QUIET BEAUTY OF THE DESERT. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE MASS COMPLEX BEFORE YOU WHICH WILL BE ON HWY. 74 ACROSS FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT SANDPIPER. THE NOISE, DUST TRAFFIC COMING TO US FROM THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT BE WELCOME AND VERY DISTURBING. THE SHEER MASS OF THIS NEW HOTEL/CONDO WOULD NOT FIT THE SURROUNDINGS AND WOULD TAKE AWAY THE VIEW WE NOW ENJOY SO MUCH. CROSSING EL PASEO AT THE CORNER OF 74 IS A NIGHTMARE NOW AND AN INCREASE OF COMING AND GOING CARS, TRUCKS ETC. WOULD ONLY EXACERBATE THE EXISTING DIFFICULTY. PLEASE DO REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL CONSIDERING THE PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING THERE AND DON'T OK THE ROSEWOOD PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS. EVELYN CONNORS 172 SANDPIPER. I TRIED TO SEND AN EMAIL A COUPLE DAYS AGO AND WASN'T SUCCESSFUL AT THAT TIME. FORGIVE EY IF YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER AS I WANT, VERY MUCH, TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS. Bagato, Tony From: Marguerite Stetson [mstetsol @alaska.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:53 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Proposed Rosewood Hotel development Hi Tony, I sent you an earlier e-mail with a focus on the traffic this development would create. It is my understanding that the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for an average height of 35 feet. The revised plans still exceed this height and would not be in character with the surrounding neighborhoods. According to this Ordinance developments shall not create traffic hazards or congestion. There is no doubt in my mind that this development will create congested traffic on Highway 74 and on El Paseo as well. I would urge that this plan be rejected by the Architectural Review Commission. Thank you, Sincerely, Marguerite Stetson 263 Sandpiper Palm Desert I Bagato, Tony From: Marguerite Stetson [mstetsol @alaska.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:19 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Proposed Hotel on Highway 74 near El Paseo Tony, As I have told you before, the traffic conclusions reached are out -dated. Each year it is more and more difficult to exit Gate F of the Sandpiper complex due to traffic. The hotel would increase the number of vehicles passing on El Paseo. Under Cultural Resources, it is indicated that the Sandpiper complex has views toward the center of each circle. That is true; however, we all have views of the mountains. With the building of this overly high hotel, it blocks the mountain views of one-third of the residents. Palm Desert has focused on low buildings that are similar to those down El Paseo. The Hotel would be entirely different from the original focus of the type of buildings that should be built in Palm Desert. In addition, there are many vacant hotel rooms in the major hotels only a few miles away. My unit is 263 Sandpiper. Marguerite Stetson Bagato, Tony From: Marguerite Stetson [mstetsoi @alaska.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:11 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Hotel plans on highway 74 As a homeowner in the Sandpiper, Circle 2, I am concerned about the heavy automobile traffic this building would bring. Currently, it is often difficult to get out on El Paseo from our Gate F. Imagine what is going to happen on Hwy 74. Cars come down this highway, sometimes at a high rate of speed, and cars will be exiting from the hotel right onto this highway. It seems we have several large high end hotels in the Indian Wells area that are not operating anywhere near capacity. Perhaps a shuttle system could be set up to bring some of these people to the El Paseo area for shopping, without adding extra cars to the street. Lot of discussion needs to take place about this new building with all the neighbors in the area. Thank you, Marguerite Stetson 263 Sandpiper i Bagato, Tony. From: Tom and Pam [tomandpam@techline.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:44 AM To: TMille8804@aol.com; Robert Parkin; Pierson Forbes; Marguerite Stetson; hhensgen@yahoo.com; desertwyldfyre@cs.com; Ken Cooke; Cooke; Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Elevations provided by Matt Joblon If I am correct in reading the Elevations drawing, the middle of the property ground level is 285', and the height of the North end of the complex (next to the Amago Gallery) will be 336'. That is 51' taller than the middle ground level, and 61' tall compared to the Amago at 35'. The Amago is probably slightly downhill from the end of the Hotel, so actually the Hotel will appear even taller. This is just NOT in keeping with the surrounding area buildings, nor anywhere near the Code. As stated earlier, we are apposed to this enormous structure in our community. Tom & Pam Rasmussen June 17,2010 RECEIVED EL TO.►� 1 Lv� Palm Desert Planning Department: Attn: Tony Bagato oNiMUNITYDEVELOP4iENTDEPAftTMENT Architectural Review Commission CITY OFRALMDESERT RE: Case No. PP 09-507 (Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums) Matt Joblin met on June 161" with about 10 owners from Sandpiper Circle 1, 2, 3 & 4. Matt displayed about eight pictures or renderings of his revisions to the original plan, and how that plan would appear from certain vistas within Sandpiper. Mr. Joblin has admirably tried to redesign and find a suitable compromise for the Sandpiper side of the project, recognizing that the initial design totally disregarded any concern for the Hwy 74 side. Unfortunately, we remain staunchly apposed to the revised design. First, we find the vista representations to be misleading in their perspective and presentation. This Hotel will appear to be directly adjacent to our common pool area. The shear size (length and height) of the building overwhelms the surroundings and Hwy 74. Second, the shear mass of the building has only been reduced slightly, and remains well beyond any other structure anywhere in the desert on a relatively small property. The structures are crowded right out to the edge of surrounding roads/highway, with no greenbelt or transition from the surrounding community to straight vertical walls. The walls will be at some points 52' tall and therefore 17' taller than 35' zoning requirement and the adjacent Amago Gallery (which was highly contested at the time of its construction). That is 50% taller than anything allowed by current zoning, and 100% taller than any other similar block long structure in the desert. As financially appealing as this project may be represented, with jobs and tax revenues, it simply is not in keeping with the long established design of Palm Desert. It will appear a structural anomaly in the community, sticking out like a "sore thumb" mistake. Lastly, we continue to question whether the materials exist to accomplish the exterior design. There is real concern about the practicality of the design in a dusty, windy, high maintenance environment. We understand these materials can be reviewed as the project proceeds, but compromise to more practical materials will result in harder surfaces and less attractive facades in an already highly questionable design. We strongly appose the project as redesigned and urge the Architectural Commission not provide approval. Sincerely, Tom & Pam Rasmussen 241 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 Michelson, Wilma From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: May 21, 2010 TO: Palm Desert City Council Tom and Pam [tomandpam@techline.com] Friday, May 21, 2010 9:04 AM CityhallMail [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel & Condominium Letter to Architectural Commission.doc Palm Desert Planning Department: Attn: Tony Bagato Architectural Review Commission RE: Case No. PP 09-507 (Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums) 5,2%N\Q -- -RECEIVED MAY Z 1 ,010 OM,MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTyENT CITY OF PALM DESERT The Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums proposed for the land directly across Hwy 74 from Sandpiper Circles 1, 2 & 3 will have a dramatic negative impact on a large portion of Sandpiper Condominium owners. The two proposed four-story buildings will virtually eliminate any mountain views to the South and East. The developer met with homeowners on Ocotillo Street and compromised on a design that stair -steps the building away from Ocotillo, creating a vertical wall up to 60' tall along Hwy 74. All the vertical impact is directed towards Sandpiper, which has the most to lose. At least 50 Sandpiper units have mountain views that will be eliminated. The Sandpiper complex will be greatly impacted by increased noise from Hwy 74. Plus, sun blockage/reflection, traffic issues, and loss of property values will clearly result from this massive new structure. Sandpiper is an architectural gem in Palm Desert, and to place a massive four story structure directly adjacent will significantly detract from the nature and the values of the community. The current Zoning allows an average 35' structure which could possibly accommodate three stories, but even at that height the Architectural Review Commission should require good design that blends and integrates with the surroundings on all sides. A 60+ foot tall, mostly glass, vertical wall along Hwy 74 does not meet these criteria. Low profile, one or two story architecture, and muted lighting have been mainstays of Palm Desert design criteria. This massive structure set into the middle of an otherwise lovely and subdued community is completely without merit. We also have some very practical concerns about the proposed design materials, which look good at first blush, but are completely impractical for a hot, windy, dusty environment. Please don't let an initially attractive design concept color your decision process. The materials simply do not exist to allow the concept of exterior shutters, and the maintenance issues are almost insurmountable. We will end up with a much starker and more practical final design that will reflect more noise and add nothing of true value to the Sandpiper complex. The Commission's Goals include: Developments .....(1) will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion; (2) is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood (3) provide a desirable environment for......... its neighbors and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, (4) must conform to all the requirements of the zone in which it is located We are earnestly apposed to the Project as proposed, and at a minimum the City and the Architectural Commission should allow only the 35 foot average height and good practical design to complement, not destroy, the existing architecturally significant neighboring community. Tom & Pam Rasmussen 241 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 tomand l (r tCch(Ine_.c0m -- 206-715-2802 C of Palm Desert i:ommunity Development PETITION DEC 14 2m TO REJECT THE ROSEWOOD HOTEL & CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 30, 2010 We are opposed to the Rosewood Hotel & Condominium project as currently conceived, and we take exception to the "determinations of the City Environmental Assessment", in all the areas mentioned below. The structure will be MASSIVE in its relationship to its surroundings, covering all the land from the existing Imago Art Gallery to the Condos South of Pitahaya St., with no transition to surrounding structures or neighborhoods. The latest information indicates the structure will be 55 feet tall. This is more than twice as tall as most surrounding buildings, and 20 feet taller than the 35' Art Gallery and the maximum height allowed by Ordinance The Hotel and Condos will completely cover the skyline and obliterate mountain vistas for a significant portion of the surrounding community in all directions. The plan eliminates the existing frontage road along Hwy 74 and results in a 50' wall against Hwy 74. With a relatively small single access off Hwy 74, the two 35'-50' x 300' structures will produce a noise reflecting wall that will magnify the sounds of motorcycles, trucks and all traffic on Hwy 74. This "abrupt" design directly adjacent to hundreds of one story residences is totally out of context with the community. The project is clearly being "crammed" onto a insufficiently small property, with no transition and no consideration for the surrounding community. The City of Palm Desert has a well thought out Planning & Building Code which limits Commercial structures to a MAXIMUM 35'. The Hotel & Condos will surpass this code by 40%. It is one thing to perhaps consider a 10% variance due to special circumstances. It is entirely another to void by 40% the entire premise, and promise to the community, of a well established Code just to facilitate a developers overzealous desires. The City of Palm Desert adopted in 2004 a general plan that included the following Goals: 1) New structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity. 2) Residential neighborhoods should be viewed as refuges from the noise, light, traffic, and commotion of city business district. 3) Preserve the value of the community night sky and avoid unnecessary light and glare from signage, building and landscape illumination and other sources of outdoor lighting. The proposed project violates all these goals, and provides no attempt at compatibility on the Sandpiper side of the proposed structures. The Developer has stated this is not a four story project, but in fact a three story with the fourth story partially set back. FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF SANDPIPER THIS IS A FOUR STORY STRUCTURE. The Developer has admitted the structures will SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE VIEW FROM SANDPIPER. IT WILL ELIMINATE ALL SOUTHEAST MOUNTAIN VISTAS. The City admits their access to Sandpiper was limited, but concluded "no views of or towards the subject property are available from just south of the projects wall". THIS IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT. NUMEROUS SANDPIPER UNITS WILL HAVE THEIR MOUNTAIN VISTAS ELIMINATED a maid, rt The Developer has stated the structures are not Massive because they only cover half of the property, BUT NONE OF THIS HELPS SANDPIPER WHICH WILL FACE A 50' SOLID WALL SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID NOISE FOR THE HOTEL GUESTS. ALL the architectural design is directed AWAY from Sandpiper. The Developer ADMITS THEY will utilize every square foot of the property, with the exception of 1 foot on the north and 3' on the south. The developer has clearly stated there will be a single entrance/exit directly off Hwy 74 and ALL PARKING WILL BE VIA VALET. THIS PROJECT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A "GATED PRIVATE CLUB/COMMUNITY", and does nothing to enhance Sandpiper. The Developer indicates they have mitigated all the Noise and Reflection issues by setting the Glass Walls 12' back and behind a shutter system. THIS MEANS SANDPIPER WILL BE LOOKING AT A VERTICAL WALL OF DUSTY SHUTTERS AND HALLWAY ACCESS TO THE HOTEL ROOMS. NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS ATTRACTIVE FOR SANDPIPER. In the evening we will be looking at a grid of over 100 squares of lighted glass depending upon which drapes are pulled or open. The Developer purports a "Five Star Brand Luxury Hotel" will bring some value to Sandpiper. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL DRAMATICALLY SUFFER FROM BEING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A MASSIVE HIGHWAY HOTEL. NO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WAS EVER IMPROVED IN VALUE BEING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HOTEL !!!!! A few people have stated it is time to move our City into the 21' Century. Good solid planning and conscientious commitment to accepted community design have keep this City moving and growing. This gargantuan leap should not be looked upon as progress, but rather a grand mistake of judgment. The subject property is simply too small for the proposed development. The project is ill-conceived and grossly out of context with the community. We disagree with the Determinations of the EA, and believe the Planning Commission and City Council should reject this behemoth project, and save us from a tragic mistake. This is not what our community is about. Sandpiper Residents Tom Rasmussen 206-715-2802 tuman_d anu ,tech!ine.com Pam Rasmussen 241 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Marguerite Stetson Pierson Forbes Karen Forbes The Developer has stated the structures are not Massive because they only cover half of the property, BUT NONE OF THIS HELPS SANDPIPER WHICH WILL FACE A 50' SOLID WALL SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID NOISE FOR THE HOTEL GUESTS. ALL the architectural design is directed AWAY from Sandpiper. The Developer ADMITS THEY will utilize every square foot of the property, with the exception of I foot on the north and 3' on the south. The developer has clearly stated there will be a single entrance/exit directly off Hwy 74 and ALL PARKING WILL BE VIA VALET. THIS PROJECT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A "GATED PRIVATE CLUB/COMMUNITY", and does nothing to enhance Sandpiper. The Developer indicates they have mitigated all the Noise and Reflection issues by setting the Glass Walls 12' back and behind a shutter system. THIS MEANS SANDPIPER WILL BE LOOKING AT A VERTICAL WALL OF DUSTY SHUTTERS AND HALLWAY ACCESS TO THE HOTEL ROOMS. NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS ATTRACTIVE FOR SANDPIPER. In the evening we will be looking at a grid of over 100 squares of lighted glass depending upon which drapes are pulled or open. The Developer purports a "Five Star Brand Luxury Hotel" will bring some value to Sandpiper. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL DRAMATICALLY SUFFER FROM BEING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A MASSIVE HIGHWAY HOTEL. NO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WAS EVER IMPROVED IN VALUE BEING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HOTEL M!! A few people have stated it is time to move our City into the 21s' Century. Good solid planning and conscientious commitment to accepted community design have keep this City moving and growing. This gargantuan leap should not be looked upon as progress, but rather a grand mistake of judgment. The subject property is simply too small for the proposed development. The project is ill-conceived and grossly out of context with the community. We disagree with the Determinations of the EA, and believe the Planning Commission and City Council should reject this behemoth project, and save us from a tragic mistake. This is not what our community is about. Sandpiper Residents Tom Rasmussen Pam Rasmussen Marguerite Stetson Pierson Forbes Karen Forbes 206-715-2802 [c.rnandam a)tchline.ccn» 241 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, CA 92260 The Developer has stated the structures are not Massive because they only cover half of the property, BUT NONE OF THIS HELPS SANDPIPER WHICH WILL FACE A 50' SOLID WALL SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO AVOID NOISE FOR THE HOTEL GUESTS. ALL the architectural design is directed AWAY from Sandpiper. The Developer ADMITS THEY will utilize every square foot of the property, with the exception of 1 foot on the north and 3' on the south. The developer has clearly stated there will be a single entrance/exit directly off Hwy 74 and ALL PARKING WILL BE VIA VALET. THIS PROJECT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A "GATED PRIVATE CLUB/COMMUNITY", and does nothing to enhance Sandpiper. The Developer indicates they have mitigated all the Noise and Reflection issues by setting the Glass Walls 12' back and behind a shutter system. THIS MEANS SANDPIPER WILL BE LOOKING AT A VERTICAL WALL OF DUSTY SHUTTERS AND HALLWAY ACCESS TO THE HOTEL ROOMS. NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS ATTRACTIVE FOR SANDPIPER. In the evening we will be looking at a grid of over 100 squares of lighted glass depending upon which drapes are pulled or open. The Developer purports a "Five Star Brand Luxury Hotel" will bring some value to Sandpiper. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL DRAMATICALLY SUFFER FROM BEING DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A MASSIVE HIGHWAY HOTEL. NO RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WAS EVER IMPROVED IN VALUE BEING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HOTEL !!!!! A few people have stated it is time to move our City into the 21" Century. Good solid planning and conscientious commitment to accepted community design have keep this City moving and growing. This gargantuan leap should not be looked upon as progress, but rather a grand mistake of judgment. The subject property is simply too small for the proposed development. The project is ill-conceived and grossly out of context with the community. We disagree with the Determinations of the EA, and believe the Planning Commission and City Council should reject this behemoth project, and save us from a tragic mistake. This is not what our community is about. Sandpiper Residents Tom Rasmussen 206-715-2802 tomand am(« ttechli��e.com Pam Rasmussen 241 Sandpiper, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Marguerite Stetson Pierson Forbes Karen Forbes Bagato, Tony From: Piers [piers@pkforbes.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:41 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Case No. PP 09-507 (Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums) Tony, Please distribute my comments to the members of the Architectural Review Commission prior to the June 22nd ARC meeting. Commissioners: I am aware of Matt Joblon's recent revision to his development plan which will be presented to you on June 22nd. His renderings are the best that money can buy. Without a site plan and more detailed elevations we don't know the total impact of the project. I do know, however, that the project, even when lowered to 3-stories along Hwy 74, will have a massive impact on Sandpiper Circles 1-3 and beyond. I asked Matt to consider lowering his entrance corridor to 2-stories and having the northerly and southerly elevations rising to 3-stories. He said that it would not be economically feasible. I believe that the key issue is how the transition is made from the existing single story residential on three sides of this proposed development. A transition that cannot begin at three stories. The Zoning Ordinance is specific in the findings that must be made by the ARC to approve the project. The Ordinance states that in order for the Architectural Review Commission to approve the project you must find "That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; and that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enioyment of neighboring existing or proposed developments and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion" and "That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this title and the general plan of the city." Even though the developer has made some "concessions", I firmly believe that the proposed development, even as revised, does not meet the requirements of the Ordinance as stated above. Sincerely, Pierson Forbes 252 Sandpiper Bagato, Tony From: Piers [piers@pkforbes.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:05 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Wrong Site for Hotel Project Members of the Planning Commission: I live in Circle 2 of the Sandpiper development at El Paseo and Hwy 74. The proposed hotel development will have a major negative impact on my property. The three and four story project is on an 800' long site, is a maximum of 60' tall and surrounded on three sides by single story residential. The massive structures will look directly down at the Sandpiper, dominate views, create substantial light and glare and noise. The Community Design Element specifically states: "Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds." It also states that "the height and width of building elevations should not be dramatically out of character with existing neighborhood development, the streetscape or natural scenic viewsheds." This proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan of which the Community Design Element is a part. Story poles would clearly confirm this. Part of the problem is that the 35' height limit is being circumvented because the site is on an unusually long and sloped parcel. When I invested in my property, to understand what could be developed on the site, I relied on the General Plan, The Community Design Element and the Zoning Ordinance. The project as proposed would have been unimaginable at the time. If this project is desirable for the City on this site, the General Plan needs to be amended. Otherwise the developer should find another site. Pierson Forbes 252 Sandpiper St. Palm Desert aI Palm Desert CommunnY Development PIERSON & KAREN FORBES MAY 2 3 2011 252 SANDPIPER STREET PALM DESERT, CA 92260 May 19, 2011 Tony Bagato Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: "Rosewood" Hotel Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Bagato: As a resident of the Sandpiper community I am significantly impacted by the "Rosewood" Hotel development project. I have read the Initial Study and object to the findings leading to the City's conclusion that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is warranted. I find a number of inaccurate statements and exhibits as well as pro -developer biased statements in the Initial Study. I believe that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Although a case can be made for other significant effects on the environment, I submit the following with quotes from the Initial Study: Aesthetics (page 8): Does the project "Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?" Does the project "Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?" Does the project "Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?" The conclusion reached by the City is that, in answer to all of these questions, the project has a "Less than Significant Impact". In the discussion on Page 11 comments about Sandpiper residents' views: "The views of the foothills are currently obscured by existing Sandpiper development and landscaping. The proposed project will have a very limited impact on viewsheds in this and comparable areas within the Sandpiper development." This is not true From many Sandpiper units the proposed development will have a substantially adverse effect on our scenic vista It will also substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings Moreover, the proposed development will provide a new source of substantial light and glare on our property that will adversely affect our both day and nighttime views Consistency With General Plan Community Design Goals & Policies (page 15): The requirement is that the project is consistent in "following goals and policies from the Community Design Element of the General Plan." The Community Design Element specifically states: "Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds." With heights ranging from the maximum height of 50'6" to a minimum of 36', the project is unquestionably incompatible with existing single story residential development on three sides of the project. Cultural Resources in which the Sandpiper is acknowledged: (Page 32, Policy 1): To quote the Study: "The Sandpiper design turns residential living space inward toward centrally located pools/spa/ramadas and away from Highway 74. The viewshed analysis indicates that views beyond the Sandpiper project are already impacted by buildings on the Sandpiper property and demonstrates that the proposed project will not significantly impact any viewsheds currently available to Sandpiper residents. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy. " This is unquestionably false. The proposed project will definitely impact my viewshed along with many other Sandpiper residents' viewshed. In regard to the line of sight studies showing views from the Sandpiper, they defy reality. They are nothing more than computerized visuals made to promote a preconceived opinion. I am not against a hotel project on this site that meets all the CEQA requirements and the City's General Plan, Community Design Element and Zoning requirements. With the documentation so far submitted by the City, the project does not meet these requirements. Before consideration by the Planning Commission, an Environmental Impact Review should be done. Si rely, Pierson Forbes cc: David J. Erwin, City Attorney Bagato, Tony From: LINDA CLODE [Iclode@shaw.ca] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:58 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Case PP09-507, PDH Partners, Rosewood Hotel Dear Tony, Although I believe that a new hotel would be a marvellous addition to the El Paseo area, I am concerned about the height of this specific presentation. I am trusting that your commission will ensure that all of the height restrictions in all of the Palm Desert zoning regulations are met. I understand that this will be discussed at the planning meeting May 25th. Most sincerely, Linda Holden Clode Homeowner, 342 Sandpiper Bagato, Tony From: Sefton Wells [swell @ rockisland.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:49 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: rosewood Dear Mr. Bagato, It was quite instructive to finally read the June meeting minutes of the planning commission. Perhaps if the commissioners cannot imagine the total incompatability of the Rosewood's to the site merely by description, they might be responsive to its impropriety if they know something about art. How about painting an eagle into Van Gough's SUNFLOWERS? Or maybe a Spanish galleon into Monets lily pond! If those images don't elicit a response of shock, how about considering Frank Lloyd' assertion that any building should mold into its site. Nothing could be more inappropriate for its site than the current Rosewood proposal. We are appalled by the commissioners responses that find favor here. We have entrusted them with an important issue --- that is, preserving delicate balance between expansion, suitability and esthetics of our city. It appears some are far more focused on the dollar than on any of the long term issues. A dollar today against a well planned city of tomorrow. Until now, building height variations have been granted only in appropriate settings. However, I now am regretting ANY were ever granted, as it leads to the Rosewood anomaly even being considered and worse yet, using those appropriate variences as arguments for allowing the Rosewood varience. Before it is too late, please intervene. Value our city by keeping it well planned and inviting to currant and future residents. Sincerely, Carol and Sefton Wellings Bagato, Tony From: Sefton Wells [swell@ rockisland.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:00 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - rosewood dear mr. bagato, I was so pleased to see the architects were unhappy with the rosewood proposal. So many of us who cannot be in p. d. right now are very unhappy with it. It is totally out of character with the neighborhood. The sandpiper is an architectual treasure. It cannot be sacrificed for the next dollar the city council sees. We have felt that in the past, the city has acted wisely, making p,d, a desireale place to live. Also, it has rationed its financial resourses well. We are hoping this council is as wise as previous councils, preserving what is so appealing about the city while k eeping it sound financially. It is very wise to keep the 27 foot height limit and to see that any structure in the neighborhood compliments the existing structures. We palm desert dwellers entrust you with much power and responsibility. Please respect our wishes and needs. Sincerely, Carol and Sefton Wellings Bagato, Tony From: Sefton Wells [swell@ rockisland.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:32 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - rosewood hotel Please protect our city from this out of place plan. Much of our reason for buying in palm desert was the wisdom of the city officials who in the past would have not sold out, but rather valued its treasures and made reasonable rules for new construction. This plan, with its height and appearance ruins the sandpiper and the gallery, to say nothing of the trafffic problem it will create. Many of us can't be there right now so we can only beg you to keep faith with us, the city and the wiser heads that preceeded you. Thank you. Sefton and Carol Wellings Bagato, Tony From: TMille8804@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:21 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDERj - ARC meeting Mr. Bagato, I would respectfully ask that the developer be required to place the orange netting up to outline the dimensions of the project -- length, width, depth and height. I don't think anyone has a real idea of the true size of the project and this will be a very visual representation for all the residents of the desert. The netting should be left up for several weeks and then public comment should be heard as to the massing. I do question why the City wrote the General Plan with specific provisions as to size not dominating the desert and not competing with the surrounding buildings. There was also a provision regarding protection of the night sky. Are we ignoring the General Plan? We need to think forward to what we are leaving future generations in this City, as well as the rest of the planet. Tess Miller 231 Sandpiper RECEIVED Palm Desert City Council ; #M z 1 2010 Palm Desert Planning Department: Attn: Tony Bagato Architectural Review Commission;OiKUNITYDEVELUPMEtiTDEPART'.1EtiT CITY OF PALM DESERT RE: Case No. PP 09-507 (Rosewood Hotel & Condominiums) The City of Palm Desert Incorporated in 1973. Sandpiper was begun in 1957. Bill Krisel's vision in designing Sandpiper was of a "man-made development fitting in to the natural environment." Does the proposed development meet this criteria? During construction Mr. Krisel walked each circle and individually oriented each unit to capture the maximum views of the surrounding mountains. To allow such a massive development would destroy the mountain views which were part of the architect's design plan. Privacy, quiet and views were the guiding design criteria. The pinwheel design provided privacy, as well as views of the common area, the sky and the mountains. The straight lines and sharp angles of the landscaping contrasted with the rolling mountain backdrop. Again, is the proposed development compatible with these criteria? Today, Sandpiper is considered the best remaining example of Desert Modernism. It is also the first or one of the first condominium developments in the desert, although new development now endangers it. Palm Desert is also in danger of becoming just another Phoenix or Las Vegas with no character, only large buildings. In March 2004, the City of Palm Desert adopted its General Plan. In the "Community Design Element" section it states that the goal of effective community design is to assure the highest quality of life for the City's residents. In the section entitled "Understanding and Integrating the Natural Environment" it states, "Designing within the parameters of the natural environment can pose several constraints and opportunities for development, which if managed wisely 1 can and have enhanced the community's quality of life." The Plan also speaks of "...exhibiting continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the physical and aesthetic environment." Another factor cited in the Plan states that "...harmonizing new land uses and developments with the existing built and natural environments." The Plan continues by stating, "If quality design is lacking and cannot be secured from the developer or architect, then unsatisfactory development proposals should not be approved. Sensitive design harmonizes with surrounding buildings and the environment, avoids excessive disruption and does not overtly compete for attention." The proposed development is lovely, but it belongs in New York, Miami, Las Vegas or any other large city. The sheer mass of the building is not in harmony with the surrounding buildings or environment. It will disrupt the open feeling of the area and command attention in its looming presence. The Plan also speaks of "pride of place" and "...an adherence to quality land and site planning and architectural styles..." It also speaks of a "sense of place" defined in the framework of community design as respecting the "history and character of existing and man-made features that have added to the familiarity of the place." The unique quality of Palm Desert is the feeling of being in a wide open space with fresh air and stunning views. Planning and design criteria as defined by the Plan include, among other elements, building height and proportion and massing. "Structures should be planned as integrated elements within the natural environment... achieved by building scale and proportion and structure height..." "New structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds. Building proportions should neither dominate the street nor other structures and should limit the fragmentation of viewsheds to the greatest degree practical. It may be appropriate for new development to be equivalent or subordinate to older structures and the prevailing development pattern. The height and width of building elevations should not be dramatically out of character with existing neighborhood development, the streetscape or natural z scenic viewsheds." "The patterns and rhythms that result from new and existing development should create a theme that conveys harmony and coherence between structures and the natural environment." The proposed development is out of character with existing neighborhoods, especially Sandpiper. It will not be harmonious or compatible with other buildings in the area. The Plan also states that "Residential neighborhoods ... should be viewed as refuges from the noise, light, traffic and commotion of City Business districts." The proposed development will cause Sandpiper to no longer be a quiet reficge from light, noise and traffic. It will cause noise to be deflected from Hwy. 74 back to Sandpiper, which is impacted by the trucks, motorcycles and cars traversing the Highway on a continual basis. There is also a safety factor to consider given the volume and speed of the traffic coming down the Highway. The Plan states that preservation of scenic vistas is an important goal of the community. The proposed development will block a significant number of people from enjoying the scenic vista of the mountains. Goal 3 of the Plan states that standards of community design, architecture and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are "integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources." The proposed development is not of desert style and would be out of place given the architecture and mass of the buildings. The development is as stated "European" and just does not fit. Policy 4 of the Plan states that City community design standards be equally applied to all private and public sector development projects to assure protection of the community's scenic viewsheds... and enhance the image of the City as a premier resort community. To allow the proposed development will set a dangerous precedent and will lead to taller and more massive buildings that will destroy what we all love about Palm Desert. Policy 13 of the Plan states, "Preserve the value of the community's night sky and avoid unnecessary light and glare from signage, building and landscape 3 illumination or other sources of outdoor lighting. The ambient light emanating front the proposed development will significantly impact our view of the stars. Palm Desert has a unique opportunity to set a new and innovative standard for development, both in the desert and in the State. It has the unique opportunity to dictate to developers the type of buildings it finds acceptable in the context of desert architecture and preserving what makes Palm Desert such a unique and desirable place to live and visit. I am not opposed to bringing revenue into the City and I would like to see a nice, but small, truly boutique hotel. I would hate to see Palm Desert lose its small town ambience and charm. A hotel of the scale of the proposed Rosewood development will destroy the viewshed of the mountains and leave the residents of Sandpiper looking at an ugly wall and an overshadowing mass. The mass of the development will be such that it will be the most visible landmark from the highways and roadways leading into the City, as well as from residential developments such as Sandpiper. Such a massive development will also have a significant impact on the night sky, obliterating our view of the stars, just like in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. I would propose to the developers and architects that they design a low -scale hotel/condo development, maybe in the style of Sandpiper, one to two stories tall, terracing down toward Ocotillo. Instead of bringing in "signature restaurants", require the hotel to showcase local restaurants to provide their services on site on a rotating basis. In lieu of this, have golf carts or mule drawn carts (think Central Park and 22 Mule Team) take patrons of the hotel to local restaurants. We need to support our local economy, not burden the restaurants with further loss of revenue. We have sufficient five-star restaurants in the El Paseo area that deserve the patronage. Let's set a new standard for others to follow and become creative in our approach to approving new development. If this type of new concept is marketed properly it can succeed and set Palm Desert apart from the pack. Tess Miller 231 Sandpiper 4 Palm Desert, California (760) 341-5876 (714) 224-2969 (cell) Bagato, Tony From: John Brookbank Dohnb@interisland.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:31 AM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: Tom and Pam Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Dear City Planner Bagato: The Rosewood project is a development placed arbitrarily on 4 lots and made huge for maximum profit. There is a distinct possibility that the Rosewood development might fail. Then what do you have? Of course, there is no predicting the future. It remains an outsized development in the wrong place (residential vs urban) and will cause negative impacts on all of Sandpiper beyond the altered views. Increased traffic on an already busy hwy 74 for one. I would assume that the 5 star art gallery (Imago) would also oppose such a large development on their doorstep. The Building code should be upheld to maintain the residential nature of the neighborhood. I have sent these views along with comments from one member of the ARC (Bigelow, opposing the size and height) to you and the frill ARC. Some proof of the ability of the Developer to finance and finish this development should be obtained. John Brookbank iiog Sandpiper. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert. Dear Mr. Bagato: RECEIVED k�4,Y262010 'ONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARVA ENT CITY OF PALM DESERT We are in possession of the details of the proposed 55'-6o' glass walled commercial structure on Hwy 74. My wife and I have been residents (owners) o three separate units in Sandpiper (a 196o's development which was considered be unique in it's 196o design and layout). We have occupied units in the 400s, loos, and are currently in ilo9.Our association with Sandpiper goes back a decade. We consider the above mentioned proposed development to be HIGHLY objectionable. The over all impact will be felt in all of the Sandpiper community Even if the height restriction of 35' were to be enforced, a development of such large proportions would diminish the current charm of Sandpiper, once considered a landmark of 196os design by the City of Palm Desert. The overall impact is totally inappropriate for this section of Palm Desert. The commercial tone of the design and layout is not in keeping with the residential area which w be impacted. Concurrent traffic volume will approach dangerous levels. We assume that run-off, traffic access etc. have been studied. We do not see an access to this structure southbound on HWY 74. Will a traffic signal be installed at the access point from HWY 74 southbound (the main access direction)? My credentials are PhD (Biology) from Caltech, and field experience in land use with the Griffin Bay Preservation Committe (501C3) vs Sea Farms of Norway an also vs Washington State Parks, San Juan County, Washington State. For my information, does the City of Palm Desert have a master plan on Land Use? Doe this proposed development meet all the regs. in your Comp Plan (if you have ond)? JZhn W Brookbank oh %�interisland.net NZ Sally C Brookbank. "Since the May 25th meeting we have been told that the developer has revised the plans bringing down the height of the Hwy 74 elevation from 4-stories to 3-stories. On both the northern and southern -ends the height remains at 4-stories The height adjacent to the Imago Gallery will be 49' compared to the Imago's 35'. The developer will still be asking for zoning exceptions even for the new plan. He plans to go before the ARC on June 22nd. We are trying to get copies of the new plans so that we can distribute them prior to the June 22nd meeting." JUNE 15, 2010 WHILE MUCH HAS BEEN SAID REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S HEIGTH, LOSS OF VIEW AND VISUAL QUALITY TO RESIDENTS, THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TO ACK N O W LEDGI=. EXCAVATION FOR THIS LARGE UNGROUND STRUCTURE EARTH MOVING EQPT—VIBRATION, NOISE AND DUST. WITH THE DEVELOPER'S REVISIONS, INSUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE INCREASED DISRUPTION CREATED BY THIS UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT. II TRAFFIC THIS IS A MAJOR TRAFFIC ARTERY INTO AND OUT OF THE VALLEY AND A FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT MUST BE EVALUATED. III UTILITY USAGE FOR HOTEL MEETS OUR EXISTING AGED INFRASTRUCTURE GAS AND WATER LINES AND ELECTRICAL GRIDS WILL BE SUBJECTED TO STRESS TESTS. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY UNPLANNED ELECTRICAL OUTAGES THIS YEAR ALREADY. THIS IS AN UNDERSTATED DANGER TO THE ELDERLY AND PETS, AS WELL AS, EQUIPMENT, COMPUTERS, ETC. WATER PIPES ARE. OLD; BREAKS "AND REPLACEMENTS ARE COSTLY. WHEN NEW LINES ARE LAID, THE INCREASED FLOW WILL UNDOUBTEDLY AFFECT OLD WATER AND GAS LINES. IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES - WHEN WILL THESE BE AVAILABLE AND HOW MAY WE BE NOTIFIED AS TO HOW TO OPTAIN THEM? V EARTHQUAKE STUDIES OUR "BIG ONE" IS ON CONSTANTLY ON OUR MINDS. SINCE THIS DEVELOPER IS FROM OUT OF STATE, IT MAY NOT BE ON HIS MIND; WHAT PROVISIONS ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THIS STRUCTURE AND OPERATION FOR EQ DISASTER. VI FINANCIAL STABILITY ASSURANCES IN THE EVENT OF A DEEP RECESSION. "DEVELOPMENT LIMBO" WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES ALIKE. WHAT CONTINGENCIES HAVE BEEN MADE? VII LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLANS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BY RESIDENTS. F3,:� tiiiiith �� (';lnl l l,lfiil�ll (����n�;r, (,�11 ti,in�li�il�tr) Or!gInNI Messa!3e ----- From: Annette Piguillem June 18, 2010 Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Architectural Review Commission, City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org Dear Mr. Bagato, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the proposed hotel development across from Sandpiper on Hwy 74 and ask that the committee vote AGAINST the approval of the hotel development. I believe the hotel exceeds the maximum height requirement of 351. I understand the proposed hotel will be 3-4 stories high and it will block our view of the beautiful mountain vistas we so enjoy from our patio at Sandpiper. A 3-4 story hotel does not adhere to zoning ordinances. Also, this proposed development is definitely not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood which is known for its mid-century architecture and low-rise buildings that respect the valley and mountain vistas. I believe that the design and location of the proposed hotel will negatively impact the neighborhood. We will lose our mountain views and experience an increase in traffic and noise; this will in effect have a negative impact on our property value. We enjoy the peace and serenity at Sandpiper and believe that the extra traffic and noise will take away from our enjoyment of the tranquil neighborhood. it is very clear that the proposed hotel does not meet the City's zoning ordinances or the Community Design Element. I urge the committee to reject the proposed development. Sincerely, Annette Skates-Piguillem z Bagato, Tony From: Annette Piguillem [2apijp@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 9:11 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: Proposed Hotel Hwy 74 June 18, 2010 Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Architectural Review Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Bagato, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the proposed Rosewood Hotel development across from Sandpiper on Hwy 74 and ask that the committee vote AGAINST the approval of the hotel development. I believe the hotel exceeds the maximum height requirement of 35'. I understand the proposed hotel will be 3-4 stories high and it will block our view of the beautiful mountain vistas we so enjoy from our patio at Sandpiper. A 3-4 story hotel does not adhere to zoning ordinances. Also, this proposed development is definitely not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood which is known for its mid-century architecture and low-rise buildings that respect the valley and mountain vistas. I believe that the design and location of the proposed hotel will negatively impact the neighborhood. We will lose our mountain views and experience an increase in traffic and noise; this will have a negative impact on our property value. We enjoy the peace and serenity at Sandpiper and believe that the extra traffic and noise will take away from our enjoyment of the tranquil neighborhood. It is very clear that the proposed hotel does not meet the City,s zoning ordinances or the Community Design Element. I urge the committee to reject the proposed development. Sincerely, Annette Skates-Piguillem 607 Sandpiper Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 i Bagato, Tony From: rhuntsr@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:16 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood An hotel at this location is just not in keeping with our "Rodeo Drive" in the desert. Please kill this project! Robert Hunt #502 Sandpiper (since 1975) Bagato, Tony From: barbara sharp [barbandbobsharp@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 6:52 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - ROSEWOOD PROJECT -EL PASEO WE ARE THE OWNERS OF 282 SANDPIPER DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE FULLY SUPPORT A HOTEL FOR THE BENEFIT OF EL PASEO PROVIDING IT IS WITH IN THE EXISTING GUIDELINES. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT WILL BLOCK VIEWS,CREATE A SHADOW ESPECIALLY IN WINTER AND INCREASE EXISTING ROAD NOISE TO AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL. THE SANDPIPER IS ONE OF THE PRIME EXAMPLES OF MID CENTURY MODERN ARCHITECTURE IN THE VALLEY AND TO IMPOSE THIS EXSESSIVE MASS AND DENSITY WOULD UNREASONABLY IMPACT THIS JEWEL. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BEEN FORTHRIGHT IN HIS CLAIM HE DID NOT KNOW SANDPIPER EXISTED. HE HAS ALSO PLAYED THE TIRED CARD THE PROPOSAL IS ALL OR NOTHING. HE HAS ALREADY CONTRADICTED HIMSELF ON THAT POINT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAKES NO SENSE ON THAT SIGHT. A BOUTIQUE HOTEL WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER FIT.......... BOB AND BARB SHARP. Bagato, Tony From: LINDA CLODE [Iclode@shaw.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:36 PM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Proposed Rosewood Hotel Dear Tony, I understand the the Architectural Review Committee will be meeting on June 22nd to consider again the Rosewood Hotel Development. Unfortunately, I will not be in Palm Desert at that time and will not be able to attend the meeting. Please take these comments as my deep concern about the proposed height and mass of the development. I understand that the developers are known for creating a quality product, however, it must remain in harmony with extant properties. You have a reputation for taking your responsibilities very seriously and I am confident that you will consider the surrounding neighbourhood and its low profile when you make your decision. Most sincerely, Linda Holden Clode Sandpiper 342 Bagato, Tony From: Brigitte's Mail [brig ittenorris@shaw.ca] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 9:36 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Proposed Rosewood Hotel Development in Palm Desert TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Yes, we are AGAINST this development going forward as presented. As a resident of Sandpiper since 1999 I have seen many changes in our small city and have been behind all the upgrades and new development through the years. These structures have enhanced the neighborhood, kept the views in tact and adhered to the building guidelines. 35 feet period. What you are suggesting to develop will not in any way remain within the guidelines others have had to adhere to. DO NOT SET A PRECEDENCE. We do not want to fight this every time someone comes into Palm Desert with a new plan for bigger and better... bigger is not always better. Keep the ordinance at 35 feet firm and let developers comply. They will and have! DO NOT ALLOW THIS 4 STORY STRUCTURE TO GO FORWARD! Concerned, Keith and Brigitte Norris 504 Sandpiper Bagato, Tony From: jani @dslextreme.com [jani@dslextreme.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:45 AM To: Bagato, Tony Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Rosewood Hotel Development Hi Tony - I plan to attend the Council meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, June 22. I wanted to send you the attached, re comments I want t make tomorrow. I would be inclined to reiterate about the massiveness of the project, how it ignores Sandpiper in it's design, the light, the traffic, etc, etc, --, the Committee has heard all of this and I am sure you have not forgotten our concerns, All that said, I wanted to take different approach and look at this project from a different angle. Another question looking for an explanation. Thank you. Can you please e-mail this to the other Committee members. I am sorry, I do not have their addresses. Thanks. Jan T� From: Linda Dehner [lindadehner@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:43 PM To: Bagato, Tony Cc: 'MAX SWANCUTT'; 2ap1jp@sbcglobal.net; johndehnerdds@verizon.net Subject: [NEWSENDER] - hotel development accross from Sandpiper on Hwy 74 Dear Mr. Bagato, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the proposed hotel development across from Sandpiper on Hwy 74 and ask that the committee vote AGAINST the approval of the hotel development. I believe the hotel exceeds the maximum height requirement of 35'. I understand the proposed hotel will be 3-4 stories high and it will block our view of the beautiful mountain vistas we so enjoy from our patio at Sandpiper. A 3-4 story hotel does not adhere to zoning ordinances. Also, this proposed development is definitely not in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood which is known for its mid-century architecture and low-rise buildings that respect the valley and mountain vistas. I believe that the design and location of the proposed hotel will negatively impact the neighborhood. We will lose our mountain views and experience an increase in traffic and noise; this will in effect have a negative impact on our property value. We enjoy the peace and serenity at Sandpiper and believe that the extra traffic and noise will take away from our enjoyment of the tranquil neighborhood. It is very clear that the proposed hotel does not meet the City's zoning ordinances or the Community Design Element. I urge the committee to reject the proposed development. Sincerely, John and Linda Dehner 602 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 1 L'O� URBAN CROSSROADS 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: Scott Sato, P.E. Janette Cachola FEss�ay SGOTT 7. TR 2566 EXP. 0 PF Prepared for: Mr. Matthew Joblon Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA June 13, 2011 JN:06929-23 SS:JC TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1 A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives B. Site Location and Study Area C. Project Development Description 1. Project Size and Description 2. Existing Land Use and Zoning 3. Site Plan 4. Proposed Project Opening Year 2.0 AREA CONDITIONS................................................................................................................ 2-1 A. Study Area B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics C. Existing Traffic Volumes D. Existing Level of Service E. General Plan Circulation Element F. Transit Service 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC........................................................................................... 3-1 A. Project Traffic 1. Ambient Growth Rate 2. Project Trip Generation 3. Project Trip Distribution 4. Modal Split 5. Project Trip Assignment B. Other Future Development Traffic 1. Method of Projection 2. Other Approved Projects 3. Other Development Trip Distribution 4. Total Future Traffic 4.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 4-1 A. Level of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Development 1. Intersection Analysis B. Level of Service for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Development Plus Project 1. Intersection Analysis 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 5-1 A. Traffic Impacts and Level of Service B. Circulation Recommendations 1. On -Site Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS APPENDICES TRAFFICCOUNT WORKSHEETS....................................................................................................... A EXISTINGCONDITIONS...................................................................................................................... B TRAFFICSIGNAL WARRANTS............................................................................................................ C CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS.................................................................... D EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS...................................................................................... E EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ................................. F rarm uesert MoteUcondominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN.• 06929-23 Report) OURBAN CROSSROAE)S LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE 1-A LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................... 1-2 1-13 SITE PLAN............................................................................................................... 1-5 2-A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS............................................................................... 2-2 2-B EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................... 2-3 2-C EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES................................................................................... 2-4 2-D EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)...................................................... 2-5 2-E CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT .............. 2-10 2-F CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSSSECTIONS............................................................................................... 2-11 2-G RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT ................... 2-12 2-H RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS ........ 2-13 3-A PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION........................................................................... 3-5 3-B PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........................ 3-7 3-C PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES................................................................................... 3-8 3-D PROJECT ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC(ADT)........................................... 3-9 3-E OTHER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP .......................................................... 3-12 3-F CUMULATIVE ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 3-14 3-G CUMULATIVE ONLY PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 3-15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) (� URBAN CROSSROADS LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) EXHIBIT PAGE 3-H CUMULATIVE ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT).................................... 3-16 3-1 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..................................................... 3-17 3-J EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES................................................................................... 3-18 3-K EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)....................................................................... 3-19 3-L EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..................................................... 3-20 3-M EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES........................................................................:......... 3-21 3-N EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)....................................................................... 3-22 5-A CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 5-2 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 06929-23 Report) OURBAN LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................... 2-9 3-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES........................................................................... 3-2 3-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY..................................................................... 3-3 3-3 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION RATES ................................................... 3-10 3-4 OTHER DEVELOPMENT LAND LIRF Arun TRIP GENERATION ..................... G5 4-2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ....... INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS............................................................ ................. 3-11 4-2 4-3 ratm uesert Hotel/Condominium Development �'� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development. The proposed project is anticipated to consist of approximately 82 Hotel Rooms and 59 Condominium Units. The existing zoning for the project is PC (4). Furthermore, the proposed land use of the project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan zoning element. Study objectives include the following: (1) Documentation of Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) Evaluation of Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (E+A+C) conditions; (3) Evaluation of Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project (E+A+C+P) conditions; (4) Determination of on -site and off -site improvements needed to achieve City of Palm Desert level of service requirements. B. Site Location and Study Area The project site is generally located south of El Paseo along Highway 74 in the City of Palm Desert. Exhibit 1-A illustrates the site location and the traffic analysis study area. In general, the study area shall include any intersection of Collector or higher classification street with another Collector roadway or higher classification street, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Pursuant to discussion with City of Palm Desert staff, the study area includes the following intersections: Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) OURBAN 1-1 CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1-A LOCATION MAP Q } w w w z Z 0 2 EL PASEO n rkyr1Ct/ FUFVRE Df.H:4h'E °4^ST /W i 2 � / oo LEGEND: a O a EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION O O = FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION = FRONTAGE ROAD, TO BE VACATED >� = OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (OPTION) (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:01) IWA OURBAN CROSSROADS Highway 74 (NS) at: • Highway 111 (EW) • El Paseo (EW) • "A" Street (EW) — Approximately 350' south of El Paseo • Project Driveway 1 (EW) — Future Intersection • Project Driveway 2 (EW) — Future Intersection • Pitahaya Street - Project Driveway 3 (EW) A portion of the Frontage Road adjacent to the site will be vacated. The section to the south will be connected into the project site. The portion to the north will end at the driveway to the art gallery located to the north of the project site. C. Project Development Description 1. Project Size and Description The Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development is proposed to be developed with approximately 82 hotel rooms and 59 condominium dwelling units. The proposed project will have three full access/restricted driveways. The access at the driveways is anticipated to be controlled as follows: Highway 74 (NS) at: • Project Driveway 1 (EW) — Full access to Hwy. 74 for deliveries • Project Driveway 2 (EW) — Full Access • Project Driveway 3 (EW) Left -In / Left -Out / Right -Out Only With No Right Turns In — The northbound right turn restriction is required since inbound vehicles would need to slow down considerably on Highway 74 prior to entering the site. Further, this driveway is only to be used by condominium residents, and, understanding the traffic movements and site requirements, residents travelling from the south will access this driveway from the frontage road entrance further to the south. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) U� U R BAN 1-3 CROSSROADS It should be noted that the project will provide the required number of parking spaces on - site for residents and hotel guests. However, the project is considering the option of utilizing off -site parking spaces (Daily Grill, Imago Gallery, Debonne, and the proposed City Lot) to satisfy their parking requirements. These off -site parking areas would be used by restaurant patrons and guests attending functions at the hotel during off-peak (after 6:00 pm), nighttime hours. Therefore, this study includes an off-peak analysis in order to evaluate a worst case condition. Since a valet service will be provided for the off -site parking, additional off-peak trips may occur due to valets driving to the nearby lots. 2. Existing Land Use and Zoning The project site is currently zoned PC (4) and adjacent parcels are currently zoned for the following: • North — Resort/Hotel Commercial • South — Low Density • East — Low Density • West — Medium Density Currently, the site is vacant. Adjacent uses include the following: • North — Resort/Hotel Commercial • South — Multi -Family Residential • East — Multi -Family Residential • West — Multi -Family Residential 3. Site Plan Exhibit 1-B illustrates the project site plan. This site plan is subject to refinement and revision, based on planning, engineering, and environmental considerations. 4. Proposed Proiect Opening Year The proposed project is anticipated to be completed in 2014. Future traffic analysis has been based upon five years of background (ambient) growth (2014), at two percent (2%) per year, along with traffic generated by other future developments in the surrounding area. The total ambient growth rate is ten percent (10%) for 2014, since the peak hour traffic data was collected in 2009. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) 1-4 OURBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1-13 SITE PLAN v = P FUTURE CITY I 'DEBO;VVE G . (PIRK/NLOTj i ? " P. iRKLVG P, g � � t t " k ti-I "�► { k 6H. 1 44. e a k AN Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:02) URBAN CROSSROADS 1-5 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2.0 AREA CONDITIONS A. Study Area The study area includes the following intersections: Highway 74 (NS) at: • Highway 111 (EW) • El Paseo (EW) • "A" Street (EW) — Approximately 350' south of El Paseo • Project Driveway 1 (EW) — Future Intersection • Project Driveway 2 (EW) — Future Intersection • Pitahaya Street - Project Driveway 3 (EW) B. Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics Exhibit 2-A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. C. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing counts for Highway 74 and El Paseo along Highway 111 were provided by the City of Palm Desert Staff dated March 2006 and 2007. To reflect 2009 conditions, an ambient growth of 6% was applied to the 2006 counts and 4% for 2007 counts. Existing peak hour counts for "A" Street and Pitahaya Street along Highway 111 were conducted in November, 2009. Off-peak nighttime counts were conducted in 2011 at the intersections of Highway 74/El Paseo and Highway 74/"A" Street. It should be noted that the traffic volumes along Highway 74 do not conserve flow since the counts at El Paseo and Highway 111 were conducted during the peak season for this area. However, the older, but higher counts have been used in the analysis since they would reflect a conservatively high estimate of traffic at the intersections of Highway 111 and El Paseo. Existing AM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 2-13. Existing PM peak hour and off-peak nighttime intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 2-C, respectively. Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) are shown on Exhibit 2-D. Existing ADT volumes are based upon empirical machine counts conducted in February and November 2009. Traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "A". calm uesert Hotel/Condominium Development OURBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) 2-1 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:04) EXHIBIT 2-A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 2-2 END: = TRAFFIC SIGNAL = STOP SIGN = NUMBER OF LANES = DIVIDED = UNDIVIDED URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2-B EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:09) 2-3 URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2-C EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES N C-295(161) N +347(152) �J f-136(57) 51(34)— 274(1 W m m N 477(249)--� .- Sat ;arm 00 � 0 N Yf J Y4 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:09) a } w w z z O 2 2-4 EL PASEO LEGEND: 10(10) - PM PEAK(OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME) HOUR VOLUMES OURBAM CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2-D EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) rain uesert i-totellUondominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:09) 2-5 END: VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5) URBAN CROSSROADS D. Existing Level of Service The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: • LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. • LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. • LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. • LOS "D" represents high -density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. • LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in vehicles will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. • LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) 2-6 CROSSROADS The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study are determined using the HCM methodology. For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle for the overall intersection is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at the signalized study area intersections have been evaluated using an HCM intersection analysis program. The study area intersections which are stop sign controlled with stop control on the minor street only have been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected describing the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at the study area locations; the level of service has been calculated. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle for the worst minor street movement(s). For all way stop (AWS) controlled intersections, the ability of vehicles to enter the intersection is not controlled by the occurrence of gaps in the flow of the main street. The AWS controlled intersections have been evaluated using the HCM methodology for this type of multi -way stop controlled intersection configuration. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle. The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: LEVEL OF SERVICE AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SECONDS) SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00 B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00 C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00 D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00 E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00 F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) OURBAN 2-7 The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has been performed using optimized signal timing. This analysis has included an assumed lost time of four (4) seconds per phase in accordance with HCM recommended default values. Minimum green time has been assumed to be ten (10) seconds per movement for areas of light pedestrian activity. Peak hour factors (PHF), where known from existing traffic counts, have been used to assess intersection operations. The City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element has set a goal for both peak hour intersection operation and roadway link segment operations of LOS "C" or better. However, LOS "D" and/or maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 are acceptable if LOS "C" cannot be achieved through the implementation of maximum feasible improvements consistent with the City's General Plan. Existing peak hour traffic and nighttime operations have been evaluated for study area intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2-1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at each analysis location. The following findings have been determined for existing conditions: • Based on the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometrics, the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours and off-peak nighttime with existing geometry. Existing HCM calculation worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix "B". • Under existing traffic conditions, the unsignalized study area intersections do not appear to warrant a traffic signal. Traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix "C". E. General Plan Circulation Element Exhibit 2-E shows the City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 2-F illustrates the City of Palm Desert General Plan roadway cross -sections. The Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element and General Plan roadway cross -sections are illustrated on Exhibits 2-G and 2-H, respectively. F. Transit Service The study area is currently served by the Sunline Transit Agency (STA) Route 111. Route 111 is an east -west transit route serving the general area along Highway 111. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) U� URBAN 2-8 TABLE 2-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES 2 DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OFF- OFF - INTERSECTION CONTROL' AM PM PEAK AM PM PEAK L T R L T R L T R L T R Highway 74 (NS) at: • Highway 111 (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 26.6 27.1 N/A' C C N/A' • El Paseo (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 26.6 34.5 18.9 C C B • "A" Street (EW) CSS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.1 11.1 10.2 B B B • Pitahaya Street (EW) CSS 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1! 0 1 0 1! 0 1 16.0 17.3 1 N/A a C I C NA' TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left -Through -Right Lane 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 8.0 (2008) and Synchro 7 (2007). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' N/A, Not Applicable. This intersection is not analyzed since additional vallet trips during the off-peak hour is not anticipated at this location. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report.xlsx) U'10� URBAN FIJOBSI_069001_069291Excel106929-05 Report.xlsx/T 2-1 CRossRonos 2-9 EXHIBIT 2-E CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 4 s� snow Or `�4"qv Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:05) 2-10 LEGEND: Arterial Street Thoroughfare . El Paseo Secondary Street Collector Street Rural City Boundary SOURCE: CITY OF PALM DESERT (311512004) OUR13AN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2-F CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS -SECTIONS 'ra taw if Ji' t'• 1- .� I '� i a: 5' •2' .c' I '..- n � r.,r Ar r: ta. '- A.�yav ..• .vnr ARTERIAL STREET SECTION A:d1 4 Y >iN i l:A f =F NAY IA — `� C SL fi4Y ,� tlWA� i V OAN _ ROAQ2, & VaHLi fl -i" 'J ( ^' a 1 4 1 I L_Aa i L.i"ER � CLR9 J I r �� fir 5h; !'nf NAL✓ i vzNXING ekn J" f'ti mN THCROUCH FARE SFt^nCN "A 1, 1•-.,,. air 54 .., 17 1 h 15' a 11 tl iiU2f B FTd t" x tK NU f'A�K!46 R tYtt ltf� 5EQQh(}ARY 5nEET SECrQN xWNA4Y P f<, MAC N ra C rNAY S NA? - N I 1 t et-M1 Sf.r N :,tinC .tivE � TRY n4, a � ih I i _bA8 k �7Ep (# ! LOCAL— E.T SECTI_O1ty Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929: 06) 2-11 lMLEG "'l 'Y B w�N• w 5 att Nu �d#0 StiCA,L�IR y tt'wii UT L.Nf t V WET CE4 T9V.w I rr : xa�snn s ry. A* 'E n.4C4s. CTG-_) R •.' Q s 4T, AAY fE i J RQ ALS SOURCE., CITY OF PALM DESERT URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2-G RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Expressway I184' ROW) Bridges Area Plan Boundary - Urban Arterial (152' ROW) Moreno _ Arterial (128' ROW) �!/� Corridor Alternatives to an Bernardino ativ I — Township .. Major (I 18'ROW) 1 Llemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Section Secondary (100' ROW) ! Corridor Alternatives Water Collector (74' ROW) SR-79 Re -alignment Alternatives city �..+.� Mountain Arterial (I IO'ROW) -- Freeway — _ i Proposed Interchange SOURCE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT (RCIP) +--s--. Railroad = Existing Interchange (OCTOBER 7, 2003) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:07) O URBAN 2-12 EXHIBIT 2-H RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS -SECTIONS R/W -- - - -- -- - -- --- - 220' ----- — -- R/W _... __ ---- ------ ---•- - ---152 - --.- --- -- --.. -_ ---_.. _ -- - - 48 -18' 19'— 48' — 34' j 10' 12, 12' , 12' 12' 10, . 8' • a' . 10, 12, 12' 1 12' 12' 10' 34' 5% _ -- 2% 2% ! 5% EXPRESSWAY---- B LANES W 152' R4W 21' 110, 21' . 7' r 5' • 9' 10' r 12, 1 1214' 7' • 7' 14' 12' f 12' 1 10' 9' , 5 T 2% CURB_ _CURB 2% CURBED MEDIAN URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY1 R/W. 128' RIW '-- 21' —---- --- 86•- --"— ---^-----21'—— • 7' r 5' 9' 8' - r.. 12, 14'- 9' 9'T 14' • 12' 8' - 9' 5' T ; 2% CURBS _ _CURB 2% CURBED MEDIAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/W 118' R/W 21' j 76' 21' 7'--j- 5'-r-- 9' t 8' —12'--r-72' -12=---1�'. 12= 8'—^— 9'--- 5'-7' 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2% MAJOR HIGHWAY - 4 LANES R/W 110, R/W 64' 5' a' } 8' 12' 12'_ 12' __ 12, 8' 8' t 15'.. - -� 8' 12' - 12' 8' MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL - 2 TO 4 LANES sr 2 LANE SECTION VW 100, R�W jjj 64' jjj 18' 4'r- 5''8' 9' } 8' 12' 12, 12'- 12' 8' { 9' 5' ` 4' 2% 2% SECONDARY HIGHWAY R/W 78. R/W r 5'-- 6,-�10'—�--_. t Y--�--1 Y--"-" 12'----10'--�- 6' -•- 5'� 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2Y^ INDUSTRIAL COLLECT R/W ---- ---- R/W 74' - r 15 44 15 • 3' r 5' 7' '• 10' r 12' 12' 7 10' 7' 5' 3' j 2% 2% COLLECTOR A IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE RECONFIGURED TO ACCOMMODATE EXCLUSIVE TRANSIT LANES ORAL TERNATIVE LANE ARRANGEMENTS ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY MAYBE REQUIRED AT INTERSECTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS FOR STATE HIGHWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CAL TRANS DESIGN STANDARDS. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:08) 2-13 URBAN CR43SSRC3^OS THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC A. Proiect Traffic 1. Ambient Growth Rate To account for ambient growth on roadways, future traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 2 percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes for a total of 10% for 2014 conditions. The ambient growth rate has been approved by the City of Palm Desert Transportation Department staff. Ambient growth has been added to traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by other developments and the proposed project. The remaining growth is anticipated to be accounted for by development of other future projects in the study area that have been approved and are being processed concurrently. 2. Proiect Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and produced by a development. The trip generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for this development. For the purpose of this analysis, the following land use assumptions have been evaluated: • 82 Hotel Rooms • 59 Condominium Dwelling Units Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 3-1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Daily and peak hour trip generations for the proposed project are shown in Table 3-2. As illustrated in Table 3-2, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,013 net trip ends per day, with 72 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 80 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. As previously discussed in the project description section, the project may elect to utilize off -site parking areas to address their parking requirements. It is estimated that the nighttime off-peak condition could generate additional trips due to the off -site parking conditions. Valets will be required to park the guests' vehicles at off -site locations north of Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) U� URBAN TABLE 3-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE ITE CODE QUANTITY UNITS z PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY AM PM IN I OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Hotel 310 82 RM 0.34 0.22 0.56 0.31 0.28 0.59 8.17 Residential Condo/Townhouse 230 L 59 DU 0.07 1 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 1 5.81 ' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. RM = Rooms; DU = Dwelling Units Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report.xlsx) L uRBaN F.IJOBSI_069001_069291Exce1106929-05 Report.xlsx/T 3-1 c�eossHoeaas 3-2 TABLE 3-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR OFF-PEAK DAILY AM I PM PM IN I OUT TOTALI IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Hotel 82 RM 28 1 18 46 26 23 49 26 49 75 670 Residential Condo/Townhouse 59 DU 4 22 26 21 10 31 21 10 31 343 TOTAL TRIPS 32 40 72 47 33 80 47 59 106 1,013 ' RM = Rooms; DU = Dwelling Units Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report.xlsx) F:IJOBSI_069001_069291Excel106929-05 Report.xlsx/T 3-2 Ltd URBAN 3-3 the project site. Therefore, to ensure a conservatively high estimate of the project's trip generation during this timeframe, the number of inbound hotel trips during the PM peak hour has been added to the outbound trips. Based on this approach, 47 inbound trips and 59 outbound trips would occur. 3. Proiect Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of employment, commercial, residential and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes. Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term and long-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are either in place or will be constructed in conjunction with other future developments over the next few years (for near -term analysis scenario). The proposed project will have three full access/restricted driveways. The access at the driveways is anticipated to be controlled as follows: Highway 74 (NS) at: • Project Driveway 1 (EW) — Full access to Hwy. 74 for deliveries • Project Driveway 2 (EW) — Full Access • Project Driveway 3 (EW) — Left -In / Left -Out / Right -Out Only With No Right Turns In — The northbound right turn restriction is required since inbound vehicles would need to slow down considerably on Highway 74 prior to entering the site. Further, this driveway is only to be used by condominium residents, and, understanding the traffic movements and site requirements, residents travelling from the south will access this driveway from the frontage road entrance further to the south. The trip distribution patterns of the project are graphically depicted on Exhibit 3-A. The off- peak travel patterns for the valet are also illustrated on this exhibit. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS 'A T Ln DAILYGRILL PARKING n "A" ST. x! r CC w IL w ¢ IMAGO O Z GALLERY ¢ PARI UNG LL S _Z ° - 5 I — — — — — DWY.1 ! " 5 IM a z SITE O O' �60 DWY. 2 63 2 i 32 m i i 3 ut PITAHAYA ' DWY. 3 ST.Ln 1 I Ili r riI M LEGEND: = OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) ® a FULL ACCESS = LEFT-IN/LEFT-OUT/ RIGHT -OUT ONLY ACCESS Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:03) EXHIBIT 3-A PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ►m w . c w z 25 0 �i 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT -- -- = PEAK HOUR OUTBOUND - = PEAK HOUR INBOUND - VALET PATH OF TRAVEL (OFF-PEAK HOUR) 3-5 now- 20 EL PASEO 10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT -- -- = PEAK HOUR OUTBOUND - = PEAK HOUR INBOUND - VALET PATH OF TRAVEL (OFF-PEAK HOUR) 3-5 now- 20 EL PASEO 5 D9j�P 21 P �N C/p, UTURE DEBONNE CITY PARKING ;q"ST RKING URBAN CROSSROADS 4. Modal Split This traffic study does not assume that project trips will be reduced by a transit service within the study area. Therefore, the results in this report represent a conservative condition with respect to vehicular traffic generation. 5. Project Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions, and proposed arterial highway and local street systems, which would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. Based on the identified project traffic generation and primary trip distributions, project AM and PM peak hour and off-peak nighttime intersection traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits 3-B and 3-C, respectively. Project related ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-D, respectively. B. Other Future Development Traffic 1. Method of Projection To assess Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (E+A+C) development (2014) conditions, cumulative development traffic is combined with existing traffic and area -wide growth. This scenario includes other future developments which are approved or being processed concurrently in the study area. Developments which are being processed concurrently in the City of Palm Desert that are near the study area have been provided by City of Palm Desert Staff. 2. Other Approved Projects The cumulative developments have been included along with the land use associated with each project. For cumulative projects, ITE Trip Generation Rates (8'h Edition) were used. Cumulative developments are projected to generate a total of approximately 5,683 trip -ends per day with 169 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 483 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Table 3-3 details the trip generation rates for the other developments in the area that were used in the analysis. Table 3-4 presents the other development land uses and trip generation. Exhibit 3-E illustrates the cumulative development location map. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) OURBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-13 PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES raim ueserr moreliuonnomrnium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:11) 3-7 OURBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-C PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES a C-0(0) oo N o —0(0) mo f-3(3) 0(0)! I t f- 0(0) V in is 7(7)--� in Ln a w w w z z O i 0 l { .rye _0 / Pt TANAYA ST l l a l 4� m ho Q O ti 2 Q �O O Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:11) �l EL PASEO LEGEND: ,I) = OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) 10(10) = PM PEAK(OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME) HOUR VOLUMES URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3•D PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:11) M] i PER DAY (1000'S) URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 3-3 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE ITE CODE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY AM PM IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Shopping Center 820 7 TSF 2.80 1.79 4.59 7.50 7.80 15.30 172.25 Shopping Center 820 33.727 TSF 1.47 0.94 2.41 4.46 4.64 9.10 99.34 Resort Hotel 330 106 RM 0.22 0.09 0.31 0.18 0.24 0.42 8.00 3 Residential Condo/ Townhouse 230 48 DU 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 1 0.17 1 0.52 1 5.81 JI ' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet RM = Rooms DU = Dwelling Units 3 Since ITE does not have a daily rate for a resort hotel, SANDAG daily rate is utilized. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report.xlsx) F:IJOBSI 069001_069291Excel106929-05 Report.xlsx/T 3-3 3-10 OURBAM TABLE 3-4 OTHER DEVELOPMENT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION AZ PROJECT PEAK HOUR AM PM # NAME LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT TOTAL IN I OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Jensen's Shopping Center 7 TSF 20 13 33 53 55 108 1,206 2 Garden's at El Paseo Shopping Center 33.727 TSF 50 32 82 150 156 306 3,350 Larks ur Resort Hotel 106 RM 23 10 33 19 25 44 848 Residential Condo/Townhouse 48 DU 3 18 21 17 8 25 279 3 ITotal Larkspur 26 28 54 36 33 69 1,127 TOTAL 96 73 169 239 244 483 5,683 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet RM = Rooms DU = Dwelling Units Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report.xlsx) F:IJOBSI_069001_069291Exce1106929-05 Report.xlsx/r 3-4 L# URBAN 3-11 EXHIBIT 3-E CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:13) 3-12 D- - p- LEGEND: 1O= JENSEN'S O2 = GARDENS AT EL PASEO O3 'LARKSPUR URBAN CROSSROADS 3. Other Development Trip Distribution Appendix "D" contains the directional distribution and assignment of the cumulative development traffic. 4. Total Future Traffic Based on the identified trip distribution for the other development on arterial highways throughout the study area, cumulative development AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are illustrated on Exhibits 3-F and 3-G, respectively. Other cumulative development ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-H. Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative AM and PM peak hour and off-peak nighttime intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 3-1 and 3-J, respectively. Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-K. Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project (2014) development AM and PM peak hour and off-peak nighttime intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 3-L and 3-M, respectively. Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative plus Project ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-N. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) OURBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-F OTHER DEVELOPMENT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development OURBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:14) 3-14 EXHIBIT 3-G OTHER DEVELOPMENT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:14) 3-15 URBAN GROSSROAUS Halm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:14) EXHIBIT 3-H OTHER DEVELOPMENT ONLY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 3-16 PER DAY (1000'S) URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-1 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:16) URBAN CROSSROADS 3-17 EXHIBIT 3-J EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES �-341(187) N f-396(175) �f `161(71) 56(36)- } (� 315(181) now 525(264)-� m N P�T\VA EL PASEO LEGEND: 1o(1o) - PM PEAK(OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME) HOUR VOLUMES Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development OURBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:16) CRosSRos►OS 3-18 EXHIBIT 3-K EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:16) PER DAY (1000'S) URBAN CROSSROADS 3-19 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLU AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:18) 3-20 S EXHIBIT 3-L PROJECT VOLUMES URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-M EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR AND OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME INTERSECTION VOLUMES Of i0 \ �-341(187) NiO Of —396(175) J f--164(74) 56(36)--1 } (� 315(181)_ m N ^ 532(271)� v Z \ ` n Zn n h 0 f—ot 4o H R �0L L �? 1� 2q Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:18) Itf NO" nco > NON Q } W Q W z z O 2 3-21 EL PASEO qF� I (ti�'t RE I�f'.M�tt;YNk" rrT i', a dtdfT -4Y: LEGEND: = OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) 10(10) = PM PEAK(OFF-PEAK NIGHTIME) HOUR VOLUMES URBAN CROSSROADS EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE AVERAGE DAILY 37.2 1 39.6 EL PASEO 15.0 13.2 0 w• h 0.4 ¢ A•ST m N / / N PrTgHgV N l! 511+�' � ;--0:4 � h� �i 2 O 4� aF O c) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:18) 3-22 LEGEND: EXHIBIT 3•N PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC (ADT) 10.0 - VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) URBAN CROSSROADS 4.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the traffic operations for future traffic conditions both without and with the proposed project. The operations analysis for each future analysis scenario is presented in a separate subsection. Q 0 Level of Service for Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Development (2014) 1. Intersection Analysis Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative intersection levels of service are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections. For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours and off-peak nighttime with existing geometry. For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not anticipated to be warranted at any of the unsignalized study area intersections (see Appendix "C") Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative (2014) HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "E". Level of Service for Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Development + Proiect (2014) 1. Intersection Analysis Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative + Project intersection levels of service are shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections, without and with improvements. For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours and off-peak nighttime with existing geometry. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 4-1 06929-23 Report) L URBAN TABLE 4-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH + CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES z DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OFF- OFF - INTERSECTION CONTROL' AM PM PEAK AM PM PEAK L T R L T R L T R L T R Highway 74 (NS) at: • Highway 111 (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 27.1 28.1 N/A ° C C N/A ° • El Paseo (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 27.4 38.6 19.7 C D B "A" Street (EW) CSS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.9 11.5 10.4 B B B • Pitahaya Street- Dwy. 3 (EW) I CSS 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1! 0 1 0 1! 0 1 17.6 19.4 1 N/A' C C N/A ° TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left -Through -Right Lane 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 8.0 (2008) and Synchro 7 (2007). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ° N/A, Not Applicable. This intersection is not analyzed since additional vallet trips during the off-peak hour is not anticipated at this location. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 06929-05 Report) F:IJOBSI_069001_069291Exce1106929-05 Report/T 4-1 O URBAN CROSSROADS 4-2 TABLE 4-2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING + AMBIENT GROWTH + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES 2 DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OFF- OFF CONTROL' AM PM PEAK AM PM PEAK L T R L T R L T R L T R Highway Highway 74 (NS) at: • Highway 111 (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 27.2 28.1 N/A ° C C N/A' • El Paseo (EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 27.6 38.6 19.7 C D B • "A" Street (EW) CSS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 14.3 11.7 10.7 B B B • Driveway 1 (EW) CSS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12.0 11.5 10.4 B B B • Driveway 2 (EW) CSS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 17.0 16.4 13.5 C C B • Pitahaya Street - Dwy. 3 (EW) CSS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 0 1! 0 18.4 20.6 N/A a C C N/A' TS = Traffic Signal CSS = Cross Street Stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Lek -Through -Right Lane; 1 = Improvement 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 8.0 (2008) and Synchro 7 (2007). Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. N/A, Not Applicable. This intersection is not analyzed since additional vallet trips during the off-peak hour is not anticipated at this location. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-05 Report) F:IJOBSI_069001_069291Exce1106929-05 ReporVT 4-2 4-3 L10URBAN For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative + Project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is not anticipated to be warranted at any of the unsignalized study area intersections (see Appendix °C"). Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative + Project (2014) HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix T". Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN.• 06929-23 Report) UI% URBAN 4-4. CROSSROADS 5.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic study is based upon 2014 Near -Term Year (with and without project), as the project land use is consistent with the City of Palm Desert Land Use Element. Below is a summary of the traffic impact analysis findings as well as specific on -site recommendations. A. Traffic Impacts and Level of Service The project is proposed to be built with 82 hotel rooms and 59 condominium units. The proposed development is projected to generate a net total of approximately 1,013 per day with 72 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour, 80 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour and 106 vehicles during the PM off-peak hour. For existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours and off-peak nighttime with existing geometry. For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Development traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours and off- peak nighttime with existing geometry. For Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Development + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours and off-peak nighttime with existing geometry and on -site improvements. B. Circulation Recommendations 1. On -Site Construction of on -site and project -related improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent project development activity or as needed for project access purposes. Exhibit 5-A illustrates the on -site circulation recommendations. The recommended on -site and project - related roadway improvements are described below: Driveway 1 Recommendations • Provide full access to Driveway 1 from Highway 74 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) 5-1 CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 5-A CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDE FULL ACCESS TO DRIVEWAY 1 FROM HIGHWAY 74. ` - ' -- — - t ON -SITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND DRIVEWAY I STRIPING SHOULD BE q (FQA DELIVERIES( t1 q IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION fi q 11 -- -- s WITH DETAILED CONSTRUCTION „ ,€— PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE. $ra j j �•_� 3- -q AL i g rt pM SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH t J PROJECT ACCESS ROADWAY �- € 1 € r t SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITHi RESPECT TO STANDARD i CALTRANS AND CITY OF PALM DESERT SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF . t r; ;� ° t O i t O PREPARATION OF FINAL „ 1 GRADING, LANDSCAPE AND ° I J STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. STOP SIGN CONTROL SHOULD b t O BE PROVIDED AT THE o INTERSECTIONS OF THE j PROJECT ACCESS POINTS THAT DO NOT MEET MINIMUM TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS, _ AND CONNECT WITH PUBLIC_DRIVEWAY'1 t ROADWAYS. 1 STRIPE A MINIMUM 100-FOOT" t SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON HIGHWAY 74 AT ITS PROPOSED INTERSECTIONt ' + WITH PROJECT DRIVEWAY 2. t 1t CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM NORTHBOUND _ RIGHT TURN LANE.RIGHT TURNS AT PROJECT RESTRICT NORTHBOUND ;- APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE A Y € t DRIVEWAY 3 BY PROVIDING THE PROJECT DRIVEWAY. PITAHAYA ST. -_ DRIVEWAY 3 ALIGN DRIVEWAY 3 DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM PITAHAYA STREET. t STRIPE A MINIMUM 100-FOOT. t s NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON HIGHWAY 74 AT ITS — �t—�-- —ri PROPOSED INTERSECTION WITH — aaA PROJECT DRIVEWAY 3. -- LEGEND: ® = FULL ACCESS = NEW STOP SIGN e 0 = LEFT-IN/LEFT-OUT/ r 100' = MINIMUM TURN POCKET LENGTH RIGHT -OUT ONLY ACCESS Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:34) O URBAN 5-2 Driveway 2 Recommendations • Stripe a minimum 100-foot southbound left turn lane on Highway 74 at its proposed intersection with Project Driveway 2. • Construct a minimum 100-foot northbound right turn lane at Project Driveway 2. Driveway 3 Recommendations • Align Driveway 3 directly across from Pitahaya Street. • Restrict northbound right turns at Project Driveway 3 by providing appropriate signage in advance of the project driveway. The northbound right turn restriction is required since inbound vehicles would need to slow down considerably on Highway 74 prior to entering the site. Further, this driveway is only to be used by condominium residents, and, understanding the traffic movements and site requirements, residents travelling from the south will access this driveway from the frontage road entrance further to the south. • Stripe a minimum 100-foot northbound left turn lane on Highway 74 at its proposed intersection with Project Driveway 3. General Recommendations • The frontage road adjacent to the project will be vacated in conjunction with development. However, the frontage road on the southerly boundary of the project is anticipated to be connected into the project site. • Stop sign control should be provided at the intersections of the project access points that do not meet minimum traffic signal warrants, and connect with public roadways. • On -site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. • Sight distance at each project access roadway should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) 5-3 LIMMAN THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) OURBAN COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA, 92557 951-247-6716 CITY OF PALM DESERT File Name : PDMO111AM N/S: MONTEREY AVENUE/SR-74 Site Code : 0311611 E/W: SR-111 Start Date : 3/23/2006 WEATHER: SUNNY Page No : 1 Groups Printed_- TOTAL VOLUME MONTEREY AVENUE SR-111 SR-74 SR-111 Southbound Westbound - -- Northbound Eastbound Start Time Lef f Thru ;Right APP mta Left Thru i Right APB Total Left r - Thru i Right1App -- Total Left Thru R_ ight Tapp roai tr t Total 0700 AM 32 75 8 115 28 95 23 146 30 73 38 141 7 _ 101 18 126 528 07:15 AM 41 78 14 133 36 108 16 160 24 79 63 166 10 117 21 148 607 07:30 AM 44 81 17 142 28 159 43 230 49 94 46 189 13 127 27 167 728 07:45 AM 70 98 22 190 57 172 52 281 29 121 62 212 16 161 16 193 876 Totalf 187 332 61 580 149 534 134 817' 132 367 209 708 46 506 82 634! 2739 08:00 AM 64 93 31 188 40 164 46 250 33 101 51 185 23 198 17 2381 861 08:15 AM 89 91 35 215 39 158 41 238 37 76 48 161 20 199 18 237 851 08:30 AM 73 92 22 187 34 144 38 216 34 86 44 164 18 201 27 246, 813 08:45 AM I 95 103 31 229 40 164 29 233 37 98 42 177 17 213 31 261 1 900 Total; 321 379 119 819 153 630 154 937 141 361 185 687 78 811 93 982 3425 Grand Total 508 711 180 1399, 302 1164 288 1754 273 728 394 1395, 124 1317 175 1616 6164 Apprch % 36.3 50.8 12.9 17.2 66.4 16.4 19.6 52.2 28.2 i 7.7 81.5 10.8 Total % 8.2 11.5 2.9 22.7 , 4.9 18.9 4.7 28.5 4.4 11.8 6.4 22.6 2 21.4 2.8 26.21 MONTEREY AVENUE SR-111 SR-74 SR-111 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right APP. Total Left I Thru Right APP. Total Left Thru Right APP. rotas Left Thru Right APP rotas mt. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 64 93 31 188 40 164 46 250 33 101 51 185 23 198 17 238 861 08:15 AM 89 91 35 215' 39 158 41 238 37 76 48 161 20 199 18 237 851 08:30 AM 73 92 22 187' 34 144 38 216' 34 86 44 164' 18 201 27 246 813 08:45 AM 95 103 31 229 40 164 29 233'' 37 98 42 177 17 213 31 261 900 Total Volume 321 379 119 819j 153 630 154 937, 141 361 185 687 78 811 93 982 3425 % App. Total 39.2 46.3 14.5 16.3 67.2 16.4 20.5 52.5 26.9 7.9 82.6 9.5 PHF .845 .920 .850 .894, .956 .960 .837 .937 .953 .894 .907 .928' .848 .952 .750 .941 .951 A-1 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA. 92557 951-247-6716 CITY OF PALM DESERT File Name : PDMO111AM N/S: MONTEREY AVENUE/SR-74 Site Code : 0311611 E/W: SR-111 Start Date : 3/23/2006 WEATHER: SUNNY Page No : 2 Out In Total 5973, i_819! `_1412 - 119- 379 -- 321-- Right Thru Left 4J ► Peak Hour Data ^ �i�, ? jo o- North _ �.cn— J c m m, F / Peak Hour Begins at 0800 AM - ~ c o' L' ,.01 rn t I TOTAL VOLUME50) — -- 00 J r ID '- Ut N A - Left Thru Right 141 3 625j 66871 1 1312 Out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 08:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM +0 mins. 64 93 31 188 28 159 43 230 24 79 63 166 23 198 17 238 +15 mins. 89 91 35 215 57 172 52 281 49 94 46 189 20 199 18 2371 +30 mins. 73 92 22 187 40 164 46 250 29 121 62 212 18 201 27 246 +45 mins. 95 103 31 229 39 41 238 33 101 51 185 17 213 31 261 Total Volume 321 379 119 819 164 _158 653 182 999 135 395 222 752 78 811 93 982 % App. Total 39.2 46.3 14.5 16.4 65.4 18.2 18 52.5 29.5 _ 7.9 82.6 9.5 PHTff845 .920 850 .894 719 .949 .875 _ .889 .689 .816 .881 _ .887 .848 .952 .750 .941� M CITY OF PALM DESERT N/S: MONTEREY AVENUE/SR-74 E/W: SR-111 WEATHER: SUNNY COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA. 92557 951-247-6716 Groups Printed- TOTAL VOLUME File Name : PDMO111 PM Site Code : 0311659 Start Date : 3/21/2006 Page No : 1 MONTEREY AVENUE SR-111 SR-74 SR-111 Southbound Westbound Northbound _ Eastbound Start Time Left ThruTRi ht A Tocai Left Thru rRi Right A r - g pp Total Left Thru Right App Totai Left Thru Right ; App Total _ _ � PP � Int. Total _ 1 1184 04:30 PM 73 109 40 222 42 235 59 336' 63 1277 48 238 55 2775 28 358 1181 1154 04:45 PM 66 115 37 218 42 243 66 351 49 113 46 208 59 278 36 373; 1150 Total) 283 422 177 882 187 925 272 1384 209 493 189 891 244 1148 120 1512 4669 05:00 PM j 97 114 35 246 40 239 69 348 61 111 44 216 69 316 30 415! 1225 05:15 PM 85 110 51 246 52 267 51 370 47 105 30 18253 343 30 426i 1224 05:30 PM 84 99 40 223 53 249 50 352 54 96 36 186 58 279 30 367 1128 05:45 PM 61 125 61 2471 39 205 49 293 32 102 51 185 62 296 29 387 1112 Total 1 327 448 187 962 184 960 219 1363' 194 414 161 769 242 1234 119 1595 4689 Grand Total) 610 870 364 1844' 371 1885 491 2747' 403 907 350 1660' 486 2382 239 3107 9358 Apprch % 33.1 47.2 19.7 13.5 68.6 17.9 24.3 54.6 21.1 15.6 76.7 7.7 Total % I 6.5 9.3 3.9 19.7 4 20.1 5.2 29.4 4.3 9.7 3.7 17.7 5.2 25.5 2.6 33.2 MONTEREY AVENUE SR-111 SR-74 SR-111 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right ! App. Total Left I Thru i Right , App. Total Left Thru I Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total lot. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 73 109 40 222, 42 235 59 336 63 127 48 238 55 275 28 358 1154 04:45 PM 66 115 37 218 42 243 66 351 49 113 46 208 59 278 36 373 1150 05:00 PM 97 114 35 246 40 239 69 348 61 111 44 216' 69 316 30 415 1225 05:15 PM 85 110 51 246 I 52 267 51 370 47 105 30 182 53 343 30 426 1224 Total Volume 321 448 163 932', 176 984 245 1405' 220 456 168 844' 236 1212 124 1572 4753 %App. Total 34.4 48.1 17.5 12.5 70 17.4 26.1 54 19.9 15 77.1 T9 PHF .827 .974 .799 .947 .846 .921 .888 949 .873 .898 .875 .887 .855 .883 .861 .923 .970 A-3 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA. 92557 951-247-6716 CITY OF PALM DESERT N/S: MONTEREY AVENUE/SR-74 E/W: SR-111 WEATHER: SUNNY File Name : PDMO111 PM Site Code : 0311659 Start Date : 3/21/2006 Page No : 2 Out In Total 937 _932' 163 448� 321 Right Thru Left FI ► Peak Hour Data North a— 7 `ini ce N. N F-- ► i Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM� A V: TOTAL VOLUME o N L r Left Thru Right 220' 4561 168 7481 1 8441 1592 out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM +0 mins. 97 114 35 246 42 243 66 351'' 56 123 48 227 69 316 30 415 +15 mins. 85 110 51 246 40 239 69 348 41 130 47 218 53 343 30 426 +30 mins. 84 99 40 223 52 267 51 370' 63 127 48 238 58 279 30 367 +45 mins. 61 125 247', 53 249 50 352 49 113 46 208 62 296 29 387 Total Volume 327 448 _61 187 962 187 998 236 1421 209 493 189 891 242 1234 119 1595 % App. Total 34 46.6 19.4 13.2 70.2 16.6 23.5 55.3 21.2 15.2 77.4 7.5 PHF .843 .896 .766 _ 974 .882 .934 .855 .960 .829 .948 .984 .936 .877 .899 .992 _ 936 A-4 CITY OF PALM DESERT N/S: SR-74 E/W: El PASEO WEATHER: SUNNY COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA. 92557 951-247-6716 Groups_Printed- TOTAL VOLUME File Name : PD74EPAM Site Code : 0311638 Start Date : 3/23/2006 Page No : 1 SR-74 EL PASEO SR 74 EL PASEO Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound -Total Start Time Left - - Thru Right App Total_ Left Thru - Right App. Total Left Thru t _Right LApp Total Left Thru R ht App rotas It. of . Factor 1.0� 1.Oy: 1.0 1.0 ! 1 0i 1.0 _ 1.0 1.0 i 1.0 ' _ _ 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 07:00 AM, 8 100 23 _ 131 _ 11 - 18 21 50 40 149 24 213 4 19 24 47 441 07:15 AM 14 130 16 160 9 30 16 55 57 200 23 280 4 18 45 67 562 07:30 AM 17 126 21 164 15 40 16 71 60 204 19 283 5 21 48 74 592 07:45 AM 18 135 21 174 27 33 26 86 65 231 22 318 7 25 47 791 657 Total 57 491 81 629 62 121 79 262 222 784 88 1094 20 83 164 2671 2252 08:00 AM 28 119 19 166' 15 36 20 71 69 210 27 306 8 30 35 73 1 616 08:15 AM 26 123 26 175 19 43 33 95 63 213 33 309 6 30 48 841 663 08:30 AM 35 140 30 205 14 59 35 108 70 177 28 275 I 12 36 42 90 1 678 08:45 AM 38 167 18 223 21 56 36 113 60 197 28 285' 18 42 48 108 729 Total'! 127 549 93 769 69 194 124 387 262 797 116 1175 44 138 173 355 2686 Grand Total 184 1040 174 1398 131 315 203 649 484 1581 204 2269' 64 221 337 622 4938 Apprch % 13.2 74.4 12.4 20.2 48.5 31.3 21.3 69.7 9 10.3 35.5 54.2 Total % 3.7 21.1 3.5 28.3 2.7 6.4 4.1 13.1 1 9.8 32 4.1 45.9 1.3 4.5 6.8 12.6 SR-74 EL PASEO SR-74 EL PASEO Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru l Right App Total Left Thru j Right App. Total Left Thru Right App Total Left Thru Right I App, Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 28 119 19 166 15 36 20 71 69 210 27 306 8 30 35 73 616 08:15 AM 26 123 26 175 19 43 33 95 63 213 33 309 6 30 48 84 663 08:30 AM 35 140 30 205 14 59 35 108 70 177 28 275 12 36 42 90 678 08:45 AM 38 167 18 223! 21 56 36 113 60 197 28 285 18 42 48 108 729 Total Volume 127 549 93 769 69 194 124 387 262 797 116 1175 44 138 173 355 2686 % App. Total 16.5 71.4 12.1 17.8 50.1 32 22.3- 67.8 9.9 12.4 38.9 48.7 PHF .836 .822 .775 .862I .821 .822 .861 .856 .936 .935 .879 .951 .611 .821 .901 .822 .921 A-5 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. 25424 JACLYN AVENUE MORENO VALLEY CA. 92557 951-247-6716 CITY OF PALM DESERT File Name : PD74EPAM N/S: SR-74 Site Code : 0311638 E/W: El PASEO Start Date : 3/23/2006 WEATHER: SUNNY Page No : 2 Out In Total -366 —_769'; 1734 -L _ 93 5491 127 Right Thri Left ~ -► Peak Hour Data 6 o!rn — O ~i �C J North -� J A CM -i M 2 t — ► H ( - Hou_ Peak r Begins at 08:00 AM �. rr J _ TOTAL VOLUME C A'i �' co rr i �iE 1 �'� 10 Left Thru Right r 262 79 7911 ! 1175 1966' out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM +0 mins. 28 119 19 166 15 36 20 71 60 204 19 283, 8 30 35 73 +15 mins. 26 123 26 175 19 43 33 95 65 231 22 318 6 30 48 84I +30 mins. 35 140 30 205 14 59 35 108 69 210 27 306 12 36 42 90 +45 mins. Total Volume 38 12-7 167 549 18 93 223 769 21 69 56 194 36 124 113 387 63 257 213 858 33 101 309' 1216 18 44 42 138 48 173 108 355 App. Total 16.5 71.4 12.1 17.8 50.1 32 21.1 70.6 8.3 12.4 38.9 48.7 PHF 1 .836 .822 775 .862 821 .822 .861 .856 .931 .929 765 956 - 611 .821 .901 822 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: SR-74 DATE: 3/29/2007 LOCATION: City of Palm Desert E-W STREET: El Paseo DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 07-3121-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 45 150 28 43 134 27 8 84 100 21 96 76 812 4:15 PM 50 122 21 58 133 28 8 77 129 29 78 75 808 4:30 PM 63 131 24 23 121 29 15 69 84 26 63 73 721 4:45 PM 42 142 21 93 171 42 16 75 107 36 88 65 898 5:00 PM 68 154 17 53 179 25 10 73 118 37 95 83 912 5:15 PM 45 127 29 35 190 31 15 64 139 27 90 61 853 5:30 PM 53 138 18 57 125 35 8 51 95 31 61 75 747 5:45 PM 67 121 18 58 177 31 13 53 80 36 70 70 794 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 1 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 433 1085 176 420 1230 248 93 S46 852 243 641 S78 6545 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 1 208 561 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.893 CONTROL: Signalized 85 1 238 665 133 1 49 0.846 A-13 A-7 263 459 1 131 0.884 334 284 1 3410 0.871 0.935 El Paseo Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services TMC Summary of SR-741EI Paseo m D O C TOTAL AM NOON PM 0 1 D v 2; v b SORTHBOUND APPROACH LANES z MMW tn 055 0 A 0 329 0 0 320 0 Z0. 0 C. 0 z M O N � �+ z o 0 0 a Mr,a. �aaa` f- Project #: 07-3121-003 n, EI Paseo AM NOON PM TOTAL A. 41111111111111 Arm 0 287 1 288 1 1 0 351 0 351 2 0 99 0 99 1 1 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT ti SR-74 / El Paseo (Intersection Name) NORTHBOUND APPROACH LANES A-14 A-8 Ln w U O a 0 Z O m 3 Saturday 3131/07 Day Date COUNT PERIODS am 7:00 AM 9:00 AM noon n:00 AM 2:00 PM m 4:00 PM 6:00 PM AM PEAK HOUR 0 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 1145 AM PM PEAK HOUR 400 PM Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 OFF-PEAK Corona, CA 2878 928 (951) 268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name : PLDPHEPPM N/S: Palms Highway Site Code : 11092031 E/W: El Paseo Start Date : 4/13/2011 Weather: Clear Page No 1 Groups Printed -Total Volume Palms Highway (SR-74) EI Pasco Patens Highway (SR-74) fa Paseo Southbound Westbound Northbound Easthound StartTime Left Thru Right npp.Toad LCft _ Thru Right .%pp.5cd Left Thru Right .:npp. mwi Left I'hru Right :npp T,m.d Int.Turd 06:00 PM 37 104 23 164 21 32 48 lot 23 l00 19 142 11 36 61 108 51i 06:15I'M 37 83 20 140 14 48 47 109 41 110 15 166 6 39 66 Ill 526 06:30 PM 39 101 17 157 10 39 32 81 32 87 10 t29 4 39 63 106 473 06:45 PM _ 38 84 20 142 12 33 34 79 22 83 11 116 13 44 59 116 453 Total 151 372 80 603 57 152 161 370 118 380 55 553 34 158 249 441 1967 07:0O PM 26 60 15 lot 7 26 27 60 38 65 13 116 7 32 48 87 364 07:15 PM 26 65 22 113 12 36 34 82 17 58 3 78 8 27 66 lot 174 07:30 PM 24 69 Ill 103 13 29 41 83 22 66 9 97 9 24 43 76 359 07:45 PM 14 74 4 92 13 31 30 74 14 47 9 70' 9 19 45 73 309 Total 90 268 51 409 45 122 132 I 299 91 _ 236 34 361 33 102 202 337 1400 Grand Total 241 640 131 1012 102 274 293 669 209 616 89 914 67 260 451 778 3373 Apprch 510 23.9 63.2 12.9 15.2 41 43.8 22.9 67.4 9.7 8.6 33.4 58 Total '7, T I 19 3.9 30 3 8.1 8.7 19.8 6.2 18.3 2.6 27.1 2 7.7 13.4 23.1 Patens Highway (SR-74) FI Paseo Palms Highway (SR-74) El Pasco Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left 'Thru Right npp rmai Left _ Thru Right App. To,al ! Left _' Thru Right App. r,,i:,i Left Thru Right .npp. rotai Int. Toed Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 PM to 07:45 PM - Peak I of I Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 06:00 PM 06:00 PM 37 t04 23 164 21 32 48 101 23 l00 19 142 11 36 61 108 515 06:15 PM 37 83 20 140 14 48 47 109 41 110 15 166 6 39 66 Ill 526 06:30 PM 39 101 17 157 10 39 32 81 32 87 10 129 4 39 63 106 473 06:45 PM 38 84 20 142 12 33 34 79 22 83 11 116 l3 44 59 t16 453 Total Volume 151 372 80 603 �, 57 152 161 370 118 380 55 553 34 158 249 441 1907 %, App. Total 25 61.7 13.3 1 15.4 41.1 43.5 21.3 68.7 9.9 7.7 35.9 56.5 PHF .968 .894 .870 .919 ' .679 .792 .939 .849 .720 .864 .724 .833 .654 .899 .943 .950 .935 NAIR City of Palm Desert N/S: Palms Highway E/W: El Paseo Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 File Name : PLDPHEPPM Site Code : 11092031 Start Date : 4/13/2011 Page No : 2 Palms Highway (SR-74) Out In Total 575 603 1178 80 372 151 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data O �� North _s a ► Peak Hour Begins at 06:00 PM 1 2 m aN cn W o �'t Total Volume N �' � p O,`h... CD o w m A _ 4 - ► Left Thru Right 1181 380 55, 678 553 1231' Out In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 PM to 07:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour For Each Approach Begins at: 06:(N) PM 06:IN) PM +0 mins. 37 104 23 164 21 32 48 +15 mins. 37 83 20 140 14 48 47 +30 mins. 39 101 17 157 10 39 32 +45 mins. 38 84 20 lag 12 33 34 Total Volume 151 372 80 603 57 152 161 App. Total 25 61.7 13.3 15.4 41.1 43.5 PHF .968 .894 .870 .919 .679 .792 .839 06:IN) PM 101 23 100 19 109 41 1l0 15 81 32 87 10 79 22 83 11 370 118 380 55 21.3 68.7 9.9 849 .720 .864 .724 06A) P.M 142 11 36 61 108 166 6 39 66 III 129 4 39 63 106 116 13 44 59 116 553 34 158 249 441 7.7 35.9 56.5 833 .654 .898 .943 .950 A-10 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE: LOCATION: PALM DESERT PROJECT #: CA09-1106-2 11/5/09 NORTH & SOUTH: HWY 74 LOCATION #: 1 THURSDAY EAST & WEST: A CONTROL: 1-WAY STOP: VVB NOTES: N /W E► S NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND HWY 74 HWY 74 A A NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 00 AM 121 0 0 111 j 0 1_ 233 7 15 AM 175 1 1 111 0 0 288 7 30 AM 208 0 0 136 2 1 347 7:45 AM - - 225 0 1 - 405 179 - 0 0 8:00 AM 206 0 1 153 - 0 - 2 362 8:15 AM 180 0 0 159 0 1 340 8:30 AM 177 0 1 144 0 1 323 g 8:45 AM 219 0 3 138 0 _ 2 362 a VOLUMES 0 1,511 1 7 1,131 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 2,660 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 1% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 80% APP/DEPART 1512 / 1,519 1,138 / 1,133 0 / 8 10 / 0 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM VOLUMES 0 819 0 2 627 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1,454 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 67% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.910 0.874 0.000 0.500 0.898 APP DEPART 819 823 629 629 0 2 6 0 0 4:00 PM - 156 1 4 184 0 1 346 4 15 PM - - --- 4.30 PM -- 181 221 - 2 1 1. - - 2 188 - 171 - - I---- -- 0 0- - - 5 - i 377 - 396 4:45 PM 1.58 .1 4 234 0 7 404 5.00 PM 172 1 1 184 0 2 360 5:15 PM 156 0 3 210 0 4 - 373 5 30 PM 148 2 3 183 1 4 341 g 5.45 PM 110 t 3 1 1.6? 0 3 279 a VOLUMES 0 1,302 it 19 1,516 0 0 0 0 1 0 27 2,876 APPROACH % 0% 99% 1% 1% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 96% APP/DEPART 1,313 / 1,329 1,535 / 1,517 0 / 30 28 / 0 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:15 PM VOLUMES 0 732 5 8 777 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1,537 APPROACH % 0% 99% 1% 1% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.830 0.825 0.000 0.536 0.951 APP DEPART 1 737 747 1 785 777 1 0 13 15 0 0 A-11 m PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS HWY 74 2,673 1 0 1 2,647 26 TOTAL 19 PM 2,848 1,329 1,535 0 1,516 1,138 0 1,131 7 AM 1,519 �j V N J 0 i a F 0 0 0 O O O ) 0 o O PALM DESERT CA09-1106-2 ALL HOURS 3 3 =004 m___ => LH 1,517 AM 0 PM 0 1,511 1,302 11 1,313 2,650 TOTAL 0 2,813 12 2,825 HWY 74 HWY 74 1,414 785 0 0 1,404 777 10 TOTAL 8� PM 1,570 747 629 0 627 2 AM 823 <7�)J3a ,Nn J O H n PEAK HOUR AM 7:30 AM PM 4:15 PM 629 AM 1 0 732 737 0 777 PM 0 732 5 737 1,406 Total 0 1,551 5 1,556 FE HWY 74 City of Palm Desert N/S: Palms Highway (SR-74) E/W: "A" Street Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951) 268-6268 Groups Printed- Total Volume OFF-PEAK File Name : PLDPHAPM Site Code : 11092022 Start Date : 4/13/2011 Page No : 1 Palms Highway (SR-74) "A" Street Palms Highway (SR-74) Southbound Westbound Northbound Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 06:00 PM 4 172 176 0 7 7 132 0 132 315 06:15 PM 2 153 155 0 4 4 166 0 166 325 06:30 PM 1 166 167 0 2 2 121 0 121 290 06:45 PM: 0 152 152 0 5 5 114 0 114 271 Total 7 643 650 0 18 18 533 0 533 1201 07:00 PM 0 112 112 2 1 3 113 0 113 228 07:15 PM 1 135 136 1 0 1 71 1 72 209 07:30 PM 2 125 127 0 3 3 96 0 96 226 07:45 PM 0 129 129 1 0 1 69 2 71 201 Total 3 501 504 4 4 8 349 3 352 864 Grand Total 10 1144 1154 4 22 26 882 3 885 2065 Apprch % 0.9 99.1 15.4 84.6 99.7 0.3 Total % 0.5 55.4 55.9 0.2 1.1 1.3 42.7 0.1 42.9 Palms Highway (SR-74) "A" Street Palms Highway (SR-74) Southbound Westbound Northbound Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 PM to 07:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 06:00 PM 06:00 PM 4 172 176 0 7 7 132 0 132 315 06:15 PM 2 153 155 ! 0 4 4 166 0 166 325 06:30 PM 1 166 167 0 2 2 121 0 121 290 06:45 PM 0 152 152 0 5 5 114 0 114 271 Total Volume 7 643 650 0 18 18 533 0 533 1201 % App. Total 1.1 98.9 0 100 100 0 PHF .438 .935 .923 .000 .643 .643 803 .000 .803 .924 A-13 City of Palm Desert N2S: Palms Highway (SR-74) E, W: "A" Street Weather: Clear Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 (951)268-6268 Palms Highway kSR-74) Out In Total 551 650 1201 643 7 Thru Left Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 06:00 PM Total Volume Thru Right 5331 0 643533; 1176, Out In Total Palma Hinhwav (SR-741 Peak Ifour Analysis From 06:00 PM to 07:45 PM - Peak I of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 06:00 PM 06:00 PM +0 mins. 4 172 176 0 +15 mins. 2 153 155 0 +30 mins. 1 166 167 0 +45 mins. 0 152 152 0 Total Volume 7 643 650 j 0 % App. Total _ 1.1 98.9 0 PHF .438 .935 .923 .000 File Name : PLDPIIAPM Site Code : 11092022 Start Date : 4/ 13/201 1 Page No 2 06:00 PM 7 7 132 0 132 4 4 166 0 166, 2 2 121 0 121' 5 5 114 0 114 18 18 533 0 533 100 100 0 643 .643 803 .000 .803 A-14 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES DATE: LOCATION: PALM D)ESERF PROJECT #: I t/5/09 NORTH & SOUTH: FIVVY 74 LOCATION # THURSDAY I EAST & WEST: PITAHAYA CONTROL: CA09-1106-2 2 2-WAY STOP: EB & VjB NOTES: A I N 4 W E 10- S NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND I HWY 74 HWY 74 PITAHAYA PITAHAYA NL I NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL ' WT WR TOTAL LANES: x x x x x x x x x — X x 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 3 3 ill 1 0 106 5 5 f47 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 233 .159 o 1 109 4 6 1 0 _0 0 3 -294'. 7:30 AM _7 45 Am o --- 0 210 0 0 171 8 it 02 0 3 0 1 0 1 352 404 8:00 AM 0 190 0 2 144 7 12 0 2 0 + 0 1 358 8:15 AM o.._ 177 0 0— 151 13 5 1_3 0 0 1 351 8:30 AM ------ 2 - 170 o 1 134 5 7 2 0 0 0 322 8:45 AM 0 211 t o 130 5 6 0 t 0 1 0 1 2 35_6 - VOLUMES 8 1,426 2 5 1,074 55 74 2 14 0 0 10 2,670 APPROACH % 1% 99% 0% 0% 95% 5% 82% 2% 16% 0% 0% t00%- APP/DEPART 1,436 1,510 1,134 1,088 90 9 10 63 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM VOLUMES 0 775 0 3 595 36 42 1 10 0 0 3 1,465 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 0% 94% 6% 79% 2% 19% 0% 0% 100% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.923 0.885 0.828 0.750 0.907 APP/DEPART 775 820 634 605 53 4 3 36 0 4:00 PM 0 151 0 0' 174 8 2 1 0- 0 0 0 335 4:15 PM 0 176 0 179 79 7 77 0 0 1 0 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 0 218 1.53 t 0 0 3_-__- 162 t2 217 11 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 _372 399 5:00 PM 0 168 1 1 — 1 t78 5 6 -0 0 0 1 0- 0 o I 0 1 392 361 5:15 PM 0 0 203 10 7 0 2 369 5:30 PM - - _O 17 1�__ 13 6 0 1 _. 1 0 __0 - - 338 -277 0171 --l- 146 - 0 5:45 PM 0 1.06 t 2 154 6 7 1 0 0 I107 o VOLUMES 1 1,265 3 8 1,438 72 47 0 2 3 1 3 2,843 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 1% 95% 5% 96% 0% 4% 43% 14% 43% APP/DEPART 1,269 1,315 1,518 1,443 49 11 7 74 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:15 PM VOLUMES 1 715 2 6 736 35 25 0 1 1 1 1 1,524 APPROACH % 0% 100% 0% 1% 95% 5% 96% 0% 4% 33% 33% 33% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.820 0.841 0.929 0.750 0.955 APP/DEPART 718 _741 777 738 1 26 8 3 37 0 A-15 m PACIFIC TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS HWY 74 2,652 127 2,512 13 TOTAL PM R 2,825 1,315 1,518 72 1,438 1,134 55 1,074 AM 1,510 PALM DESERT CA09-1106-2 ALL HOURS 3 9 0 1,088 1,443 AM PM 8 1 1,426 1 2 1,436 1,265 3 1,269 2,531 TOTAL 9 2,691 5 2,705 HWY 74 HWY 74 1,411 777 71 1,331 1 9 TOTAL 6 PM 1,561 35 736 741 634 36 595 3 AM 820 <::� 1�a WW.n Mm a N cq N N N V PEAK HOUR AM 7:30 AM PM 4:15 PM ,�) 1� 6::> 605 AM 0 75 0 775 738 PM 1 715 2 718 1,343 Total 11,490 2 1,4932 1,493 HWY 74 Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES A-17 F- STREET 24 HOUR VOLUMES MONTEREY AVE pD LOCATION S/O SR 111 DATE 02-19-09 AM ' NORTHBOUND SORTHBOUND TOTAL 12:00 35 61 96 1:00 27 38 65 2:oa 23 13 36 3:00 18 10 28 4:00 44 44 88 5:00 115 146 261 6:00 309 362 671 7 : 0 0 584 590 1,174 8:00 633 593 1,226 9:00 745 606 1,351 10:00 748 786 1,534 11:00 829 825 1,654 12:00 PM 842 881 1,723 1:00 870 758 1,628 2:00 1,033 749 1,782 3:00 1,161 760 1,921 4:00 825 729 11554 5:00 742 764 1,506 6:00 548 622 1,170 7 : 0 0 419 436 855 8:00 350 344 694 9 : 0 0 249 286 535 10:00 142 156 298 11:00 65 87 152 12:00 11,356 10,646 22,002 Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES A-18 Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES A-19 Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES A-20 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-001 EL PASEO W/O SR-74 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB 00:00 4 5 12:00 150 162 00:15 0 4 12:15 152 147 00:30 4 0 12:30 140 170 00:45 1 9 3 12 21 12:45 154 596 167 646 1242 01:00 4 1 13:00 165 152 01:15 4 1 13:15 144 137 01:30 0 1 13:30 151 124 01:45 1 9 0 3 12 13:45 142 602 131 544 1146 02:00 1 2 14:00 148 117 02:15 0 1 14:15 120 140 02:30 2 0 14:30 130 148 02:45 2 5 2 5 10 14:45 139 537 140 545 1082 03:00 1 1 15:00 161 124 03:15 3 1 15:15 168 118 03:30 2 0 15:30 127 124 03:45 4 10 1 3 13 15:45 139 595 126 492 1087 04:00 0 0 16:00 156 142 04:15 1 2 16:15 131 145 04:30 1 1 16:30 160 156 04:45 0 2 3 6 8 16:45 112 559 152 595 1154 05:00 3 1 17:00 167 140 05:15 4 3 17:15 137 152 05:30 5 5 17:30 168 133 05:45 2 14 8 17 31 17:45 129 601 141 566 1167 06:00 9 10 18:00 120 122 06:15 9 17 18:15 118 t30 06:30 12 25 18:30 107 112 06:45 27 57 23 75 132 18:45 100 445 118 482 927 07:00 56 26 19:00 89 101 07:15 41 32 19:15 76 93 07:30 34 36 19:30 72 72 07:45 54 185 54 148 333 19:45 74 311 67 333 644 08:00 62 73 20:00 74 68 08:15 57 84 20:15 55 49 08:30 97 86 20:30 73 41 08:45 72 288 73 316 604 20:45 58 260 31 189 449 09:00 87 64 21:00 58 38 09:15 80 89 21:15 50 45 09:30 89 97 21:30 64 14 09:45 94 350 98 348 698 21:45 39 211 15 112 323 10:00 95 118 22:00 41 20 10:15 97 120 22:15 20 10 10:30 92 114 22:30 18 11 10:45 130 414 139 491 905 22:45 25 104 6 47 151 11:00 144 117 23:00 4 7 11:15 129 144 23:15 8 4 11:30 133 113 23:30 10 3 11:45 131 537 124 498 1035 23:45 9 31 6 20 51 Total Vol. 1880 1922 3802 4852 4571 9423 Daily Totals NB SB EB WB Combined 6732 6493 13225 AM PM Split % 49.4% 50.6% 28.7% 51.5% 48.5% 71.3% Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 12:45 12:00 12:15 Volume 573 603 1176 614 646 1247 P.H.F. 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.97 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-21 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-002 EL PASEO E/O SR-74 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB 00:00 5 7 12:00 126 142 00:15 0 3 12:15 138 144 00:30 6 3 12:30 127 146 00:45 1 12 4 17 29 12:45 121 512 151 583 1095 01:00 1 4 13:00 107 163 01:15 2 2 13:15 Ill 153 01:30 1 2 13:30 109 167 01:45 1 5 2 10 15 13:45 98 425 140 623 1048 02:00 0 4 14:00 109 167 02:15 0 3 14:15 114 143 02:30 0 0 14:30 107 161 02:45 1 1 1 8 9 14:45 107 437 144 615 1052 03:00 1 2 15:00 105 165 03:15 1 2 15:15 104 125 03:30 0 1 15:30 89 138 03:45 0 2 1 6 8 15:45 103 401 136 564 965 04:00 0 0 16:00 95 130 04:15 1 0 16:15 75 120 04:30 2 4 16:30 103 107 04:45 2 5 2 6 11 16:45 84 357 123 480 837 05:00 2 1 17:00 89 121 05:15 1 2 17:15 101 120 05:30 1 4 17:30 114 87 05:45 0 4 6 13 17 17:45 79 383 84 412 795 06:00 3 3 18:00 92 100 06:15 11 7 18:15 91 97 06:30 11 12 18:30 93 113 06:45 11 36 9 31 67 18:45 92 368 94 404 772 07:00 25 30 19:00 81 97 07:15 26 38 19:15 71 85 07:30 25 32 19:30 60 104 07:45 31 107 57 157 264 19:45 37 249 70 356 605 08:00 37 44 20:00 42 76 08:15 45 57 20:15 34 84 08:30 54 56 20:30 39 66 08:45 67 203 55 212 415 20:45 39 154 56 282 436 09:00 67 63 21:00 31 47 09:15 47 62 21:15 31 69 09:30 82 79 21:30 36 43 09:45 73 269 80 284 553 21:45 23 121 36 195 316 10:00 86 71 22:00 23 29 10:15 92 68 22:15 10 22 10:30 90 60 22:30 10 20 10:45 77 345 89 288 633 22:45 12 55 20 91 146 11:00 103 119 23:00 10 11 11:15 105 141 23:15 5 9 11:30 114 115 23:30 7 8 11:45 132 454 144 519 973 23:45 7 29 7 35 64 Total Vol. 1443 1551 2994 3491 4640 8131 Daily Totals NB SB EB WB Combined 4934 6191 11125 AM PM Split % 48.2% 51.8% 26.9% 42 9% 57 1% 73 1% Peak Hour 11:45 11:45 11:45 12:00 12:45 12:15 Volume 523 576 1099 512 634 1097 P.H.F. 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.97 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-22 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-003 SR-74 N-0 A AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SQ EB WB 00:00 7 5 12:00 155 165 00:15 4 2 12:15 170 170 00:30 6 4 12:30 189 208 00:45 5 22 5 16 38 12:45 182 696 177 720 1416 01:00 4 2 13:00 171 135 01:15 4 1 13:15 161 144 01:30 0 1 13:30 166 155 01:45 1 9 0 4 13 13:45 150 648 153 587 1235 02:00 0 2 14:00 142 146 02:15 1 2 14:15 144 151 02:30 1 0 14:30 172 162 02:45 0 2 2 6 8 14:45 163 621 198 657 1278 03:00 1 4 15:00 174 180 03:15 2 8 15:15 162 163 03:30 1 7 15:30 154 161 03:45 8 12 11 30 42 15:45 177 667 174 678 1345 04:00 8 12 16:00 160 182 04:15 7 15 16:15 188 199 04:30 21 20 16:30 220 171 04:45 23 59 14 61 120 16:45 160 728 235 787 1515 05:00 30 21 17:00 178 184 05:15 44 30 17:15 161 210 05:30 51 34 17:30 155 188 05:45 61 186 31 116 302 17:45 110 604 165 747 1351 06:00 58 40 18:00 121 144 06:15 71 77 18:15 101 130 06:30 84 90 18:30 92 121 06:45 95 308 93 300 608 18:45 77 391 136 531 922 07:00 125 110 19:00 58 138 07:15 177 115 19:15 66 92 07:30 208 138 19:30 52 87 07:45 222 732 184 547 1279 19:45 48 224 110 427 651 08:00 209 162 20:00 51 99 08:15 199 155 20:15 42 74 08:30 177 140 20:30 39 101 08:45 223 808 141 598 1406 20:45 47 179 66 340 519 09:00 181 123 21:00 44 69 09:15 166 125 21:15 31 50 09:30 162 118 21:30 22 37 09:45 159 668 126 492 1160 21:45 25 122 27 183 305 10:00 154 135 22:00 20 22 10:15 168 139 22:15 17 35 10:30 159 114 22:30 15 22 10:45 162 643 143 531 1174 22:45 11 63 19 98 161 11:00 163 128 23:00 7 11 11:15 144 122 23:15 9 21 11:30 140 111 23:30 7 16 11:45 151 598 107 468 1066 23:45 6 29 7 55 84 Total Vol. 4047 3169 7216 4972 5810 10782 Daily Totals NB SB EB WB Combined 9019 8979 17998 AM PM Split % 56.1% 43.9% 40.1% 46 1% 53 9% 59 90/0 Peak Hour 07:30 11:45 07:30 16:15 16:45 16:15 Volume P.H.F. 838 0.94 650 0.78 1477 0.91 746 0.83 817 0.87 1535 0.97 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-23 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-004 SR-74 S-0 A AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NS SB EB WB 00:00 9 4 12:00 159 168 00:15 4 3 12:15 177 174 00:30 6 5 12:30 184 205 00:45 5 24 5 17 41 12:45 177 697 180 727 1424 01:00 4 2 13:00 168 135 01:15 4 1 13:15 155 149 01:30 1 1 13:30 169 151 01:45 1 10 0 4 14 13:45 144 636 148 583 1219 02:00 0 2 14.00 138 139 02:15 1 1 14:15 145 150 02:30 2 0 14:30 177 161 02:45 0 3 1 4 7 14:45 155 615 195 645 1260 03:00 1 5 15:00 179 188 03:15 2 9 15:15 166 160 03:30 1 7 15:30 150 159 03:45 7 11 11 32 43 15:45 174 669 174 681 1350 04:00 9 10 16:00 150 180 04:15 7 12 16:15 184 196 04:30 19 20 16:30 229 172 04.45 20 55 15 57 112 16:45 160 723 233 781 1504 05:00 33 22 17:00 170 190 05:15 45 29 17:15 155 210 05:30 47 35 17:30 151 181 05:45 60 185 32 118 303 17:45 116 592 166 747 1339 06:00 59 44 18:00 125 141 06:15 70 70 18:15 99 133 06:30 81 89 18:30 88 120 06:45 99 309 95 298 607 18:45 79 391 131 525 916 07:00 119 115 19:00 55 135 07:15 170 110 19:15 61 90 07:30 215 139 19:30 50 88 07.45 226 730 184 548 1278 19:45 44 210 112 425 635 08:00 205 162 20:00 48 95 08:15 180 160 20:15 40 70 08:30 175 138 20:30 36 99 08:45 218 778 134 594 1372 20:45 51 175 67 331 506 09:00 180 121 21:00 48 62 09:15 165 120 21:15 28 51 09:30 161 117 21:30 21 35 09:45 162 668 128 486 1154 21:45 23 120 29 177 297 10:00 151 130 22:00 18 20 10:15 163 135 22:15 13 33 10:30 152 110 22:30 17 21 10:45 170 636 149 524 1160 22:45 9 57 18 92 149 11:00 155 120 23:00 8 10 11:15 142 121 23:15 7 19 11:30 144 108 23:30 8 11 11:45 153 594 110 459 1053 23:45 7 30 8 48 78 Total Vol. 4003 3141 7144 4915 5762 10677 Daily Totals NB SB EB WB Combined 8918 8903 17821 AM PM Split % 56.0% 44.0% 40.1% 46.0% 54.0% 59.90/o Peak Hour 07:30 11:45 07:30 16:15 16:45 16:15 Volume 826 657 1471 743 814 1534 P.H.F. 0.91 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.87 0.96 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-24 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-005 SR-74 S/O PITAHAYA AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB 00:00 8 6 12:00 155 162 00:15 4 4 12:15 171 170 00:30 5 4 12:30 179 200 00:45 5 22 5 19 41 12:45 164 669 180 712 1381 01:00 4 2 13:00 152 137 01:15 4 1 13:15 162 145 01:30 1 0 13:30 141 150 01:45 2 11 1 4 15 13:45 135 590 142 574 1164 02:00 0 2 14:00 148 137 02:15 1 1 14:15 170 145 02:30 2 0 14:30 157 160 02:45 0 3 1 4 7 14:45 185 660 190 632 1292 03:00 1 5 15:00 174 184 03:15 2 9 15:15 165 166 03:30 1 8 15:30 142 151 03:45 6 10 10 32 42 15:45 172 653 172 673 1326 04:00 8 11 16:00 155 176 04:15 7 15 16:15 176 177 04:30 18 22 16:30 217 159 04:45 21 54 16 64 118 16:45 154 702 220 732 1434 05:00 35 20 17:00 167 178 05:15 44 28 17:15 147 200 05:30 48 33 17:30 144 172 05:45 62 189 35 116 305 17:45 111 569 155 705 1274 06:00 58 41 18:00 126 141 06:15 73 76 18:15 95 132 06:30 79 88 18:30 87 118 06:45 95 305 90 295 600 18:45 76 384 130 521 905 07:00 118 116 19:00 52 131 07:15 170 115 19:15 60 90 07:30 210 133 19:30 53 87 07:45 228 726 174 538 1264 19:45 41 206 102 410 616 08:00 201 146 20:00 44 90 08:15 180 166 20:15 41 77 08:30 172 140 20:30 35 98 08:45 211 764 134 586 1350 20:45 48 168 65 330 498 09:00 184 124 21:00 41 60 09:15 168 118 21:15 29 54 09:30 160 116 21:30 20 33 09:45 153 665 125 483 1148 21:45 23 113 28 175 288 10:00 149 124 22:00 18 22 10:15 168 130 22:15 12 28 10:30 153 102 22:30 16 20 10:45 177 647 153 509 1156 22:45 10 56 15 85 141 11:00 154 126 23:00 9 11 11:15 138 117 23:15 5 18 11:30 149 105 23:30 8 10 11:45 150 591 113 461 1052 23:45 7 29 9 48 77 Total Vol. 3987 3111 7098 4799 5597 10396 Daily Totals NB SB EB WB Combined 8786 8708 17494 AM PM Split % 56.2% 43.8% 40.6% 46.2% 53 8% 59 4% Peak Hour 07:30 11:45 07:30 15:45 16:45 16:15 Volume 819 645 1438 720 770 1448 P.H.F. 0.90 0.81 0.89 0.96 0.88 0.96 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-25 THURSDAY - NOVEMBER 5, 2009 CITY: PALM DESERT PROJECT: CA09-1106-2-006 PITAHAYA W/O SR-74 AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB SB EB WB_ 00:00 0 0 _ 12:00 6 7 00:15 0 0 12:15 9 4 00:30 1 0 12:30 12 12 00:45 0 1 0 0 1 12:45 13 40 9 32 72 01:00 1 0 13:00 8 10 01:15 0 0 13:15 9 10 01:30 0 0 13:30 6 7 01:45 0 1 0 0 1 13:45 8 31 9 36 67 02:00 1 1 14:00 6 14 02:15 0 0 14:15 6 16 02:30 0 0 14:30 10 10 02:45 1 2 0 1 3 14:45 10 32 11 51 83 03:00 0 0 15:00 7 9 03:15 2 0 15:15 7 10 03:30 0 1 15:30 19 9 03:45 0 2 0 1 3 15:45 8 41 10 38 79 04:00 1 0 16:00 2 8 04:15 1 0 16:15 7 7 04:30 0 2 16:30 6 12 04:45 1 3 1 3 6 16:45 6 21 13 40 61 05:00 1 0 17:00 7 5 05:15 3 1 17:15 7 10 05:30 1 0 17:30 7 13 05:45 2 7 1 2 9 17:45 7 28 6 34 62 06:00 3 2 18:00 11 12 06:15 4 2 18:15 4 7 06:30 6 2 18:30 4 6 06:45 9 22 4 10 32 18:45 4 23 7 32 55 07:00 5 8 19:00 2 6 07:15 15 7 19:15 7 8 07:30 16 8 19:30 6 6 07:45 14 50 8 31 81 19:45 8 23 2 22 45 08:00 14 7 20:00 2 10 08:15 9 13 20:15 4 8 08:30 10 7 20:30 2 3 08:45 7 40 5 32 72 20:45 3 it 5 26 37 09:00 12 8 21:00 1 4 09:15 12 7 21:15 3 2 09:30 7 6 21:30 1 5 09:45 12 43 12 33 76 21:45 3 8 6 17 25 10:00 12 12 22:00 0 3 10:15 14 10 22:15 4 1 10:30 11 9 22:30 2 2 10:45 17 54 13 44 98 22:45 0 6 3 9 15 11:00 18 8 23:00 0 0 11:15 9 7 23:15 0 2 11:30 6 10 23:30 1 3 11:45 9 42 5 30 72 23:45 0 1 6 11 12 Total Vol. 267 187 454 265 348 613 Daily Totals NB SB EB WS Combined 532 535 1067 AM PM Split % 58.8% 41.2% 42.5% 43 2% 56 8% 57 5% Peak Hour 10:15 10:00 10:15 14:45 14:00 12:30 Volume 60 44 100 43 51 83 P.H.F. 0.83 0.85 0.83 0.57 0.80 0.86 PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES A-26 CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) LIP URBAN CROSSROADS :�IITIGS - EXAM Sur. Apr 24, 20I 1 16: 42: 59 Page 1-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDONII'JIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) * * * * * * t * * * * # * * * t t k * * t * # * * * t * x * * * * * # k * * # # * # * * * * * k * * * # k # * * * # * k * * * # * * } # # k * * * * k k k k # Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (NS) / Hwy. III (EW) * * * * * * * k * k * * * * k * * # # * # * k * k * * * * } } * * * + # } # * * * * * * * * # * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.453 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.6 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - P - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 149 383 196 340 402 126 83 860 99 162 668 163 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 149 383 196 340 402 126 83 860 99 162 668 163 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 157 403 206 358 423 132 87 904 104 170 702 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 157 403 206 358 423 132 87 904 104 170 702 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 157 403 206 358 423 132 87 904 104 170 702 171 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5137 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.11 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 Volume/Cap: 0.34 0.38 0.44 0.46 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.46 0.17 0.46 0.36 0.28 Delay/Veh: 39.9 28.6 29.6 34.0 21.8 21.0 41.1 23.4 20.6 42.9 22.4 21.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 39.9 28.6 29.6 34.0 21.8 21.0 41.1 23.4 20.6 42.9 22.4 21.8 LOS by Move: D C C C C C D C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 5 5 5 5 3 1 8 2 3 6 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 16-51 MITIG8 - EXAM Sun Apr 24, 2011 16:44:45 Page 1-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOP^LENT (JV 06929) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / El Pasoo (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.544 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.6 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 278 845 123 139 582 99 47 146 183 73 206 131 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 278 845 123 135 582 99 47 146 183 73 206 131 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 302 917 134 147 632 107 51 159 199 79 224 142 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 302 917 134 147 632 107 51 159 199 79 224 142 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 302 917 134 147 632 107 51 159 199 79 224 142 ------------I--------------- Il---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.75 0.25 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3091 450 1805 3017 513 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.51 0.51 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.26 0.20 0.56 0.44 0.29 0.41 Delay/Veh: 30.6 17.8 17.8 38.6 25.0 25.0 41.7 31.8 36.5 44.1 33.1 34.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 30.6 17.8 17.8 38.6 25.0 25.0 41.7 31.8 36.5 44.1 33.1 34.6 LOS by Move: C B B D C C D C D D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 12 12 5 10 10 2 2 6 3 3 4 Vote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE 11-MAr HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 f" 4-- 1 �" Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT' Lane Configurations apt M% I tt Volume (veh/h) 2 4 819 0 2 627 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 910 0 2 697 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1263 455 910 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 910 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 353 vCu, unblocked vol 1263 455 910 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 328 552 744 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SIB t SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 7 607 303 2 348 348 Volume Left 2 0 0 2 0 0 Volume Right 4 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 449 1700 1700 744 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.1 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 13.1 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0101 Existing AM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report MN HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR_ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 1 ft tll Volume (veh/h) 42 1 10 0 0 3 0 775 0 3 595 36 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 46 1 11 0 0 3 0 852 0 3 654 40 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1109 1532 347 1197 1552 426 693 852 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 680 680 852 852 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 429 852 345 700 vCu, unblocked vol 1109 1532 347 1197 1552 426 693 852 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 100 98 100 100 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 352 299 649 297 298 577 898 783 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB' 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 58 3 0 426 426 3 436 258 Volume Left 46 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Volume Right 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 40 cSH 384 577 1700 1700 1700 783 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.26 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 16.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_06929\SYNCHR0101 Existing AM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report B-4 MITIGB - EXPM Sun Apr 24, 2011 16:45:14 Page 1-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) k * t # # * r # t r * t * * + * * + * * * # * # * * * t * k k # * * k # * # * * * * t # # t # t * * # t * k * # * + * r * * * k * * * t # + * k + * * * * * * # Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (VS) / Hwy. ill (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.548 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.1 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: 'forth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 233 483 178 340 475 173 250 1285 131 187 1043 260 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 233 483 178 340 475 173 250 1285 131 187 1043 260 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 240 498 184 351 490 178 258 1325 135 193 1075 268 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 240 498 184 351 490 178 258 1325 135 193 1075 268 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 240 498 184 351 490 178 258 1325 135 193 1075 268 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.21 0.17 C r i t Moves• **** **** **** **#* Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.48 0.39 0.58 0.40 0.32 0.62 0.58 0.19 0.55 0.50 0.40 Delay/Veh: 43.8 29.6 29.0 39.6 25.2 24.6 44.6 21.6 17.4 44.7 21.5 20.6 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 43.8 29.6 29.0 39.6 25.2 24.6 44.6 21.6 17.4 44.7 21.5 20.6 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D C B D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 7 5 6 6 4 5 12 3 4 9 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE MITICB - EXPM Sun Apr 24, 2011 16:43:42 Page 1-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (vN 06929) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) * t * * * * * * * * * * # * * # k t * * * x * } * * * t } * * * * * * * * * * t * * * # } * * } # x t * * w * z * # t * * * * * # * # * k * t * * # x # # w * * Intersection 4102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / E1 Pasco (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.746 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.5 Optimal Cycle: 90 Level Of Service: C *}*******}*************#****t#***}**}*}#}**t*#*********************}#*###***#*}} Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ---------------------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 583 88 248 692 138 51 274 477 136 347 295 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial B3e: 216 583 88 248 692 138 51 274 477 136 347 295 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 231 624 94 265 740 148 55 293 510 145 371 316 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 231 624 94 265 740 148 55 293 510 145 371 316 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 231 624 94 265 740 148 55 293 510 145 371 316 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3074 464 1805 2935 585 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.08 0.32 0.08 0.10 0.20 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.77 0.75 0.75 0.19 0.20 0.77 0.77 0.30 0.57 Delay/Veh: 66.3 33.8 33.8 48.1 32.4 32.4 35.6 18.8 30.5 60.4 24.0 28.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 66.3 33.8 33.8 48.1 32.4 32.4 35.6 18.8 30.5 60.4 24.0 28.0 LOS by Move: E C C D C C D B C E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 10 11 11 10 14 14 2 3 15 6 4 8 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per Lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE M.- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR- SBL SBT> Lane Configurations Y I tt Volume (veh/h) 0 15 732 5 8 777 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 16 771 5 8 818 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1199 388 776 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 773 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 426 vCu, unblocked vol 1199 388 776 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 369 611 836 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB '1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 16 514 262 8 409 409 Volume Left 0 0 0 8 0 0 Volume Right 16 0 5 0 0 0 cSH 611 1700 1700 836 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.30 0.15 0.01 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0102 Existing PM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E-IM HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement EBL EBT EBR" WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT, NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4� I ft fT Volume (veh/h) 25 0 1 1 1 1 1 715 2 6 736 35 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 0 1 1 1 1 1 745 2 6 767 36 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1173 1546 402 1145 1564 373 803 747 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 797 797 748 748 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 376 749 397 816 vCu, unblocked vol 1173 1546 402 1145 1564 373 803 747 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 313 298 598 332 296 624 816 857 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 4 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 ` SB 3 Volume Total 27 3 1 497 250 6 511 292 Volume Left 26 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 Volume Right 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 36 cSH 319 375 816 1700 1700 857 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.15 0.01 0.30 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.3 14.7 9.4 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 17.3 14.7 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0102 Existing PM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report mlm EXPM OFF-PEAK >>:in Apr 24, 2011 18:15:02 Page 2-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDCMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (iN 06929) Existing Conditions PM Gff-Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / El Pasco (EW) Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.420 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.9 Optimal Cycle: OPTIMIZED Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 380 55 151 372 80 34 199 249 57 152 161 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 118 380 55 151 372 80 34 158 249 57 152 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 126 406 59 161 398 86 36 169 266 61 163 172 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 126 406 59 161 398 86 36 169 266 61 163 172 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 126 406 59 161 398 86 36 169 266 61 163 172 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.75 0.25 1.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3094 448 1805 2891 622 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.13 C.13 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.05 0.11 Crit Moves: **** #*** *#** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.31 0.31 0.62 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.16 0.57 0.23 0.16 0.37 Delay/Veh: 28.5 13.5 13.5 32.1 13.6 13.6 26.0 18.3 22.5 26.6 18.3 20.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 28.5 13.5 13.5 32.1 13.6 13.6 26.0 18.3 22.5 26.6 18.3 20.0 LOS by Move: C B B C B B C B C C B B HCM2kAvgQ: 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 6 1 1 3 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE C • EXPM OFF-PEAK Sun Apr 24, 2011 18:15:02 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOP11ENT (,TN 06929) Existing Conditions PM Cff-Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 4103 Hwy. 74 (NS) / "A" St. (EW) Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2] Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II---------------II--------------- il---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 533 0 7 643 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 533 0 7 643 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 577 0 8 696 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 577 0 8 696 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 577 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 288 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1007 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 714 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1007 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 714 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.2 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * Approach Del: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2 ApproachLOS: * * * B Vote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Off -Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 ,or- 4-- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL_ SBT Lane Configurations Y f t, I tt Volume (veh/h) 0 18 533 0 7 643 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 20 579 0 8 699 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 944 290 579 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 579 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 365 vCu, unblocked vol 944 290 579 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 459 707 991 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2' SB I SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 20 386 193 8 349 349 Volume Left 0 0 0 8 0 0 Volume Right 20 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 707 1700 1700 991 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.21 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary ; Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0103 Existing PM Off-Peak.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report B-11 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) URBAN CROSSROADS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) EXISTING CONDITIONS (PM Peak Hour) Major Street Name = Highway 74 (N5) Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1495 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2 Minor Street Name = Pitahaya Street (EW) High Volume Approach (VPH) = 26 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1 500 a 400 v R 0 a a y 300 200 d C 100 c 2 0 300 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED I I I i 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH —D-1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) —6 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 0 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) —X— Major Street Approaches - X - Minor Street Approaches ** NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Urban Crossroads Hwy 74 & Pitahaya St PM (RURAL AREA WARRANT) C-1 I 1200 1300 12/15/2009 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) EXISTING CONDITIONS (PM Peak Hour) Major Street Name = Highway 74 (NS) Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1522 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2 Minor Street Name = Pitahaya Street (EW) High Volume Approach (VPH) = 15 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1 500 a - 400 u 0 a a y 300 E 0 2 200 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED I I I I ' I 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH ---D-1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) —6 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 0 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) ---E—Major Street Approaches - X - Minor Street Approaches ** NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Urban Crossroads Hwy 74 & A St PM (RURAL AREA WARRANT) C-2 i 1200 1300 12/15/2009 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic -See Note 2) Major St: Highway 74 Minor St: "A" Street Year = 4=r\CFI Volume = 20,928 Lanes= 2 Volume = t�>5 Lanes= 1 (one-way) URBAN RURAL XX I Minimum Requirements EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day Vehicles per day on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 20,928 1 185 9,600 6,720 t 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Vehicles per day Vehicles per day traffic on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 20,928 1 185 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,000 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination 2 Warrants 2 Warrants Satisfied Not Satisfied XX No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more.. 22`/, 1 2 'VOTES. 1. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. C-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic -See Note 2) Major St: Highway 74 Minor St: Driveway 1 Year = EACP Volume = 20,804 Lanes= 2 Volume = 26 Lanes= 1 (one-way) URBAN RURAL XX Minimum Requirements EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day Vehicles per day on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 20,804 1 26 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Vehicles per day Vehicles per day traffic on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 20,804 1 26 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,000 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination 2 Warrants 2 Warrants Satisfied Not Satisfied XX No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more.. 2% 3% 1 2 NOTES- 1. Tn ha ucari nniv fnr MPIA/ IrNTr:I�cGr-Tlnnie .k_ .:___ ...�___ - --- ---- -...� .•• . �..vw IONS of vuici coca Lions wiluiv actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. C-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic -See Note 2) Major St: I figh,.vay 7=1 Minor St: Driveway 2 Year Volume = 20,483 Lanes= 2 Volume = 316 Lanes= 1 (one-way) URBAN RURAL XX Minimum Requirements EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day Vehicles per day on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 20,483 1 316 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Vehicles per day Vehicles per day traffic on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 20,483 1 316 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,000 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination 2 Warrants 2 Warrants Satisfied Not Satisfied XX No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more.. 19% 37 1 2 NOTES: 1. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. C-5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic -See Note 2) Major St: High,,vay 74 Minor St: Pitahaya St. - Dlroy. 3 Year = FACP Volume = 19,850 Lanes= 2 Volume = 587 Lanes= 1 (one-way) URBAN RURAL XX Minimum Requirements EADT 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day Vehicles per day on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 19,850 1 587 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Vehicles per day Vehicles per day traffic on major street on higher volume Satisfied Not Satisfied (both approaches) minor -street approach XX (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach. Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 19,850 1 587 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,000 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination 2 Warrants 2 Warrants Satisfied Not Satisfied XX No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80% or more.. 35% 69% 1 2 NOTES: 1. To hP usPri nnly fnr NFW INTFRCFf`TIOI\IC „, .,fk f,,,.,- - - -- - - - - -- • .7 •-• • --- • - • - I- - --I I- - vas - IWl ..LIVI IJ VVI IGI I: actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. C-6 APPENDIX D CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS ram uesert t-totevcondominium Development ��j URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 1 JENSEN'S TRIP DISTRIBUTION J- END: )ERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT ENSEN'S Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:31) D-1 URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2 GARDENS AT EL PASEO TRIP DISTRIBUTION END: 'ERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT GARDENS AT El PASEO Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:32) p_2 O URBAN EXHIBIT 3 LARKSPUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION p-- END: 'ERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT ARKSPUR calm uesert HotellGondominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:33) D-3 O V RBAN THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX E CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS - 111, L/Cocll r-7-1—unauminium uevelopment �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS + A + C AM Sun Apr 24, 201i 17:44:48 Page 3-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 0692)) Existing � Ambient + Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (NS) / Hwy. Ill (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.500 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.1 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 149 383 196 340 402 126 83 860 99 162 668 163 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 164 421 216 374 442 139 91 946 109 178 735 179 Added Vol: 2 2 0 4 3 0 0 5 3 0 5 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 166 423 216 378 445 139 91 951 112 178 740 182 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 174 445 227 397 468 146 96 1000 118 187 778 192 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 174 445 227 397 468 146 96 1000 118 187 778 192 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 174 445 227 397 468 146 96 1000 118 187 778 192 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **#* **#* Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.34 0.24 0.25 0.51 0.19 0.51 0.40 0.31 Delay/Veh: 40.2 29.0 30.1 34.5 22.1 21.2 41.3 24.0 20.9 43.4 22.9 22.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.2 29.0 30.1 34.5 22.1 21.2 41.3 24.0 20.9 43.4 22.9 22.2 LOS by Move: D C C C C C D C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 6 6 6 5 3 2 9 2 3 6 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-1 E - A a- C AM Sun Apr 24, 2011 17:44:48 Page 4-1 PAL:-! DESERT HG'TEL%CONDOMINIUM DEVEL',j,PMENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient � Cumulative Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCbl Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 4102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / E1 Paseo (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.599 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.4 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Mov^_ment : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Volume Module: Base Vol: 278 845 123 135 582 99 47 146 183 73 206 131 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 306 930 135 149 640 109 52 161 201 80 227 144 Added Vol: 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 6 0 2 5 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 306 930 139 154 640 109 52 167 201 82 232 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 332 1009 151 167 695 118 56 181 219 89 251 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 332 1009 151 167 695 118 56 181 219 89 251 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 332 1009 151 167 695 118 56 181 219 89 251 160 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3080 462 1805 3017 513 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.16 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.29 0.23 0.61 0.50 0.32 0.46 Delay/Veh: 32.0 17.9 17.9 42.0 26.0 26.0 42.0 32.0 38.1 44.7 33.4 35.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 32.0 17.9 17.9 42.0 26.0 26.0 42.0 32.0 33.1 44.7 33.4 35.2 LOS by Move: C B B D C C D C D D C D HCM2kAvgQ: 9 14 14 6 11 11 2 2 7 3 4 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C AM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 t 1 Movement WBL WBIR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Ile ft I Ift Volume (veh/h) 2 4 905 0 2 692 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 1006 0 2 769 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1394 503 1006 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1006 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 389 vCu, unblocked vol 1394 503 1006 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 292 514 685 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 7 670 335 2 384 384 Volume Left 2 0 0 2 0 0 Volume Right 4 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 410 1700 1700 685 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.39 0.20 0.00 0.23 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.9 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 13.9 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0104 EAC AM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E-3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C AM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 44 1 tt tT Volume (veh/h) 46 1 11 0 0 3 0 857 0 3 657 40 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 51 1 12 0 0 3 0 942 0 3 722 44 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1225 1692 383 1322 1714 471 766 942 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 751 751 942 942 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 474 942 380 773 vCu, unblocked vol 1225 1692 383 1322 1714 471 766 942 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 84 100 98 100 100 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 318 270 615 262 268 539 843 724 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB'2 SB 3 Volume Total 64 3 0 471 471 3 481 285 Volume Left 51 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Volume Right 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 44 cSH 349 539 1700 1700 1700 724 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 17.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0104 EAC AM.syn E-4 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E + A + C PM Sun Apr 24, 2011 17:45:35 PaU 3-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CO'dDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (NS) / Hwy. Ill (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.609 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.1 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- il---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 233 483 178 340 475 173 250 1285 131 187 1043 260 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 256 531 196 374 523 190 275 1414 144 206 1147 286 Added Vol: 8 8 0 6 8 0 0 8 8 0 8 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 264 539 196 380 531 190 275 1422 152 206 1155 292 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.06 0.23 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** ***x **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.53 0.43 0.65 0.44 0.35 0.68 0.65 0.22 0.61 0.55 0.45 Delay/Veh: 45.9 30.3 29.4 40.9 25.6 24.9 46.7 22.7 17.7 46.1 22.3 21.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 45.9 30.3 29.4 40.9 25.6 24.9 46.7 22.7 17.7 46.1 22.3 21.3 LOS by Move: D C C D C C D C B D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 5 8 5 7 7 5 6 13 3 4 10 7 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 9.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-5 E + A + C PM .Sun Apr 21, 2011 17:-i5:35 Page 4-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/ CONDCMINIUM DEVELOP,-fENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Cumuiative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume alternative) Intersection #102 Hwy. -74 (NS) / El Pasco (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.6 Optimal Cycle: 142 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 583 88 248 692 138 51 274 477 136 347 295 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 238 641 97 273 761 152 56 301 525 150 382 325 Added Vol: 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 14 0 11 14 16 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 238 641 107 288 761 152 56 315 525 161 396 341 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 ---------------------------II---------------II--------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3030 505 1805 2935 585 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.35 0.10 0.12 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.21 0.23 0.86 0.86 0.33 0.64 Delay/Veh: 67.0 36.5 36.5 57.9 37.1 37.1 37.1 19.8 38.9 73.8 23.7 29.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 67.0 36.5 36.5 57.9 37.1 37.1 37.1 19.8 38.9 73.3 23.7 29.2 LOS by Move: E D D E D D D B D E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 11 14 14 12 17 17 2 4 19 8 5 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C PM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 f- *-- t �► 1 Movement WBL WBIR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y fj� 'I tt Volume (veh/h) 0 17 815 6 9 866 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 18 858 6 9 912 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1336 432 864 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 861 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 475 vCu, unblocked vol 1336 432 864 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 331 572 774 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NS 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 18 572 292 9 456 456 Volume Left 0 0 0 9 0 0 Volume Right 18 0 6 0 0 0 cSH 572 1700 1700 774 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.34 0.17 0.01 0.27 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_06929\SYNCHR0105 EAC PM.syn E-7 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C PM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 --j, --► -"* i- *-- t `- 1 4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL' NBT" NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 V tt :flt� Volume (veh/h) 28 0 1 1 1 1 1 797 2 7 821 39 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 0 1 1 1 1 1 830 2 7 855 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1309 1724 448 1277 1744 416 896 832 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 890 890 833 833 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 419 834 443 910 vCu, unblocked vol 1309 1724 448 1277 1744 416 896 832 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 275 265 558 294 264 585 753 796 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3" Volume Total 30 3 1 553 279 7 570 326 Volume Left 29 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 Volume Right 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 41 cSH 280 337 753 1700 1700 796 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.33 0.16 0.01 0.34 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 19.4 15.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C A A Approach Delay (s) 19.4 15.8 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C C Intersection Summary , Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0105 EAC PM.syn E-8 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report + A + PM CE'F-PEAK Siin Apr 14, 2011 13:i4:35 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P'ALP1 DESERT HOTEL/(-'O'IDCMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (J•1 0692)) Existing + P.mbiont + Cumulative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LF_^v�.l Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCbI Operations [Method (Future Volume Alternative) * * # * + * * * * # # # # # # t * * * * * * * # * # * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * Intersection 1102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / E1 Pasco (EW) T * # k 4 t * t * * * * * * * # * # * k * * * * * # * t * # t k * # } * * * # * * * t * } * # * t * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * k * * * * * * * * k Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.464 Loss TLme (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.7 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 380 55 151 372 80 34 158 249 57 152 161 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 125 403 58 160 394 85 36 167 264 60 161 171 Added Vol: 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 14 0 11 14 16 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 125 403 68 175 394 85 36 181 264 71 175 187 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 134 431 73 187 422 91 39 194 282 76 187 200 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 134 431 73 187 422 91 39 194 282 76 187 200 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 134 431 73 187 422 91 39 194 282 76 187 200 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3019 512 1805 2891 622 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.05 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.34 0.34 0.72 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.19 0.60 0.29 0.18 0.43 Delay/Veh: 28.9 13.7 13.7 37.2 13.7 13.7 26.0 18.5 23.3 27.0 18.4 20.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 28.9 13.7 13.7 37.2 13.1 13.7 26.0 18.5 23.3 27.0 18.4 20.5 LOS by Move: C B B D B B C B C C B C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 4 4 5 4 4 1 2 6 2 2 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per Lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-9 E + A + C Psi OFF-PEAK Sun Apr 24, 2011 19:14:35 Page 4-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDCMINIU4 DE`IELCPtiIENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #103 Hwy. 74 (NS) / "A" St. (EW) Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.4] *************************************************##******************t*****#**#* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 533 0 7 643 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 0 565 0 7 682 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Added Vol: 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 575 0 7 693 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 0 622 0 8 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 622 0 8 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 622 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 311 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 968 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 691 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 968 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 691 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 ------------ I---------------II---------------tl---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.4 LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * B Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.4 ApproachLOS: * * * B *************#***}**********}}***#***********}**t#**********}******************* Vote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE E-10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EAC PM Off -Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 "(- *,- t �► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y f T I �t Volume (veh/h) 0 19 575 0 7 693 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 21 625 0 8 753 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1017 312 625 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 625 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 392 vCu, unblocked vol 1017 312 625 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 433 683 952 Direction, Lane it WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 21 417 208 8 377 377 Volume Left 0 0 0 8 0 0 Volume Right 21 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 683 1700 1700 952 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.25 0.12 0.01 0.22 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0106 EAC PM Off-Peak.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E-11 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX F CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Halm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-23 Report) CROSSROADS A + C + P AM Sun Apr 24, 2011 17:46:51 Page 4-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Project + Other Development Conditions AM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations .,Iethod (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (NS) / Hwy. Ill (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.507 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.2 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R I, - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 149 383 196 340 402 126 83 860 99 162 668 163 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 164 421 216 374 442 139 91 946 109 178 735 179 Added Vol: 12 14 8 4 12 0 0 5 11 6 5 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 initial Fut: 176 435 224 378 454 139 91 951 120 194 740 182 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 185 458 235 397 478 146 96 1000 126 194 778 192 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 185 458 235 397 478 146 96 1000 126 194 778 192 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 185 458 235 397 478 146 96 1000 126 194 778 192 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.19 0.08 0.06 0.15 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** #**# **** Green/CycLe: 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 0.38 Volume/Cap: 0.40 0.44 0.50 0.51 0.35 0.24 0.25 0.51 0.21 0.51 0.40 0.31 Delay/Veh: 40.4 29.2 30.4 34.6 22.2 21.2 41.2 24.1 21.1 43.2 22.9 22.2 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjPol/Veh: 40.4 29.2 30.4 34.6 22.2 21.2 41.2 24.1 21.1 43.2 22.8 22.2 LOS by Move: D C C C C C D C C D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 6 6 6 6 3 2 9 3 4 6 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2009 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F-1 E + A + C + P AM Sun Apr 24, 2011 17:46:51 Page 5-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing Ambient + Project + Other Development Conditions AM Peak Hour ----------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HIM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 4102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / E1 Paseo (EW) * * # + * * * * # * # t # x k * * x * * * t * * # # * * * * * * * * * * * * # # * * # * x x # * # # # # # t * t * * * * # # * * * * # * * * # # t # * * * * # Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.614 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.6 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------tl---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 278 845 123 135 582 99 47 146 183 73 206 131 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.i0 1.10 1.10 1.10 i.10 1.10 1.i0 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 306 930 135 149 640 109 52 161 201 80 227 144 Added Vol: 6 30 6 5 24 0 0 6 5 4 5 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 312 960 141 154 664 109 52 167 206 84 232 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 339 1042 153 167 721 118 56 181 224 92 251 160 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 339 1042 153 167 721 118 56 181 224 92 251 160 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 339 1042 153 167 721 118 56 181 224 92 251 160 ------------I---------------II---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3087 455 1805 3036 498 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------il---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.10 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.16 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.29 0.23 0.63 0.51 0.33 0.46 Delay/Veh: 32.5 17.9 17.9 42.8 26.2 26.2 42.0 32.1 38.7 45.0 33.4 35.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 32.5 17.9 17.9 42.8 26.2 26.2 42.0 32.1 38.7 45.0 33.4 35.2 LOS by Move: C B B D C C D C D D C D HCM2kAvgQ: 10 14 14 6 12 12 2 2 7 3 4 5 ***********************#*********#*****#****#**#**#*#********#******#*********** ;dote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F-2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P AM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 *-- t `� 1 Movement WBL WBIR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations "Y -fT I ft Volume (veh/h) 2 4 943 0 2 722 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 1048 0 2 802 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1453 524 1048 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1048 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 406 vCu, unblocked vol 1453 524 1048 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 278 498 660 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SIB 1' S8 2 . SB 3 Volume Total 7 699 349 2 401 401 Volume Left 2 0 0 2 0 0 Volume Right 4 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 394 1700 1700 660 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.41 0.21 0.00 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 14.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 14.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0107 EACP AM.syn Synchro 7 - Report F-3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P AM Peak Hour 104: Dwy. 1 & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 WBL WBR NBTNBR' SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y tT, -fit Volume (veh/h) 0 2 942 0 1 728 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2 992 0 1 766 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1377 496 992 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 992 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 385 vCu, unblocked vol 1377 496 992 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 297 520 693 Direction, Lane # WB-t NB'1 NB 2 SB 1 `' SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 2 661 331 1 383 383 Volume Left 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Right 2 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 520 1700 1700 693 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.39 0.19 0.00 0.23 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0107 EACP AM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P AM Peak Hour 105: Dwy. 2 & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 ,K- * I Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I If t tt Volume (veh/h) 1 23 919 2 19 709 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 24 967 2 20 746 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1381 484 969 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 967 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 413 vCu, unblocked vol 1381 484 969 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 301 529 707 Direction, Lane# WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 1 24 484 484 2 20 373 373 Volume Left 1 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 Volume Right 0 24 0 0 2 0 0 0 cSH 301 529 1700 1700 1700 707 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 17.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Approach Delay (s) 12.3 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0107 EACP AM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P AM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR " SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ +T+ ft tl~ Volume (veh/h) 46 1 11 1 0 16 0 859 0 13 658 40 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 51 1 12 1 0 18 0 944 0 14 723 44 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1263 1718 384 1347 1740 472 767 944 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 774 774 944 944 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 490 944 403 796 vCu, unblocked vol 1263 1718 384 1347 1740 472 767 944 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 83 100 98 100 100 97 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 300 259 615 259 263 538 842 722 Direction, lane # EB 1 WB 1, ' NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 ' SB 1 SB 2 SB 3' Volume Total 64 19 0 472 472 14 482 285 Volume Left 51 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 Volume Right 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 44 cSH 331 506 1700 1700 1700 722 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.28 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 18.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Approach Delay (s) 18.4 12.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0107 EACP AM.syn F-6 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E + A + C PM Sun Apr 24, 2011 i?:45:35 Page 3-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM ='`ELOPi1E.NT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation R-pert 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #101 Hwy. 74 - Monterey Ave. (NS) / Hwy. 111 (EW) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.609 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.1 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Of Service: C Approach: north Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I ---------------II--------------- II --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 35 35 10 35 35 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 233 483 178 340 475 173 250 1285 131 187 1043 260 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 256 531 196 374 523 190 275 1414 144 206 1147 286 Added Vol: 8 8 0 6 8 0 0 8 8 0 8 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 264 539 196 380 531 190 275 1422 152 206 1155 292 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 272 556 202 392 547 196 284 1465 157 212 1191 301 --------------------------- II ---------------II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3502 3610 1615 3502 3610 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 5187 1615 ------------ I --------------- II---------------Ii--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.06 0.23 0.19 Crit Moves **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.53 0.43 0.65 0.44 0.35 0.68 0.65 0.22 0.61 0.55 0.45 Delay/Veh: 45.9 30.3 29.4 40.9 25.6 24.9 46.7 22.7 17.7 46.1 22.3 21.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 45.9 30.3 29.4 40.9 25.6 24.9 46.7 22.7 17.7 46.1 22.3 21.3 LOS by Move: D C C D C D C B D C C HCM2kAvgQ: 5 8 5 7 7 5 6 13 3 4 10 7 *************#****#*****##********#********#************************************ Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F-7 E + A + C PM Sun Apr 2.4, 2011 17:45:33 Page 4-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Cumulative Conditions PM Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 4102 Hwy. 74 (NS) / El Paseo (Ew) Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.6 Optimal Cycle: 142 Level Of Service: D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k #kkk * k * * k # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * k k k Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound '.Vest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- 11--------------- II --------------- 11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 216 583 88 248 692 138 51 274 477 136 347 295 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 238 641 97 273 761 152 56 301 525 150 382 325 Added Vol: 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 14 0 11 14 16 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 238 641 107 288 761 152 56 315 525 161 396 341 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 254 686 114 308 814 162 60 337 561 172 423 364 ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.71 0.29 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3030 505 1805 2935 585 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.35 0.10 0.12 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.78 0.78 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.21 0.23 0.86 0.86 0.33 0.64 Delay/Veh: 67.0 36.5 36.5 57.9 37.1 37.1 37.1 19.8 38.9 73.8 23.7 29.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 67.0 36.5 36.5 57.9 37.1 37.1 37.1 19.8 38.9 73.8 23.7 29.2 LOS by Move: E D D E D D D B D E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 11 14 14 12 17 17 2 4 19 8 5 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F-8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement WBL WBR" NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y tT} I tt Volume (veh/h) 0 17 846 6 9 911 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 18 891 6 9 959 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1392 448 897 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 894 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 498 vCu, unblocked vol 1392 448 897 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 317 558 753 Direction, Lane`# WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 18 594 303 9 479 479 Volume Left 0 0 0 9 0 0 Volume Right 18 0 6 0 0 0 cSH 558 1700 1700 753 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.35 0.18 0.01 0.28 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.7 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.7 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0108 EACP PM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Peak Hour 104: Dwy. 1 & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement WBL: WBIR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I'll, 'fT tt Volume (veh/h) 0 1 855 0 3 908 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 900 0 3 956 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1384 450 900 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 900 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 484 vCu, unblocked vol 1384 450 900 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 318 556 751 Direction, Lane # WB 1 " NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2' SB 3 ` Volume Total 1 600 300 3 478 478 Volume Left 0 0 0 3 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 556 1700 1700 751 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.35 0.18 0.00 0.28 0.28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0108 EACP PM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Peak Hour 105: Dwy. 2 & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 Movement WBL WBR NBT ' NBR SBL - SBT Lane Configurations I tt I ft Volume (veh/h) 1 19 836 2 27 881 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 20 880 2 28 927 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1401 440 882 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 880 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 521 vCu, unblocked vol 1401 440 882 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 96 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 316 565 762 Direction, Lane # WB 1 Wl3 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 S6 2 5133 Volume Total 1 20 440 440 2 28 464 464 Volume Left 1 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 Volume Right 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 cSH 316 565 1700 1700 1700 762 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.27 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.4 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0108 EACP PM.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Peak Hour 106: Pitahaya St. & Hwy. 74 4/24/2011 -; j- '*- t 4,\ T /0 `� 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR . WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBf Lane Configurations 4 44 ft I tT Volume (veh/h) 28 0 1 2 1 12 1 799 0 22 822 39 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 0 1 2 1 12 1 832 0 23 856 41 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1354 1757 448 1309 1777 416 897 832 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 922 922 834 834 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 431 834 475 943 vCu, unblocked vol 1354 1757 448 1309 1777 416 897 832 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 100 100 99 100 98 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 257 252 558 288 254 585 753 796 Direction; Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 " NB 2 NB 3, SB 1 SIB 2, SB 3` Volume Total 30 16 1 416 416 23 571 326 Volume Left 29 2 1 0 0 23 0 0 Volume Right 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 41 cSH 261 478 753 1700 1700 796 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.34 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 20.6 12.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 20.6 12.8 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0108 EACP PM.syn F-12 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report E + A + C � P PM 7FF-PEAK Sur. Apr 24, 2011 18:}5:51 Page 2-1 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (JN 06929) Existing + Ambient + Project + Other Development Conditions PM Off -Peak Hour -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HC%1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection �102 Hwy. 74 ('IS) / El Pasco (EW) * * * * k # } * * * * * * * * } * * * * * * * * * k * * * * x * # * * * * * * t t * * * * t * * k * Cycle (sec): 65 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.480 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.7 Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 29 29 10 29 29 10 20 20 10 20 20 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 380 55 151 372 80 34 158 249 57 152 161 Growth Adj: 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Initial Bse: 125 403 58 160 394 85 36 167 264 60 161 171 Added Vol: 5 25 12 15 35 0 0 14 7 13 14 16 Vallet: 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 130 428 76 175 429 85 36 181 271 73 175 187 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 139 458 82 187 459 91 39 194 290 79 187 200 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 139 458 82 187 459 91 39 194 290 79 187 200 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 139 458 82 187 459 91 39 194 290 79 187 200 ------------ --------------- II--------------- 11--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 2993 534 1805 2939 581 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.05 0.12 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.72 0.37 0.37 0.15 0.19 0.62 0.30 0.18 0.43 Delay/Veh: 29.4 13.8 13.8 37.2 13.9 13.9 26.0 18.5 23.7 27.0 18.4 20.5 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 29.4 13.8 13.8 37.2 13.9 13.9 26.0 18.5 23.7 27.0 18.4 20.5 LOS by Move: C B B D B B C B C C B C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 2 6 2 2 4 ****#******#**********t*****#*******************#*#**********************#****** `dote: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE F-13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Off -Peak Hour 103: "A" Street & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 'r- �1- T If. 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y fT+ I tt Volume (veh/h) 0 19 612 20 7 738 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 21 665 22 8 802 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1092 343 687 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 676 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 416 vCu, unblocked vol 1092 343 687 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 407 652 903 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2, SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 21 443 243 8 401 401 Volume Left 0 0 0 8 0 0 Volume Right 21 0 22 0 0 0 cSH 652 1700 1700 903 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.26 0.14 0.01 0.24 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0109 EACP PM Off-Peak.syn F-14 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Off -Peak Hour 104• Dwy. 1 & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 r k' t `� 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBIL SBT Lane Configurations Y tt Volume (veh/h) 0 1 631 0 3 735 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 664 0 3 774 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1057 332 664 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 664 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 393 vCu, unblocked vol 1057 332 664 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 417 664 921 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2' SB 3 Volume Total 1 443 221 3 387 387 Volume Left 0 0 0 3 0 0 Volume Right 1 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 664 1700 1700 921 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.26 0.13 0.00 0.23 0.23 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary. Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI 069001 069291SYNCHR0109 EACP PM Off-Peak.syn URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report F-15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis E+A+C+P PM Off -Peak Hour 105: Dwy. 2 & Hwy. 74 4/25/2011 t `► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I t I tT Volume (vehlh) 1 45 586 2 27 708 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 47 617 2 28 745 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1046 308 619 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 617 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 429 vCu, unblocked vol 1046 308 619 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 93 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 424 687 957 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 1 47 308 308 2 28 373 373 Volume Left 1 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 Volume Right 0 47 0 0 2 0 0 0 cSH 424 687 1700 1700 1700 957 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.22 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.5 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development F:IJOBSI_069001_069291SYNCHR0109 EACP PM Off-Peak.syn F-16 URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Synchro 7 - Report L*► URBAN CROSSROADS 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: Scott Sato, P.E. Janette Cachola .O,�gOFESS/d�, �CDT'r o t 2� TR 2586 f � E xP. o FT - Prepared for: Mr. Matthew Joblon Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 PALM DESERT HOTEL/CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT PARKING EVALUATION PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA June 13, 2011 JN:06929-22 SS:JC L#�URBAJV CROSSROAaS June 13, 2011 Mr. Matthew Joblon Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 2173 Salk Avenue Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 920N 1 (760) 931 0664 www.urban roadscom Subject: Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development — Parking Evaluation Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this parking assessment for the proposed Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium development. The project is proposing to develop an 82 room hotel and 59 condominium units. The project site is located east of Highway 74 and south of El Paseo in the City of Palm Desert. The location map is shown on Exhibit A. The conceptual site plan is presented in Exhibit B. This report describes the proposed project, presents the City of Palm Desert's parking requirements and industry published parking demand data, and estimates the parking demand for the proposed facility. INTRODUCTION This parking evaluation has been prepared to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces for the proposed hotel/condominium development. This study evaluates the project's parking requirements based on the City's code, ITE's Parking Generation (3rd Edition), and the site's anticipated operational characteristics. Recommendations are provided to adequately address the potential needs of this site. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Parking Assessment �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN.06929-22 Parking_ Revised) CRCISSROA[3S w W z Z 0 2 EL PASEO Q� Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:01) nr��f ,q.ST / P� EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP t 1.,rl nr, nr'!!; N w. crrr LEGEND: - EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION Q = FUTURE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATION FRONTAGE ROAD, TO BE VACATED i = OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) URBA111 CROSSROADS EXHIBIT B ,} SITE PLAN 1 VIZ. bF, B0.Y.VE FUTURE LYTY I it IRKING ror) h n�1"4 — ------ �. Rf�y� Riff l #.} ` s "� A a �` / �` ' ""�► It ..r ' M Y�� �j' ." ,�! ` s jf' '� S ' #ti` ,iA f r1 .♦ p O zorRY Pki A y , v S rye �, y1 / . ,�t 41 ` .T,.... "4ir. _ �.j' .t. r v, ♦ ;?� ..�'+«:,¢' / 4, , �s. ,."1e1... r ,"�-. =e� `�. #" ;.�,'.""ei.r. '� 01 awe s ">�' " >y' _ . ji`' '' `y�` i . � t 4N y 61 IL LEGEND: Y, ` / % OFF -SITE PARKING LOCATION (PM OFF-PEAK HOUR) Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 05929.02) t1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The hotel portion of the site will consist of 82 rooms with the following amenities: A 26,060 sf Spa and Fitness Center A 225 seat Ballroom 3,690 sf of meeting space 2,800 sf of retail Restaurant and Bar amenities as follows: 0 2,100 sf Signature Restaurant 0 2,070 sf Ultra Lounge 0 1,220 sf Roof -deck bar and grille 0 1,640 sf Library/bar The condominium development will consist of 59 residential units (6 one bedroom units, 40 two bedroom units, and 13 three bedroom units). The access to the parking areas would be provided off of Highway 74 via three project driveways. CITY OF PALM DESERT PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS The City of Palm Desert's Municipal Code requirements are included in Appendix "A". The following parking rates are indicated for the uses associated with the site: o Hotel = 1.1 space for each guest unit, plus required spaces for additional uses on the site. o Spa = 1 space for each 150 sf of gross floor area o Ballroom = 1 space per 3 fixed seats o Meeting Space = 1 space per 35 sf o Specialty Retail = 4 per 1,000 sf o Restaurant = 10 minimum and 10 for each 1,000 sf up to 3,000 sf and 15 for each 1,000 sf in excess of 3,000 sf. o Condominium = 2 per one bedroom unit and 2.5 per 2 and 3 bedroom units. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development ► URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-22 Parking Revised) 4 CROSSROADS According to the code requirements, the following number of parking spaces would be required: • Hotel = 90 spaces • Spa = 174 spaces • Ballroom = 75 spaces • Meeting Space = 105 spaces • Specialty Retail = 11 spaces • Restaurant = 90 spaces • Condominium = 145 spaces TOTAL = 690 Spaces By utilizing the criteria indicated in the Palm Desert municipal code, a total of 690 parking spaces would be required. This assumes a standalone parking requirement for each amenity. The actual operations of the proposed project would involve sharing the parking demands between the hotel guests and the patrons of the ancillary uses. Therefore, this amount of parking appears to be overly excessive considering that the hotel would comprise of 82 rooms and the condominium development would include 59 residential units. ITE PARKING GENERATION The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has published parking rates for various land uses in their Parking Generation (3rd Edition, 2004) handbook. The average peak period parking demand for a resort hotel (Land use group 330) is 1.42 spaces per room. Similarly, the average peak period parking demand for a residential condominium (Land use group 230) is identified as 1.46 spaces per unit. By utilizing these ITE rates, a total of 202 parking spaces (116 spaces for the hotel and 86 spaces for the condominium) would be required to accommodate the proposed development. Appendix "B" contains the parking rates and description for the resort hotel included in the ITE, Parking Generation manual (3rd Edition). Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 06929-22 Parking Revised) OUR13AIV 5 CROSSROADS CONCLUSIONS Project Parking Demand The proposed project would incorporate a number of ancillary uses that would mainly serve the hotel patrons. For example, the spa, ballroom, meeting spaces, retail, and restaurant/lounge are intended to be used mainly by the hotel guests. Furthermore, the sizes of these ancillary uses are not sufficiently large enough to attract regional patrons. Therefore, the required number of parking spaces for these uses should not be added to the requirements of the hotel. In fact, the ITE parking rates are based on resort hotels that have ancillary uses. The description that is provided in the manual indicates, "Resort hotels are similar to hotels (Land Use 310) in that they provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation industry..." By utilizing the City's hotel rate and the rates associated with all of the other ancillary uses, it is expected that an overabundance of parking would result. Since the ITE parking rates for the hotel are higher on a per room basis than the City's hotel rate, it is recommended that the ITE value be adopted without adding the requirements for the ancillary uses. The City's residential rates for the condominium development should be adopted since it provides a conservatively high number of parking spaces in comparison to the ITE rate. The approach outlined above would require the proposed development to provide a total of 261 parking spaces (116 parking spaces for the hotel and 145 parking spaces for the condominium units). Furthermore, the hotel will provide a ballroom that could accommodate a wedding or a similar type of event which would require approximately 75 spaces. This additional demand would require a total of 336 spaces to sufficiently accommodate existing daily demands and the demands due to occasional events that require the use of the ballroom. Since the project would provide 233 on -site parking spaces, there will be a shortfall of 103 spaces Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development �� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-22 Parking_Revised) 6 CROSSROADS OFF -SITE PARKING AREAS In order to address the project's 103 space parking shortfall, several off -site parking areas have been identified for potential locations for the hotel's use during off-peak, nighttime periods (after 6:00 pm). These areas include the Daily Grill lot, the Imago Gallery parking lot, the Debonne lot, and the proposed City parking lot. The location on these lots is illustrated on Exhibit C. The hotel's valet service will transport vehicles to these nearby lots and walk back to the hotel. Current parking counts have been conducted at the Daily Grill, Imago Gallery and the Debonne lot on both a weekday (Thursday, 4/13/11) and weekend (Saturday 4/16/11) between the hours of 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm to determine the existing parking demands. Since the City's lot has not yet been constructed, no existing counts were conducted at this location. However, 113 spaces are planned to be constructed. Table 1 provides a summary of the parking count data. As indicated in Table 1, the lots will provide a total supply of 272 parking spaces (Daily Grill = 201 spaces, Imago Gallery = 23 spaces, Debonne = 48 spaces). The survey indicates that the highest demand occurs on a Saturday at 6:00 pm with 98 occupied spaces. This results in a surplus of 174 available parking spaces, not including the future 113 spaces that the City will be constructing. The demand continually tapers down to 67 occupied spaces observed at 8:00 pm. The weekday parking demands were less than the weekend and exhibited the same downward demand trend. The City has indicated that a restaurant is proposed to be constructed within the Daily Grill parking lot (See Exhibit D). This restaurant is in the preliminary planning phases but the building area has been estimated to be about 3,600 square feet. The proposed restaurant's parking demand will be 49 spaces based on the City's parking code. This would potentially increase the peak number of occupied spaces at the Daily Grill lot from 84 to 133 spaces. However, as part of the restaurant's proposal, the Daily Grill parking lot will be reconfigured with more efficient 90 degree stalls and expanded into the adjacent frontage road area to the west. This results in an increase of parking from 201 to 206 parking spaces while still providing a net surplus (supply of 206 spaces — demand of 133 spaces) of 73 parking spaces. Cdy�Ialmo ueseilalm D Hotel/Condominium Development 's URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN. 06929-22 Parking Revised) 7 CROSSROADS EXHIBIT C (Page 1 of 2) DAILY GRILL AND IMAGO GALLERY PARKING LOT 86 �r r At : •. ' 43< 85 1Al*3418 . 132. 1. 0 . / F37: W �137 *� � 18 47 i t# ,35 0►' 9 y12 ��j'3'g 178*\ '. qW .�� d _34a 48 s� . 128,E 95-. 127= 141 " \:1A' s 1 t 1 f ►' ` 97 ..�12 1143 30 c t . 52 . 75? A"t 173� 183. :j t 98 r 144 j 53 �4 1 20!75 185 !�. j 54��1qF ..` % f J� "��5�6 `. ? g ' r�!+' y r t''S o1 # �� 16' • 187 r r . j jF 261. �5.7 f}1�# 102� r--'\g�+►` 188� jr246= 0, ��.: 189 i�16 19U 68k.*r- �2 g„ 65 ' 108 �1 z\�155 =at6 J 1y5 �I { j dMr. Y71t.�a , 1 Vis� 4,1110- o\ 14 o lOT \? >41 .?14 1 , Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:53) R URBAPJ CRCISSRC ^EOS CV 00 N C13 U w F— CZ CO ox X 9L w Whi z O W 10 4J N O UQ �14 Da � o 9 —� a W J m -jU) QW QV tL O N .-r V O CL > V) 2 ¢ a o p LiJ W oo Q O 10 M O M M M Ln CL OLil J (n CD W gU M M ao N o Ln in T ¢ a 0 W C/) n W UQ n ,N M o M M M LO U a O J (n w co N n M CO N F 4 O Q d ¢ a 0 o p w w Q� U N M O M p, 0 U) LLI J (n W Q (CO) N M n N 0� _ ¢a ¢ a o cn p w w FL QN U 7 0 V (D c0 U a O J (n Q Cq cn K M N n V V Lo m U) ¢CL a O O o ww jQ U m o� co o co co ID 0 LL O U m Q O O C\j N N N 7-t N a a U) z LL 2 a Q a a w,D0 a �Q g F} N w¢ w Q w ct 2 a S ~ J J � W w J 0 J 6 Z Z03 N o Y Q n 0 Q n J� Q LL O 10 Lli J (n cc Lij Q a V 00 M n N 0 10 0 O N a ¢ a p o W W QCL (D O V O V 0 0 Ol Lli J (n CO W .� Q V M V O M n N O ,a O m > Cl) ¢ a o p W W n jQ UCL o v o v n n n 0 LU J (n Un M o <t o N <f V rn O CL > U) ¢ a 0 o p wCL w D Q a In CDn n n a. rn O J (n W Q cM7 M C2 N O 0 — V a N ¢ a O w cn M W IT n rn O J co m W N a Q O 0 W U QD U CL OU LL O O U Z W mY Q O1 7 O N CN N N '7 N a D aa.w z OUgU gU g w ¢ a D 0 o >- w LLJ 2 IY S K F- O J J w w J Y <a m Z Z m o J a j Co ¢ n 0 o U) ¢ a p ¢ � U �Q ao MA CC 0, 26 EXHIBIT D PROPOSED RESTAURANT 1 28 19 T7990 y f I 2 27 30 PROPOSED 26 31 7I I RESTAURANT 1 1$. 25.. 32 `19 1 1 24 33 1 1 I 1 23 34 1 1 16 22, 35"' 78 91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 21 36> 77 92 ;, 11 12 13 14 15 20 37 76 93 ' 19 38 „ 75 94 18 ' 39 ' 74 95 ± 17 40 73 ` 96 a.128 1 2 3 4 5: 6 16 41 72 97 127 et 10 15 42 71 98 '126 _ 14 ` ; 43 70 99 125, 4 ti 9 , " 8 7 8 9 10 I t 12 . 13 " 44_ 69; 100 ` 124 Q 7 12 45 68 101 123 ' 6 11 46 67 102 122;, m 10°, 47 66 103 "- ) 5 121 , _ " 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 48 '65 104 ° 4 8 49 64 105 120 3 119 �, 7 50 63 106. 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 51 62'` 107 118 ^) 1 g 52 61 108 , 117 , 116 E. 4 53 60 109 115 ! t 3 54 59 110, ' 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2 55 58 _ 111 , 1.14 LAJ 1 56 . 57: 112° 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 DAILY GRILL (PARKING Lo7); i1 2 3 4`,.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13,14 1516,17181920 (� a Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City of Palm Desert, CA (JN - 06929:54) 11 URBAN CROSSROAUS Overall, 174 unused parking spaces are currently available within the Daily Grill lot, the Imago Gallery lot, the Debonne lot on a Saturday night. Accounting for the proposed restaurant within the Daily Grill parking lot and the reconfigured parking spaces, a future parking surplus of 130 spaces (174 unused spaces — 49 restaurant spaces + 5 additional spaces) can be expected (not including the future 113 space City lot). The combination of these lots and potentially the future City lot should adequately accommodate the 103 space off -site demand of the proposed hotel/residential development on a typical day-to-day basis (28 spaces) in addition to the occasional events that require the use of the ballroom (an additional 75 spaces). If you have any questions on the parking evaluation presented above, please do not hesitate to call at (760) 931-0664. Sincerely, Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6A C4;;� C7��� Scott Sato, P.E. Principal Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development City o/ Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-22 Parking_Revised) 12 L'#� URBAN APPENDIX A CITY OF PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development [� URBAN City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-22 Parking Revised) U CROSSROADS 25.58.300 Residential off-street parking schedule. Page 1 of 1 Palm Desert Municipal Code Up Previous Next Clain Search Print E1191-2510_^1iNCa Cher 25.58 Off-SMEtZPARKIS(3 A4D LOADING 25.58.300 Residential off-street parking schedule. In any district where a residential use is permitted, off-street public parking for residential uses shall be in conformity with the following requirements unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: A. Single-family parking requirements (conventional detached or mobile homes), two parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be required. B. Apartment parking space requirements: 1. Studio one -bedroom unit, 2.0 per unit 2. Two -bedroom or larger units, 2.0 per unit C. Condominium and cluster units: 1. Studio and one -bedroom one space covered, 2.0 per unit 2. Two -bedroom and larger two spaces covered, 2.5 per unit. (Ord. 337 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.33-6) littp://vAvw.gcode,us/codes/paltndeseit/v.iew.php?topic=25-25__58-25 5$_300&frames=off 12/9/2009 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street perking schedule. Page 1 of 7 Palm Desert Municipal code Up Previous Next Main Search Print Tit1e-2-5 ZQNI IQ Chaps ? .58-Q L- REEL i'AKKING AND LOADING 25.58,310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. The following land uses shall provide off-street parking in conformity with the following requirements unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: USE A. Commercial and Industrial Uses. Automobile leasing and floor area plus 1 for each rental vehicle Automobile service station Automobile washing and cleaning establishments, except self-service Beauty parlors and barber shops Buildings used solely for coin -operated laundromats or dry cleaning Commercial banks Coimnercial financial institutions, savings and loan offices, public and private utility offices Community and regional shopping centers MINIMUM PARKING STALLS REQUIRED I for 400 square feet of gross rentals 10 spaces 16 minimum 1 for each 250 square feet of gross floor area I for each 3 machines 5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 250 square feet of gross floor area 5.5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area; The standards may be reduced in the following ratio percentage: 1000 car parking area, 10%; 1500 car parking area, 12%; 2000 car parking area, 14%; over 2500 car parking area up to 15%; subject to justification of the findings as set forth in Section littp:/hvww.dcode.us/codes/palmdesert/view.php?topic=25-25_58-25_58_310&fratrnes=off 12/9/2009 LIM 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. Page 2 of 7 Contractors storage yards in connection with contractors business; storage yard Food store, supermarket, or drugstore containing over 2000 square feet of gross floor area General retail stores, except as otherwise specified herein Lumber yards Mortuaries and funeral homes Motel and hotels Motor vehicle sales and automotive repair Offices, except as otherwise specified Plant nursery with outdoor sales and display excluding greenhouses Self-service automobile washes Specialty and district shopping centers Stores solely for the sale of furniture and appliances "Trade schools, business colleges, commercial schools, and other private schools B. Commercial Recreation 25.33.31 1(13); Spaces shall be provided to meet the needs of the facility I for each 200 square feet of gross floor area I for cacti 250 square feet of floor area, exclusive of stairways, elevators, landings, mechanical roorns not execed ng I5 percent of the gross floor area 1 for each 500 square feet of gross floor area for retail sales, plus l for each 1,000 square feet of open area devoted to display or sales; plus 1 for each 2 employees 5 plus 250 square feet of usable and accessible paved parking area for every 25 square feet or fraction thereof of assembly room floor area 1.1 for each guest unit, plus required spaces for additional uses on the site 1 per 400 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 250 square feet of floor area, exclusive of stairways, elevators, landings, and mechanical rooms, not exceeding 15 percent of the gross floor area 1 for each 250 square feet of gross building area, and 1 for each 500 square feet of outdoor display and greenhouse area 5 for each 2 stalls 5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area -- I for each 500 square feet of gross floor area I for each 3 student capacity of each classroom plus I for each faculty rnember or employee Irttp;/hvwrv.qcode.us/codes/palmdesei-t/view.php'?topic=25-25_58-25_58_3I0&frames=o£f l2/9/2009 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. Pagel of 7 MINIMUM PARKING STALLS USE REQUIRED Bowling alleys and billiard halls 2 for each alley, hvo for each billiard table contained therein Commercial stables Driving ranges (golf) Golf courses (regulation course) Pitch and putt Skating rinks, ice or roller Swimming pool (commercial) Tennis facility (commercial) C. Health Uses. Convalescent and nursing homes, homes for aged, rest homes, children's homes and sanitariums USE Sufficient area, treated to prevent dust, to provide for the needs of customers and employees but not less than one assessable space .for each five horses kept on the premises 1 per tee, plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site 5 per hole plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site 3 per hole, plus requirements for accessory uses 1 for each 100 square feet of gross floor area, plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site 1 for each 500 square feet of pool area, plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site 3 for each court plus the spaces required for additional uses on tite site 1 for every d beds in accordance with the resident capacity of the home as listed oil the required license or permit MINIMUM PARKING STALLS REQUIRED Dental clinics or offices and medical clinics or offices 6 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon submittal of a tenant improvement floor plan, planning commission may grant up to a 15% parking reduction. Items to be considered in granting such reduction shall be: http:/hvww.gcode.us/codes/palmdesert/view.php?topic=25-25_58-25_58 310&frames=off 12/9/2009 A-4 25.58.3 l0 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. Page 5 of 7 Health studios and spas Hospitals Veterinary hospitals, and beds D. Manufacturing Plants and Kindred Uses. Industrial uses of all types except a structure used exclusively for warehouse purposes Mini warehouse/self storage USE Public utility facilities including, but not limited to, electric, gas, water, telephone and telegraph facilities not having business offices on the premises Warehouses, storage buildings or structures used exclusively for storage purposes 1. Elevators, stairways and landings; 2. Interior utility facilities; 3. Restroom areas; 4. Nonleasable common areas. I for each 150 square feet of gross floor area (For the purpose of this subsection, swimming pool area shall be counted as floor area.) 1 3/4 for each patient bed 1 for each 300 square feet of gross floor area 2 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Loading spaces unay be counted as part of the required parking at a rate not to exceed I per 2,500 gross square feet. 6 spaces per complex plus 2 spaces for any caretaker unit. Additional parking may be required by the director of community development through the precise plan process. MINIMUM PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 1 for each 1 employee in the largest shift, plus I for each vehicle used in connection with the use. A minimum of 2 spaces shall be provided for each such use regardless of building space or number of employees. 2 for cacti 3 employees, but in no event less than I for each one thousand square feet of gross floor area for the first hventy thousand square feet; I for cacti two thousand square feet of gross floor area for the second twenty thousand square feet; I for each four thousand square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial forty thousand square feet of floor area of the building http://wtvNv.gcode.as/codes/palmdesert/vietiv.php?topic=25-25_59-25 58 3I0&frames=off 12/9/2009 A-5 25.58.3 l0 Commercial and industrial off-street parking scliedule. Page 6 of 7 Wholesale establishments and warehouses not used t for each 3,000 square feet of gross floor area exclusively for storage In categories 1 and 4 of this subsection, the city council may, through an exceptions process, permit building area to be reduced by up to fifteen percent of the floor area for non -usable areas such as stairways, elevators, landings, interior mechanical rooms and restrooms. In hybrid warehouse/office buildings up to twenty percent of the building area may be office space associated with the main warehouse use. Office space above the twenty percent threshold shall be parked at the general office parking standard. If office use exceeds fifty percent of a total building floor area, entire office use will be parked at the four spaces per one thousand square feet (4/1,000) office standard. USE E. Places of Assembly. Auditoriums, theaters, sports arenas, stadiums, churches and other places of assembly MINIMUM PARKING STALLS REQUIRED 1 for each 3 fixed scats within the rnairi auditorium for each 35 square feet of seating area within the mahi auditorium where there are no fixed seats; 13 linear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. Where a conditional use perrnit is required, planning commission may require additional parking mitigation and/or parking management plan if the planning commission makes the finding that specific operational characteristics of the use create additional demand of parking. Private clubs, lodge halls, union headquarters I for each 75 square feet of gross floor area Restaurants, (takeout restaurants) and other eating 10 minimum and 10 for each 1,000 square feet of establishments including lounges for the consumption gross floor area for restaurants up to 3,000 square feet of food and beverages and 15 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area F. Other Uses. Day nurseries, including preschools and nursery schools Libraries 2 for each 3 employees and teachers plus I loading space for each 8 children 1 for each 500 square feet in gross floor area G. When a fractional figure is found as a remainder in computations made to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces or garages the fraction shall be construed as the next larger whole number. H. Parking area shall be computed by adding the areas used for access drives, aisles, stalls, maneuvering, littp:Hwv v-,v,gco(le.us/codes/Palm(lesert/view.plip?topic=25-25_58-25 58_310&frames=off 12/9/2009 25.58.310 Commercial and industrial off-street parking schedule. Pate 7 of 7 and landscaping within that portion of the premises that is devoted to vehicular parking. (Ord. 1086 Exhibit A, 2005; Ord. 1053 Exhibit A, 2003; Ord. 903 Exhibit A, 1999; Ord. 883 Exhibit A, 1998; Ord. 335 (part), 1983; Ord. 314 (part), 1982; Ord. 264 § 4, 1981; Ord. 213 § 1 (part), 1979; Ord. 128 §§ 7 (part), 10, 1976; Ord. 98 § I (part), 1975: Bxhibit A § 25.33-7) http://Nvww.gco(le.us/codes/l)alnidesert/view.php?topic= 25-25,_58-25_58_310&frames=off 12/9/2009 A-7 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX B ITE PARKING RATES Palm Uesert Hotel/Condominium Development [� URBAIV City of Palm Desert, CA (JN: 06929-22 Parking_ Revised) U cRossRosaos Land Use: 330 Resort Hotel Land Use Description Resort hotels are similar to hotels (Land Use 310) In that thoy provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation industry —often providing a wide variety of recreational facilities/programs (golf courses, tennis courts, beach access, or other amenities) --rather than the convention and meeting Industry. Resort hotels are normally located In suburban or outlying locations on larger sites than conventional hotels. Hotel (Land Use 310), ail -suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312) and motel (Land Use 320) are related uses. Database Description The database consisted of three suburban sites and one rural site. The parking demand rate at the suburban sites was similar to that of the rural site and therefore the data were combined and analyzed together. Average parking supply ratio: 1.2 spaces per hotel room (four study sites). parking demand data for each of the study sites was reported for only a few, discontinuous hours. Therefore, the computed period for peak parking demand was based on a very limited data sample. All study sites reported the availability of conference facilities, with meeting/banquet rooms and an on -site restaurant. No information on conference facility size was provided. A unique characteristic of resort hotels Is the hourly variation in parking demand. One of the peak periods for parking demand is in the early afternoon (between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.). This timeframe corresponds with potential transition time between guests checking out and checking In (for example, people tend to stay at the resort to the and of the check out time and arrive at the beginning to maximize their stay and use of amenities). The pattern Is unlike other hotels and motels that tend to report have peak parking demand during the overnight and lunchtime. Data were also submitted for a site that had 3,000 rooms, an on -site casino and 200,000 sq. ft. GFA convention facility and was located adjacent to a convention center. its physical characteristics differed from other resort hotels in this land use and was therefore excluded from the data plot. Only Saturday parking demand was submitted; Its peak parking demand rate was 0.64 vehicles per room between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. For all lodging uses, it Is Important to collect data on occupied rooms as well as total rooms In order to accurately predict parking generation characteristics for the site. Study Sites/Years Hilton Head, SC (1983); San Diego, CA (1986); Las Vegas, NV (1997); Ojai, CA (2001) institute of Transportation Engineera 78 Parking GsnerdBon, 3.,d Ed?�cn M. 800 700 600 > 500 400 300 a. 200 11 100 (L 0 Land Use: 330 Resort Hotel Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Rooms On a: Weekday . Weekday Peak Period Parking Demand 0 200 , 400 600 8001 x = Rooms • Actual Data Points I Institute of Transportation Ctigineors 79 Parktr.,3 Gone(neon, 3(d Wcn B-2 CITY OF PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS r, FOR THE Palm Desert Rosewood Hotel and Residences Project Prepared By L -A TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.® 400 South Farrell Drive, B-205 Palm Springs, CA 92262 December 30, 2009 Revised April 25, 2011 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/ 1 30 09/ Revised 4.25.11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION I. INTRODUCTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................... 1 A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................... I SECTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2 A. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 2 .................................................................................................................... B. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION.............................................................................. 2 C. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POLLUTANTS........................................................................................ 3 D. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS............................................................................................................... 6 E. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MONITORING............................................................................................ 6 F. OTHER AIR POLLUTANTS................................................................................................................ I I G. GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE.................................................................................. 1 1 SECTION III. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 15 A. AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................... 15 B. GREENHOUSE GAS CALCULATION.................................................................................................. 16 SECTION IV. PROJECT IMPACTS............................................................................................... 17 A. FUGITIVE DUST.............................................................................................................................. 17 B. CONSTRUCTION RELATED EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 18 C. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS.............................................................................................................. 18 E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS........................................................................................................ 20 SECTION V. MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................................... 25 A. GENERAL CONTROL MEASURES..................................................................................................... 25 B. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION....................................................................... 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards 6 Table 2 PM10 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 7 Table 3 PM2.5 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 8 Table 4 Ozone Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valley 9 Table 5 Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential 17 Table 6 Construction Emission Summary 18 Table 7 Operational Emission Summary 19 Table 8 Off -site Energy Production Emissions 19 Table 9 Greenhouse Gas Construction Emission Summary 20 Table 10 Estimated Electrical Usage 21 Table I I GHG Emissions from Indirect Electricity Use 21 Table 12 Natural Gas Usage Rates 22 Table 13 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Use 22 Table 14 GHG Emissions from Moving Sources 23 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 l Table 15 GHG's from Energy Demand for Onsite Water Use Table 16 Annual GHG Summary DOCUMENTS REFERENCED 24 24 1. "Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007. 2. "South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations," adopted February 4, 1977. 3. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. 4. "Off -road Mobile Source Emission Factors (Scenario Years 2007-2025)," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 5. "On -road Emission Factors (Scenario Years 2007-2026)," EMFAC2007 (version 2.3). 6. "Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration," prepared by Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc., December 28, 2009, Revised April 25, 2011. 7. Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. April 25, 2011. Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/ 12 30 09/ Revised 425 I 1 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION & PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe current air quality and greenhouse gas regulations, standards, discuss the existing air quality in the project vicinity, identify the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project, and as required provide the mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. Although not always possible, mitigation measures are intended to reduce impacts to levels that are less than significant. A significant effect on the environment is defined as a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change to the environment" (California Public Resources Code Section 21068). B. Project Description The subject project proposes the development of a combined residential and hotel project on 4.97 acres of land within the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The site is located immediately east of Highway 74, immediately west of Ocotillo Drive, and immediately south of the Imago art gallery. The project includes the vacation of the existing frontage road between the subject property and the highway. The following air quality and greenhouse gas analysis assumes development of 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential condominiums for a total of 361,150 square feet. The proposed net square footage for this project is cited as 315,111 square feet; therefore, the subject analysis with respect to building area should be considered to be conservative. Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4 25.1 1 SECTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The air quality of a particular locale is based on the amount of emitted and dispersed pollutants, and upon climatic conditions that may reduce or enhance the formation of pollutants. Although air quality in the Salton Sea Air Basin has deteriorated, due to increased development and its associated traffic, it is apparent that although air pollution is emitted locally from various sources, some of the degradation of air quality can be attributed to sources outside of the area. A. Climatic Conditions The project area is influenced by moderate coastal influences, though it is far enough inland that temperatures can exceed 100°F during the summer and drop below 20°F during the winter. Wind patterns in the area are controlled by on -shore westerly winds during the day and off -shore easterly winds in the evenings and at night. During fall and winter months climatic conditions associated with high pressure systems from the north, can conflict with low pressure systems to the south, and create a condition known as the Santa Ana winds, which can blow for multiple days at high speeds. These strong winds sweep up, suspend and transport large quantities of sand and dust, reducing visibility, damaging property and constituting a significant health threat. The Salton Sea Air Basin and the project site are susceptible to air inversions, which trap a layer of stagnant air near the ground where it can be further loaded with pollutants. Due to local climactic conditions, inversions generally occur 6,000 to 8,000 feet above the desert surface. These occasional inversions create conditions of haziness caused by moisture, suspended dust and a variety of chemical aerosols emitted by trucks and automobiles, furnaces and other sources. During the past few decades, the region has experienced a decline in air quality as a result of increasing development and population growth, traffic, construction activity and various site disturbances. B. Air Quality Management and Regulation Federal and state governments have established air quality standards for a variety of pollutants. In 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) became effective on January 1, 1989 and mandated health -based air quality standards at the state level. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed these state standards, which are generally more stringent than federal standards. State Implementation Plans (SIP) also regulate regional air quality by requiring management districts to develop strategic plans to meet the federal and state ambient air quality standards by the deadlines specified in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and emission reduction targets of the California Clean Air Act. The Final 2007 AQMP, prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), satisfies the State Implementation Plan requirements of the Clean Air Act.' "2007 Air Quality Management Plan," South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 1, 2007. 2 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/1 30 09/ Revised 4 25 11 The 2002 Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) was jointly developed by the SCAQMD, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its member cities, and was approved by the U.S. EPA. The 2002 CVSIP updated the 1990 plan, which was drafted as a requirement of the federal Clean Air Act to demonstrate expeditious attainment of PM» standards. The 2002 CVSIP included control program enhancements that met the Most Stringent Measure (MSM) requirements and the CAA, and was subsequently updated to include emissions inventories, emission budgets, and attainment modeling.2 On April 18, 2003, the EPA approved the update CVSIP. The Coachella Valley has become eligible for redesignation as attainment for PM10 due to the annual average PM10 concentrations meeting the revoked federal standard. The peak 24-hour average PM10 concentrations have also not exceeded the current federal standard (150 µg/m3). On February 25, 2010 the California Air Resources Board approved the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan from serious non -attainment to attainment for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard under CAA Section 107. CARB has submitted the redesignation request to the US Environmental Protection Agency. As of April 21, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency has not redesignated the PM10 classification for the Coachella Valley. For ozone, the SCAQMD is voluntarily requesting that EPA re -designate the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin from "Serious" non -attainment to "Severe-15" and extend the attainment date of the 8-hour ozone standard to 2019. The District's proposed control strategy includes two components, including a strategy for the South Coast Air Basin, and control of locally generated emissions in the Coachella Valley via regulations at the state and federal level. Regional and local agencies have assumed some responsibility for assuring that state and federal air quality standards are achieved. The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and relevant management policies for the Salton Sea Air Basin. The SSAB and the C1 of Palm Desert including the project site are subject to the provisions of the SCAQMD Rule Book , which sets forth policies and other measures designed to help the District achieve federal and state ambient air quality standards. These rules, along with the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plano are intended to satisfy the planning requirements of both the federal and state Clean Air Acts. The SCAQMD also monitors daily pollutant levels and meteorological conditions throughout the District. C. Primary and Secondary Pollutants5 Pollutants are generally classified in two categories, primary and secondary. Primary pollutants are a direct consequence of energy production and utilization, typically affect only local areas, and do not undergo chemical modification or further dispersion. Primary sources and their pollutants are mostly a direct consequence of the combustion of petroleum and other fuels resulting in the production of oxides of carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and a number of reactive hydrocarbons and suspended particulates. 2 '2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan, August 1, 2003, 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations, Adopted February 4, 1977. 4 "Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, June 2007, Ibid. 3 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/] 2.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 Secondary pollutants are those that undergo chemical changes after emission. Secondary pollutants disperse and undergo chemical changes under conditions of high ambient temperatures and high rates of solar insulation. Principal secondary pollutants are termed oxidants and include ozone (03), peroxynitrates, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and chemical aerosols. Ozone (03) is commonly known as smog and is formed primarily when byproducts of combustion react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. This process takes place in the atmosphere where oxides of nitrogen combine with reactive organic gases, such as hydrocarbons, in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas, and a common component of photochemical smog. Most ozone pollutants are transported inland by coastal winds from the Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino air basins, thereby contributing to occasionally high ozone concentrations in the area. Exposure to ozone can result in diminished breathing capacity, increased sensitivity to infections, and inflammation of the lung tissue. Children and people with pre-existing lung disease are most susceptible to the effects of ozone. Ozone can also cause extensive damage to vegetation. Studies have indicated that leaf drop, stunted growth, burnt tissues, and fewer seeds produced are defects directly resulting from elevated ozone levels. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas and a byproduct from the partial combustion of fossil fuels, most notably from automobiles and other motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide passes through the lungs directly into the blood stream, reducing the amount of oxygen reaching the vital organs, such as the heart, brain and tissues. In high concentrations, carbon monoxide can contribute to the development of heart disease, anemia, and impaired psychological behavior. Individuals that have heart and blood diseases, smokers, babies in utero, and people with chronic hypoxemia are most susceptible to the effects of CO. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is formed as a byproduct of combustion, thermal power stations, and pulp mills. Nitrogen dioxide acts as the primary receptor of ultraviolet light initiating the photochemical reactions to produce smog. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide can result in airway constriction and diminish lung capacity in healthy individuals. Sulfur Dioxide (S02) results from the combustion of high -sulfur content fuels, such as coal and petroleum. Sources include motor vehicle fuel combustion, chemical manufacturing plants, and sulfur recovery plants. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent, extremely irritating gas that can result in airway constriction and severe breathing difficulties in asthmatics. High levels of exposure can cause fluid accumulation in the lungs, damage to lung tissue, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of fine suspended particles of ten microns or smaller in diameter, which are byproducts of road dust, sand, diesel soot, wind storms, and the abrasion of tires and brakes. Fine particulate matter poses a significant threat to public health. The elderly, children and adults with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most susceptible to the effects of particulate matter. More than half the smallest suspended particles can be inhaled and deposited in the lungs, resulting in permanent lung damage. Elevated PMio and PM2,5 levels are also associated with an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, occurrences and severity of asthma attacks and hospital admissions. Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/ 1230 09/ Revised 4 25 1 1 Lead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter resulting from the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, and ammunition. In recent years, the elimination of leaded gasoline has reduced hazards associated with airborne lead. Exposure to lead can result in anemia, kidney disease, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and neuromuscular and neurological disorders. Babies in utero, infants, and children have increased health risks from exposure to lead and can impact the central nervous system and cause learning disorders. Sulfate (SO4) related health impacts are similar to those described under particulate matter and sulfur dioxide above. Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are also known as Reactive Organic Gas (ROG). This class of pollutants has no state or federal ambient air quality standards and are not classified as criteria pollutants, however they are regulated because they are responsible for contributing to the formation of ozone and SCAQMD has established thresholds for these pollutants. They also contribute to higher PM10 levels because they transform into organic aerosols when released into the atmosphere. VOCs pose a health threat when people are exposed to high concentrations. Benzene, for example, is a hydrogen component of VOC emissions known to be a carcinogen. Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 D. Air Quality Standards State and federal ambient air quality standards for primary and secondary pollutants are shown in Table 1 below. State standards are generally more restrictive than federal standards. Table 1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards State Standards Federal Standards** Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Averaging Time Concentration Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm I hour 8 hour 0.07 ppm 8 hour 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20.0 ppm I hour 35.0 ppm 8 hours 9.0 pprn 8 hours 9.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.10 ppm* 02 AAM 0.030 ppm AAM 0.053 ppm Sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm 1 hour .075ppm** Dioxide 24 hours 0.04 ppm 24 hours (SO2) AAM Particulate Matter 24 hours 50 I.tg/m3 24 hours 150 µg/m3 (PM10) AAM 20 /m3 AAM Particulate Matter AAM 12 µg/m3 AAM 15 µg/m3 (PM2.5) 24 hours 35 /m3 24 hours 35 /m3 Lead 30 day Avg. 1.5 /m3 3 month Avg. 0.15 1t /m3 Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hour No federal No federal Standard Standard Sulfates 24 hour 25µg/m3 No federal No federal Standard Standard Hydrogen Sulfide No federal No federal 1 hour 0.03 pprn Standard Standard Vinly Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No federal No federal Standard Standard Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb= parts per billion; µg/ m' = micrograms per cubic meter of air; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; Source: California Air Resources Board, 9/08/2010 Source: US EPA, September 2010 * Note that this standard became effective as of January 22,2010. ** Final rule signed June 2, 2010, effective as of August 23,2010 E. Regional Air Quality Monitoring The South Coast Air Quality Management District operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The project area is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio site has been operational since 1985 and the Palm Springs site since 1987. 6 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4 25 11 The Salton Sea Air Basin exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust, and the area is considered to be in serious non -attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. However, air quality in the area of the proposed project does not exceed state and federal standards related to carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, or any other criteria pollutants. The following tables show the maximum concentration and number of days state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PMio and PM2,5) were exceeded annually between 1999 and 2009. Table 2 shows that the federal 24 hour standard for PM,o has not been exceeded between 1999 and 2009, but that the region's PMio levels continue to exceed state standards. Table 3 shows that since 1999 the federal 24 hour PM2.5, standard has not been exceeded and the AAM state standard of > 12 µg/m3 has been exceeded 3 times at the Indio monitoring site and 0 times at the Palm Springs site between 1999 to 2009. Table 4 shows that the Palm Springs monitoring site exceeds the 1 hour and 8 hour federal and state standards more frequently than the Indio site, which has not exceeded the federal 1 hour standard since 1999. As indicated above, elevated ozone levels at the Palm Springs site support the statement that ozone in the Valley is imported from the South Coast Air Basins through the San Gorgonio pass. Table 2 PM10 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valle Maximum No. (%) Samples Monitoring Year Concentration Exceeding 24-hr. Annual Average Station (µg/m3/24hours) Standards (µg/m3) Federal' State2 AAM3 AGM4 Palm Springs 1999 104 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.0%) 28.8 26.1 2000 44 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 24.4 22.7 2001 * 53 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.0%) 26.7 23.9 2002* 75 0 (0.0%) 3 (5.1 %) 27.1 24.6 2003 108 0 (0.0%) 4 (6.7%) 27.1 N/A 2004 79 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.4%) 26.4 N/A 2005 66 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.4%) 25.9 N/A 2006* 73 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.5%) 24.5 N/A 2007 83 0 (0.0%) 6 (11.0%) 30.5 N/A 2008 75 0 (0.0%) 4 (1.9%) 23.2 N/A 2009** 140 0 (0.0%) 9(7.5%) 32.5 N/A Indio 1999 119 0 (0.0%) 30 (54.0%) 52.7 49.8 2000* 114 0 (0.0%) 52 (50.0%) 51.9 48.4 2001 * 149 0 (0.0%) 50 (45.0%) 50.2 44.3 2002* 139 0 (0.0%) 52 (45.2%) 50.6 49.1 2003* 124 0 (0.0%) 47 (42.0%) 50.2 N/A 2004* 83 0 (0.0%) 23 (19.5%) 39.3 N/A 2005* 83 0 (0.0%) 23 (19.5%) 39.3 N/A 2006* 122 0 (0.0%) 57 (49.6) 52.7 N/A 2007 146 0 (0.0%) 51 (59.0%) 53.5 N/A 2008 128 0 (0.0%) 25 (22%) 39.9 N/A 2009** 132 0 0.0% 9 7.5% 32.5 N/A Source: Annual air quality site monitoring reports, prepared by SCAQMD. And ARB. 1 = > 150 µg/m3 in 24 hour period; 2 = > 50 µg/m3 in 24 hour period; 3 Federal Annual Average Standard AAM > 50µg/m3 revoked December 17, 2006. State standard is AAM > 20µg/m3; 4 State Annual Average Standard = AGM > 20µg/m3 * Data samples collected on high -wind days were excluded per EPA's Natural Events Policy. ** Preliminary Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 I Table 3 PM2.5 Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valle Annual Monitoring Max Concentration No. (%) Samples Station Year (lag/m3/24hours) Exceeding 24-hr. Standards Average (µg/m ) Federal' Federalb AAM3 `, a Palm Springs 1999 -- -- -- -- 2000 28.5 0 (0.0%) N/A 9.6 2001 44.7 0 (0.0%) N/A 10.8 2002 42.3 0 (0.0%) N/A 10.0 2003^ 21.2 0 (0.0%) N/A 9.0 2004 27.1 0 (0.0%) N/A 9.0 2005* 26.2 0 (0.0%) N/A 8.4 2006 24.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7.7 2007 32.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8.7 2008 18.1 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6.7 2009** 21.8 0 0.0% 0 (0.0%) 6.6 Indio 1999 29.6 0 (0.0%) N/A 12.6 2000 28.6 0 (0.0%) N/A 11.2 2001 33.5 0 (0.0%) N/A 12.2 2002 26.8 0 (0.0%) N/A 12.0 2003A 26.8 0 (0.0%) N/A 11.4 2004 28.5 0 (0.0%) N/A 10.7 2005 44.4 0 (0.0%) N/A 10.5 2006 24.3 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9.5 2007 26.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9.8 2008 21.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8.4 2009** 27.6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.9 Source: Annual air quality site monitoring reports, prepared by SCAQMD. a = > 65µg/m3 in 24 hour period, Federal standard prior to December 17, 2006. b = > 35 µg/m3 in 24 hour period, Federal standard as of December 17, 2006 c Federal Annual Average Standard = AAM > 15µg/m3 d State Annual Average Standard = AAM > 12µg/m3 as of July 5, 2003. * Less than 12 full months of data; may not be representative. "Preliminary Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/1 30 09/ Revised 4 25 1 1 Table 4 Ozone Monitoring Data for the Coachella Valle Monitoring year Max. Concentration No. Days Standard Exceeded Station Federal State 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour Palm Springs 1999 0.13 ppm - 1 - 27 - 2000 0.12 ppm 0.105 ppm 0 33 40 - 2001 0.14 ppm 0.114 ppm 6 42 53 - 2002 0.14 ppm 0.127 ppm 2 48 49 - 2003 0.14 ppm 0.108 ppm 4 44 54 - 2004 0.13 ppm 0.108 ppm 1 31 36 55 2005 0.14 ppm 0.116 ppm 4 35 41 63 2006 0.13 ppm 0.109 ppm 0 23 37 67 2007 0.13 ppm 0.101 ppm 0 20 29 83 2008 0.11 ppm 0.101 ppm 0 20 26 70 2009** 0.12 ppm 0.098 ppm 0 53 0 73 Indio 1999 0.13 ppm - 1 - 13 - 2000 0.11 ppm 0.096 ppm 0 9 43 - 2001 0.11 ppm 0.099 ppm 0 17 21 - 2002 0.11 ppm 0.111 ppm 0 16 24 - 2003 0.12 ppm 0.102 ppm 0 19 24 - 2004 0.11 ppm 0.102 ppm 0 18 23 51 2005 0.11 ppm 0.095 ppm 0 18 18 36 2006 0.10 ppm 0.089 ppm 0 7 4 29 2007 0.11 ppm 0.094 ppm 0 6 8 48 2008 0.12 ppm 0.092 ppm 1 0 1 11 1 11 44 2009** 0.097 pprn 0.090 ppm 0 24 0 41 Source: SCAQMD Annual Air Quality Data Tables 1 = > 0.12 and 0.08 parts per million in 1 hour and 8 hour respectively.I Hour standard revoked in June 2005. 2 = > 0.09 and 0.75 parts per million in I hour and 8 hour respectively. 3 Palm Springs and Indio ozone levels represented as a single Coachella Valley data value in SCAQMD annual reports. Values in this table represent the highest recorded at either station. * Less than 12 full months of data; may not be representative. "Preliminary Regional Pollutants of Concern Air pollution in the project area generally results from a mixture of regional activities, which may include grading, construction and vehicular traffic, as well as heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment. In addition, a considerable amount of pollution in the vicinity is attributable to local geographic and climatic conditions. Much of Riverside County and the entire Coachella Valley, including the project area, are in non -attainment for ozone and particulate matter. Therefore, the SCAQMD has established attainment plans for PMio, PM2.5, and Ozone. 7 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/ 12.30.09/ Revised 4 25.1 1 PM 10 Emissions Natural sand migration, a process referred to as "blowsand," generates two types of PM10 emissions: (1) natural PMio, which is produced by direct particle erosion and fragmentation, and (2) secondary PMio, whereby sand deposited on roadways is further pulverized by motor vehicles, then re -suspended in the air by those vehicles. The subject property is located in a PMio non -attainment area for both federal and state standards. Historically, PMio levels in the Coachella Valley are elevated due to fugitive dust emissions from grading and construction activities, agricultural practices, and strong wind. SCAQMD employs effective measures to reduce particulate matter in the District, sets forth new measures that could further reduce particulate matter, and lists those new measures that need further evaluation prior to implementation. In addition, applicable state code and AQMD Rules, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), enforce fugitive dust compliance. PM2.5 Emissions Federal and state standards have been developed to regulate fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. To achieve federal attainment, a jurisdiction must provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with air quality monitoring data that does not violate the fine particle standards over a three-year period. In March of 2007 the EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, which describes the framework and requirements that state and local governments must achieve in developing their PM2.5 implementation plans. The Rule requires that states meet the PM2.5 standards by 2010, but may grant attainment extensions of up to 5 years. Therefore, the 2007 Rule requires that all states meet federal standards for attainment no later than 2015. The Coachella Valley is defined as unclassifiable for PM2.5, based on the 2007 State Area Designations and does not require a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment. Ozone Emissions Although the SSAB has a history of exceeding regulatory ozone standards, the number of days and months in exceedance of the federal one -hour standard has dropped steadily over the past three decades. Ozone concentrations have declined over the past 30 years from a maximum of 0.45 ppm in 1979 down to 0.094 ppm in 2007. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the SSAB is classified as a "serious" ozone non -attainment area for the 8-hour state standard, which means that the region must come into compliance with Federal ozone standards by June 2013. SCAQMD recognizes that due to the SCAB's contribution of ozone, the SSAB will not be able to obtain this deadline and has therefore asked for a reclassification of "severe-15," which must achieve attainment by June 15, 2019.6 As previously noted, SCAQMD studies indicate that most ozone is transported to the Salton Sea Air Basin from the upwind South Coast Air Basin, which contains large metropolitan areas. It is difficult to quantify the amount of ozone contributed from other air basins; however, improved air quality in the project area depends upon reduced ozone emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. 6 Ibid. m Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/] 2 30 09/ Revised 4 25 1 1 F. Other Air Pollutants Other pollutants are watched by federal, state and local entities, including the EPA, ARB, and SCAQMD. These pollutants include carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, which are primarily derived from on -road motor vehicles. In general, with the exception of PM10, the emission levels for all pollutants in the SCAB have been decreasing since 1985, and these decreases are predominantly attributed to motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions.' Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are also monitored to assure that adverse impacts from exposure are avoided. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1807, which was enacted in 1983, TACs include substances such as asbestos, benzene, beryllium, inorganic arsenic, mercury, vinyl chloride, and any other contaminants not addressed by the national ambient air pollution program. TACs are required to be inventoried on a statewide level. There are a number of processes and facilities within the state that generate TACs, including electroplating and anodizing operations, gasoline distribution facilities, petroleum refineries, and others. TAC generation and emissions are regulated by the Toxic Air Contamination Control Program. The primary health concern associated with TACs is from mobile sources of particulate matter, which are known for their carcinogenic potential. Approximately 70 percent of the risk is attributed to diesel particulate emissions, and about 20 percent to other toxics associated with mobile sources. G. Global Warming and Climate Change Air quality has become an increasing concern because of human health issues, and because air pollutants are thought to be contributing to global warming and climate change. The primary contributor to air pollution is the burning of fossil fuels through the use of automobiles, power and heat generators, and industrial processes. Emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are responsible for the poor air quality that is evident in industrial centers worldwide. Some air polluting agents are also greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated gases (hydrolflourocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride), which are released into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. These gases are termed greenhouse gases due to their shared characteristic of trapping heat, and are responsible for the global average increase in surface temperatures of 0.7-1.5 [J that were observed during the 201h century.' The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased drastically over a relatively short period. For example, between the beginning of the industrialized era and 2005, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had increased by 35%, methane by 151 %, and nitrous oxide by 18%. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that has raised the alarm of atmospheric scientists due to current and projected levels and the highly correlated temperature regression curve that has been observed, predicting a future path of rising carbon dioxide levels. Currently, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are around 370 parts per million (ppm). Comparatively, prior to the 7 .,The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2006 Edition," California Air Resources Board, Planning and Technical Support Division, March 2006. ' "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis," Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon D. Qin and M. Manning April 2007. 11 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 Industrial Revolution, about 250 years ago, CO2 levels were 278 ppm, and over the past 650,000 years carbon dioxide levels have fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, making present day atmospheric CO2 levels substantially greater than at any point in the past 650,000 years. In 2004 the State of California generated 492 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (gross). Although the state's population grew by 16 percent between 1990 and 2004 GHG emissions were reduced by 9.7 percent. GHG emission reductions are attributed to energy conservation measures such as use of energy efficient appliances and building materials that are prescribed under Title 24 of the California Building Code. There is much debate over what the effects of climate change will be, but there is a general consensus that the levels of emissions need to be reduced in order to minimize air pollution and limit the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that are released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide levels are projected to increase to at least 540 ppm and possibly as high as 970 ppm by the year 2100.10 Currently, there are limited incentives for reducing emission and few laws that require reductions, however some regulations have been adopted and additional regulation are forthcoming from federal, state and/or local governments. Greenhouse Gasses For the purpose of this analysis emission of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are evaluated. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless gas that is emitted from natural sources such as the decomposition of dead organic matter, respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus, evaporation from oceans, and volcanic out gassing. Manmade sources of CO2 include the combustion of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks. Methane (CH4) is released naturally as part of biological processes such as in low oxygen environments like swamplands, bogs, or in rice production (at the roots of the plants) and in cattle raising. Mining of coal, the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning also generate methane emissions. Methane is a more efficient absorber of radiation compared to CO2, however its atmospheric concentration is less than carbon dioxide. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is more commonly known as laughing gas and is a colorless greenhouse gas that in small doses can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. However, prolonged exposure to heavy concentrations of N2O can cause Olney's Lesions (brain damage). Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions, which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. Some industrial processes (fossil fuel fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also generate N2O emissions. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant such as whipped cream bottles, in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, and in rocket engines and race cars. "Working Group III Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change," prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, May 2007. 1° 1bid. 12 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.11 Nitrous oxide can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the Earth's surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction. Nitric oxide combines with oxygen in the presence of reactive hydrocarbons and sunlight to form nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Oxides of nitrogen are contributors to other air pollution problems including high levels of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. Halons Halons are compounds consisting of bromine, fluorine, and carbon and are agents found in fire extinguishers. Halons have been identified as to contribute to ozone -depletion and are known greenhouse gases. Halon production in the United States ended in 1993. Chlorofluorocarbons Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are primarily used in air conditioners and refrigerators, but are also emitted from blowing agents used in producing foam insulation. They are also used as solvents to clean electronic microcircuits. CFCs are primary contributors to ozone depletion and to global warming. Federal regulations require service practices that maximize recycling of ozone -depleting compounds (both CFCs, hydro -chlorofluorocarbons and their blends) during the servicing and disposal of air- conditioning and refrigeration equipment. Hydro -chlorofluorocarbons HCFCs are very similar to CFC's, however break down more quickly in the atmosphere and are more chemically reactive due to their hydrogen component. HCFC's still deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs. Climate Change Regulation California was the first state to establish regulations that require the reduction of emissions from motor vehicles. On September 24, 2004, the California Air Resources Board adopted a bill that requires all 2009 and later vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by about 30% by the year 2016.'' In addition, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) has been passed in order to comprehensively limit greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) at the state level by establishing an annual reporting program of GHG emissions for significant sources and sets emissions limits to cut the state's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. On June 1, 2005 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued executive order S-3-05, which calls for reduction in GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 and for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) was adopted by the state legislature in 2006. It sets forth a program to achieve 1990 emission levels by 2020 and requires CARB to proclaim 1990 GHG emissions and develop a Scoping Plan that can be implemented by January 1, 2012. CARB has reported that 1990 GHG levels were 427 million metric tons (MMT) for the state of California and adopted the scoping plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan includes measures like a cap and trade program, green building strategies, recycling and waste reduction, and Voluntary Early Actions and Reductions. CARB must adopt necessary regulation to implement the plan by January 1, 2011 so that measures can be implemented by the 2012 deadline. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles health/californias-global-warming-vehicle-law.html 13 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.11 In August of 2007 SB 97 was adopted by the State Legislature. SB 97 requires the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to adopt CEQA guidelines for GHG emissions and mitigation by January 1, 2010. Preliminary CEQA guidelines were released in 2009 and hold that lead agencies shall have final discretion to determine weather GHG analysis should be qualitative or quantitative. OPR's GHG CEQA guidelines do not establish thresholds of significance, rather they call for "good -faith effort, based on available information ..." California SB 375 was signed by the Governor in September 2008 and is intended to at least in part implement greenhouse gas reduction targets in AB 32. The bill encourages regional land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled and requires jurisdictions to adopt a sustainable communities strategy. Thresholds of Significance for GHGs To date the ARB, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other regulatory agencies have not adopted thresholds to analyze project level impacts on climate change. It should be noted that on October 24, 2008 CARB released the "Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds." In the absence of adopted CEQA thresholds for emissions of greenhouse gases, impacts would be considered significant if it were determined that the project interferes with the goals of AB 32. CEQA does state, however, that a project would have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions if it is determined that the project will: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) requires the state to cut GHG emission to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Therefore, the project would have a significant impacts if GHG's emitted by the project interfere with the ability of AB 32 to achieve the intended reductions by 2020. 14 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/l2 30 09/ Revised 4 25 11 SECTION III. METHODOLOGY A. Air Quality Calculations To calculate the potential emissions of criteria pollutants associated with development and operation of Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project, URBEMIS (Urban Emissions Model) 2007 version 9.2.4 was used, as was the CEQA Air Quality Handbook prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District and adopted in April of 1993. It should be noted that emission factors for construction equipment and moving sources are from the most recent version of EMFAC2007. Emission projections are pre -mitigation, as set forth in the impacts section below and therefore do not take into account implementation of mitigation measures, rather they represent the worst case worse day scenario without any mitigation. Air quality emissions for the proposed project are temporary (associated with construction activities) or are ongoing (from operation of the project at buildout). Potential emissions associated with these two stages are analyzed below. Construction Temporary emissions from grading, trenching, paving, construction, and application of architectural coating operations are a result of site disturbance, operation of construction equipment, and mobile source emission from construction workers and materials being brought to and from the project site. Emission projections for fugitive dust generation from onsite grading and for all other construction related activities, relied upon emission factors from the EMFAC 2007 model (Version 3.2). These include the OFFROAD2007 input files to calculate emissions from equipment operation. For detailed information on the assumptions of the analysis including the mix of equipment and distance traveled, please see Appendix A of this Report. Operation Air quality emissions from buildout of the project are a result of the consumption of electricity, combustion of natural gas or other fuels, use of consumer products, landscaping maintenance, and moving sources. Demand for energy were projected using the CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables A9- 11-A. To obtain projected consumption rates, demand factors are multiplied by the square footage of the proposed Palm Desert Hotel. URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 was used to calculate emission associated with all other operational aspects of the proposed project. Please see Appendix A of this report for assumptions used in the URBEMIS model to calculate emission from the operation of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project. 15 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/] 2.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 B. Greenhouse Gas Calculation Construction Grading and construction activities result in the emission of greenhouse gases. In order to estimate the total amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted over project development each construction phase as presented in the URBEMIS output was totaled. The sum of all phases is assumed to capture greenhouse gas emissions from project construction. Operation Greenhouse gas emissions during operation are a result of electric power generation, use of natural gas, the transport of water, and transportation related motor vehicle combustion. The following discussion described the methodology utilized to quantify total daily greenhouse gas emissions at operation. Demand for energy and natural were projected using the CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables A9-11-A and A9-12-A. To obtain projected consumption rates, the demand factor for hotel land use was multiplied by the proposed square footage of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residential project. Emission factors for onsite-energy use and energy associated with the transport of water are from the "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Tables E.1, C5 and C6," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008. To calculate the amount of energy required to transport the projected water demand, an electricity usage rate that considers average energy demand for the conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water in Southern California was applied. The usage rate is from "Refining Estimates of Water -Related Energy Use in California," prepared by the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. CEC-500-2006-118. December 2006. For natural gas emission factors were taken from "Calculations and References," of the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, prepared by EPA and last updated on August 4, 2008 for Carbon Dioxide and from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Equations III.8d," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008 for Methane and nitrous oxide. It should be noted that factors used for natural gas are conservative and emissions may actually be much less depending on the type of gas and efficiency of combustion. Greenhouse gas emissions from moving sources were obtained by converting the total miles traveled per day into the total estimated gallons of gasoline used per year. It was assumed that on average the mix of vehicles would achieve an average of 19.7 miles per gallon. Factors for emissions of CO2 are from "Calculations and References," of the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, prepared by EPA and last updated on August 4, 2008; and are from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Tables C5 and C6," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008 for CH4, and N20. In order to obtain figures in units of CO2 equivalency, CH4 was weighted by a factor of 21 and N20 was weighted by a factor of 310. Total GHG emissions from operation were calculated by summing all GHG emitting activities. Summary figures for CO2e are presented in units of million metric tons. 16 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4 25 11 SECTION IV. PROJECT IMPACTS The project will result in the direct and indirect generation and emission of air pollutants both locally and regionally. Emissions will contribute to regional air quality degradation in Riverside County. The most significant impacts are expected to come from the emission of pollutants generated by vehicular traffic. Other important sources of pollutants will be emissions generated during site preparation activities, including fugitive dust from site disturbance and other construction activities, and from project operations. The utilization of natural gas and electricity will also contribute to the degradation of air quality. The following discussion describes the major sources of air pollutants associated with the development of the project and calculates the potential emissions. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that no more than 4.97 acres would be disturbed. A. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust generation is associated with the grubbing, grading and development of 4.97f acres of the project site. The formula for estimating fugitive dust generation associated with the project, and its direct application to project acreage, is presented below. Table 5 Calculations of Fugitive Dust Potential Area to be Disturbed Criteria Pollutant Total Potential Dust Generation 4.97 t acres PM10 99.47 lbs./day 4.97 f acres PM2.5 20.78 lbs./day Source: URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4 (See Appendix A) These emission estimates are indicators of potential maximum short-term impacts during the site grading and site preparation period. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for PMio emissions at 150 pounds per day and PM2.5 at 55 pounds per day . It should be noted that the above figure does not include mitigation measures. Although fugitive dust emissions are projected to be below threshold of significance without mitigation, implementation of mitigation measures such as watering exposed surfaces and application of soil stabilizers could reduce dust generation to approximately 22.5 pounds per day of PMio, and 4.71 pounds per day for PM2.5 (see Appendix A). In order to assure that impacts associated with fugitive dust are minimized the project shall adhere to Rule 403 and other applicable regulations, as well as those mitigation measures set forth below. 17 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 B. Construction Related Emissions Local air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. The following table summarizes projected emissions in pounds per day from site preparation and grading related activities, which includes paving, trenching, and application of architectural coatings as well as vehicle emissions from the transportation of workers to and from the project site and delivery of construction materials. As shown in Table 6, construction activity on the project site will not exceed any of the established SCQAMD thresholds of significance. Table 6 Construction Emission Summary (pounds per day) CO ROG NOx S02 PMto PM2.5 CO2 Equip. Emissions' 41.97 26.43 60.56 0.01 3.63 3.34 7,095.68 Dust Emissions see Table 5 NA NA NA NA 99.47 20.78 N Total 41.97 26.43 60.56 0.01 103.10 24.12 7,095.E SCA MD Threshold 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/ Exceed Threshold No No No No No No N/ Note that emission projections for summer and winter are equivalent. C. Operational Emissions At buildout of the proposed project, onsite operation will result in the emission of air quality pollutants that have the potential to impact air quality. The following table summarizes projected emissions in pounds per day from the operation of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences project, which includes area source emissions such as combustion of fuels, landscaping maintenance, use of consumer products, and application of architectural coatings, as well as emissions from moving sources. A traffic impact analysis was prepared in order to evaluate the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with buildout of the project. According to the traffic study (Table3-2), project buildout is expected to result in 1,013 passenger vehicle trips per day.12 12 "Palm Desert Hotel/Condominium Development Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, April 25, 2011.. 18 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/1 30 09/ Revised 4 25 11 The following table summarizes the potential generation and emission of pollutants associated with day- to-day operations of the proposed project at buildout. As shown in Table 7, operation of the proposed project will not exceed any of the established SCQAMD thresholds of significance. Also see Appendix A for detailed information on assumptions. Table 7 Operational Emission Summary (pounds perda CO ROG NOx SO2 PMto PM2.5 CO2 Summer Area Source Emissions 3.89 3.71 1.27 0 0.01 0.01 1,531.2 Operational Emissions 97.37 8.39 12.79 0.11 16.64 3.33 10,164.78 Summer Emissions 101.26 12.10 14.06 0.11 16.65 3.34 11,696.0 Winter Area Source Emissions 26.4 12.7 1.93 0.07 3.97 3.82 2,471.33 Operational Emissions 94.71 8.98 15.19 0.09 16.64 3.33 9,255.1 Winter Emissions 121.11 21.68 17.12 0.16 20.61 7.15 11,726.4 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 75.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/ Exceed Threshold No No No No No No N/ Source: See Appendix A Although emissions from the production of onsite energy use will not be emitted in the project vicinity, air quality emissions that may be generated offsite as a result of increased energy demand onsite are presented below. Table 8 show the emission of criteria pollutants that are projected to be emitted from the use of 3,593 megawatts from the 361,150 square foot project. This is the project's estimated annual energy demand as indicated in Table 10 below and summarized in the following table. Table 8 Off -site Energy Production Emissions (pounds per day) CO ROG NOx SO2 PMto Project Energy Demand mw/ r) 3,593 3,593 3,593 3,593 3,593 SCAQMD Factor Ibs/mw/hr) 0.2 0.01 1.15 0.12 0.04 Lbs./Year 718.7 35.9 4132.5 431.2 143.7 Lbs./Day 1.97 0.10 11.32 1.18 0.39 Based on per unit usage and emissions factors provided in Tables A9-11-A and A9-11-B, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. Assumes continued availability and use of natural gas in power plants and an average contribution from hydro -electric sources. Represents total pounds emitted per year by all development at buildout. As seen in Table 8 onsite energy production and associated emissions will not generate significant concentration of criteria pollutants and are well below established thresholds. Therefore, air quality emissions associated with the operation of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residential project are expected to be less than significant. 19 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air quality has become an increasing concern because of human health issues, and because air pollutants are thought to be contributing to global warming and climate change. Air pollution is a chemical, physical or biological process that modifies the characteristics of the atmosphere. The primary contributor to air pollution is the burning of fossil fuels through the use of automobiles, power and heat generators, and industrial processes. The byproduct from the combustion of fossil fuels can contain a number air polluting substances.. These emissions are responsible for the poor air quality that is evident in industrial centers worldwide. Construction GHG Emissions Construction activities will generate short-term GHG emissions during site grading, trenching, paving, and building construction. The following table summarizes estimated GHG emissions from the construction portion of the project, which for the purposes of this analysis is expected to buildout by 2011. Table 9 Greenhouse Gas Construction Emission Summary (pounds of CO2e) Construction Days of CO2 CO2 CH4 CO2e Activity' Activity (lbs/day) (totals)2 (totals)3 Emissions Mass Grading 66 2,371.71 156,532.86 626.13 169,681.62 Fine Grading 10 2,371.71 23,717.10 94.87 25,709.34 Trenching 24 1,839.03 44,136.72 176.55 47,844.20 Paving 40 1,567.82 62,712.80 250.85 67,980.68 Building 71 2,884.94 204,830.74 819.32 222,036.52 Subtotal 491,930.22 1967.72 533,252.36 Total Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions for Construction 533,252.36 Note that emission projections for summer and winter are equivalent. 1 Construction activity, days of activity and CO2 pound per day are taken from the URBEMIS output tables. 2 To quantify total CO2 emissions for all construction, each construction activity's CO2 emission per day was multiplied by the total days of activity. 3 Based on EMFAC 2007 (version 2.3) On -road construction equipment for delivery trucks weighing >8500 pounds the CO2 and CH4 emission factors used are 2.72 and 0.0001 pounds per mile, respectively, and for equipment weighing between 33,000 and 60,000 pounds the emission factors used are 4.21 (CO2) and 0.00015 (CH4) pounds per mile. Therefore, it was assumed that 0.004 percent of CO2 emissions would equate to the emissions of CH4. 4 Note that CH4 is weighted by a factor of 21 in order to determine CO2e. Based on these estimates and project design features, construction activities are not expected to interfere with the objectives of AB 32. Therefore, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. 20 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 Operational GHG Emissions The proposed project will result in the emission of greenhouse gasses primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels through use of automobiles. The use of energy and natural gas and the transportation of water also contribute to operational emission of GHG's. The table below shows potential power plant emissions associated with annual electricity consumption generated by development on the proposed project. Electricity usage is estimated by applying the electrical power usage rate as set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook 13. Table 10 shows the projected energy demand associated with operation of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences. Table 10 Estimated Electrical Usage Land Use Type Usage Unit Type Units Total Annual Rate S . Ft. kwh Palm Desert Hote 12 9.95 kwh/s .ft./ ear 361,150 3,593,443 kwh= Kilowatt Hour Source: Terra Nova Staff Estimates based the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Initial Study, Table I, December 2009. 1) The usage rate is taken from the hotel/motel land use factor, Table A9-1I-A Electricity Usage Rate, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. 2) The Palm Desert Hotel and Residences land usesquare footage captures all proposed development onsite. At buildout of the proposed project, the annual CO2 equivalent emission for indirect electricity use is estimated to be 1,313.2 metric tons as shown in Table 11. Table 11 GHG Emissions from Indirect Electricity Use Electricity Use kwh per year 3,593,443 mwh per year 3,593 Emission Projected Projected Metric Factor Emissions Emissions Tons per Emissions Lbs/MWh 2 Lbs/Year Tons/Year Year Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 804.54 2,891,068 1,446 1,311.10 Methane (CH4) 0.0067 24 0.0120 0.01 Nitrous Oxide 20 0.0037 13 0.0066 0.01 Total 2,891,106 1,446 1,311.12 CO2 Equivalent per Year 1,313.20 1 Electricity Use is estimated using SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-11-A, 1993. 2 Emission factors from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Tables E.1, C5 and C6," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008. 3 CO2 Equivalent is based on SAR (1996) global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20. Note that electricity consumption does not consider the transport of water. Natural gas usage rates are calculated using the average monthly consumption factor established by SCAQMD, and the projected units and square footage of development proposed. Table 12 shows the estimated natural gas usage rate at buildout of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences project. 13 Table A9-11-A, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. 21 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 l Table 12 Natural Gas Usage Rates Units Cubic Feet Land Use Natural Gas Factor (SF) per month Palm Desert Hotel 4.8 cubic feet/sq. ft./month 361,150 1,733,520 Source: Terra Nova Staff Estimates based on the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Initial Study, Table 1, December 2009. 1) The usage rate is taken from the hotel/motel land use Factor, Table A9-12-A, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. 2 The Palm Desert Hotel and Residences land usesquare footage captures all proposed development onsite. As shown in the table below, natural gas usage onsite is expected to generate approximately 1,138.9 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. Table 13 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Use Natural Gas Use cubic feet per day 56,992 cubic feet per year 20,802,240 MMBtu2 21,385 Projected Projected Metric Emission Emissions Emissions Tons per Emissions Factor Unit (kg/Year Tons/Year Year kg CO2/ Carbon Dioxide (CO2)3 0.0546 cubic foot 1,135,802 1,252 1,135.56 kg CH4/ Methane (CH4)4 0.0059 MMl3tu 126 0.14 0.13 kg CH4/ Nitrous Oxide 20 4 0.0001 MMl3tu 2 0.00 0.00 Total 1,252.14 1,135.7 1,252.14 CO2 Equivalent per Years 1,138.9 1 Natural Usage rate is estimated using SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-12, 1993. 2 Btu assumes 1,028 Btu per cubic foot. "Table A4 Approximate Heat Content of Natural Gas 1949-2007," energy information administration. 3 "Calculations and References," of the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, prepared by EPA and last updated on August 4, 2008. 4 Emission factors from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Equations 111.8d," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008. 5 CO2 Equivalent is based on SAR 1996) global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20. 22 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4 25 l 1 As seen in Table 14 below, greenhouse gas emissions from moving sources are estimated to be 1,682 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Table 14 GHG Emissions from Moving Sources Miles Per Miles Per Gallons Vehicle Type Day' Year Per Year Passenger Car 9,357 3,415,273 173,364 Heavy Duty Truck 191 69,699 3,538 Total 9,547.87 3,484,973 176,902 Metric CO2 Emission Type Passenger Heavy Duty Unit3 Tons per Equivalent Car Truck Year per Year Carbon Dioxide CO2) 1,632.70 1,633 Methane (CH4)4 0.04 0.12 Grams/mile 0.14 3 Nitrous Oxide 20 a 0.04 0.2 Grams/mile 0.15 47 Total 1,632.99 1,682 1 Miles per day are based on the URBEMIS 2007 version 2.3 output data included in Appendix A. The mix of vehicles assumes 98 percent of total miles traveled are passenger cars and 2 percent are heavy-duty trucks. 2 To quantify the estimated gallons of gasoline that the project will use per year for the Moving Source component, 19.7 miles per gallon was assumed. 3 CO2 tons/year provided by Urbemis 2007 version 2.3 output data included in Appendix A. 1 ton equals 0.90718474 metric tons. (1799.74*0.90718474=1632.7) 4 Emission factors from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Tables C5 and C6," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008. 5 Passenger cars are based on factors given for the use of gasoline and are based on model year 2000 to present. 6 Heavy-duty trucks assume the use of gasoline and are based on model year 1996 to present. Note that heavy- duty trucks often use diesel, which has much lower emission factors for CH4 (.06) and N20 (.05). 7 CO2 Equivalent is based on SAR 1996global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20. Southern California imports water from northern California and the Colorado River in order to provide sufficient water supplies to meet demand. Water transportation requires the use of energy for conveyance, treatment, and distribution. In addition, wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge also require the use of energy. Water conveyance to southern California requires the greatest energy expenditure due to the distance the water has to travel and the pumping associated with delivering the water supply. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has established factors to quantify energy demand per million gallons of water. Based on these factors and the projected onsite water use identified, the following table has been prepared, which quantifies the total projected greenhouse gas emission associated with transport of water to the project site. 23 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact .Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 Table 15 GHG's from Energy Demand for Onsite Water Use Energy Factor Million gallons for Water Use Energy Demand for Water Acre/feet per year' per year (kwh/MG) Use (kwh)2 47 15.37 13,022.00 200,112.33 Electricity Use mwh per year 200 Factor Emissions Emissions Metric Tons Emissions Lbs/MWh 3 Lbs/Year Tons/Yearper Year Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 804.54 160,998 80 73 Methane (CH4) 0.0067 1 0.00 0.00 Nitrous Oxide 20 0.0037 1 0.00 0.00 Total 161,000 81 73 CO2 Equivalent per Year; 73 1 Based on calculations for water demand as described in the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Initial Study, December 2009. 2 Electricity Use is based on an average energy demand for the conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water in Southern California per the "Refining Estimates of Water -Related Energy Use in California," prepared by the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. CEC-500-2006-118. December 2006. 3 Emission factors from "California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Tables C5 and C6," version 3.0 prepared by California Climate Action Registry, April 2008. 4 CO2 Equivalent is based on SAR 1996global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20. Table 16 summarizes the total GHG contribution of this project at operation of all land use described in the Specific Plan. Buildout of the proposed project is expected to generate 0.004 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Based on these estimates and project design features, implementation is not expected to interfere with the objectives of AB 32. Therefore, GHG emissions from the operation of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. Table 16 Annual GHG Summary CO2 Equivalent CO2 Equivalent Emission Source Metric Tons Million Metric Tons Electricity 1,313.20 0.001 Water Use 73.14 0.000 Natural Gas 1,138.87 0.001 Moving Source 1,682.41 0.002 Total 4,207.63 0.004 In comparison, the total carbon, dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions in California for the year 1990 were estimated to be 427 million metric tons. At buildout the project will contribute approximately 0.001% of the total California emissions limit for 2020 as established by ARB. In 2005 the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the United States was estimated at 7,260.4 million metric tons. The project represents 0.000 1% of the total emissions for the US as estimated in year 2005. 24 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/ 12 30 09/ Revised 4 25 1 1 SECTION V. MITIGATION MEASURES A. General Control Measures Due to the proposed scope of the Palm Desert Hotel and Residences project, none of the air quality thresholds are projected to be exceeded and impacts to air quality are expected to be less than significant. Although mitigation measures are not required since no thresholds exceed, the following techniques and mitigation measures described below will reduce air quality emissions. The following design recommendations will reduce reliance on automobiles for transportation: I . Provide interconnecting pedestrian and bicycle paths to nearby, commercial and recreational land uses; 2. Establish accessible public transit routes that provide seated shaded areas within walking distance of the project site; 3. Promote the use of electric vehicles and alternative modes of transport and provide safe and convenient parking; and The design recommendation listed below will encourage operational efficiency and sustainability: l . Design onsite structures to be energy efficient and achieve LEED standard equivalence; 2. Design onsite building to be water efficient; 3. Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavement; 4. Provide high density residential for a compact community; 5. Incorporate the use of solar energy for onsite renewable energy production including solar hot water heaters; 6. Install water efficient irrigation systems and devices; 7. Utilize desert landscaping techniques to minimize water demand; and 8. Promote recycling by providing convenient programs including composting green waste. In order minimize the impacts from fugitive dust emission, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. 25 Palm Desert Hotel and Residences Project Terra Nova/Air Quality Impact Analysis/12.30.09/ Revised 4.25.1 1 The applicant shall prepare a dust control plan to conform with AQMD Rule 403. The dust control plan may include the following measures: • chemically treat soil where activity will cease for at least four consecutive days; • pave on -site construction access roads as they are developed; extend paving at least 120 feet from roadway into construction site and clean roadways at the end of each working day; • restore vegetative ground cover as soon as construction activities have been completed • chemically treat unpaved roads that carry 20 vehicle trips per day or more; • all construction grading operations and earth moving operations shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; • water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth -moving operations; • operate street -sweepers on paved roads adjacent to site; and/or • re-establish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering or other appropriate means; 2. To reduce fugitive dust during construction activities trucks leaving the sites should be washed off, haul trucks should maintain 2 feet of freeboard or be covered; and low sulfur fuels should be used for construction equipment. B. Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation The follow mitigation measures are derived from consensus recommendations for reducing global warming and air pollution and are intended to limit the project's contribute to greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Landscaping designs shall consider the use of trees and other vegetation to maximize the shading of buildings in order to reduce energy requirements for heating and cooling provide carbon storage. 2. Building designs shall strive to exceed Title 24 requirements by 15% and utilize materials that are "green", that is which are sustainably sourced. 3. To the extent feasible, development of the proposed project shall use recycled building materials and other construction materials. 4. Onsite structures shall be equipped with solar water heaters to reduce the reliance upon non- renewable energy sources for domestic hot water, pool heating and other appropriate applications of solar thermal systems. 5. Hotel units and residential condominiums shall be equipped with energy efficient and water conserving appliances and fixtures that are EnergyStar certified or better in performance rating. 6. Building design shall include natural lighting and ventilation to the greatest extent feasible. 7. Project proponents shall coordinate with the local solid waste disposal provider to assure that measures are in place to encourage waste reduction, and facilitate recycling and composting programs. 26 V N Oi c O N n O O N E a) Z) 2 a co O O O T c a) ca c0 a co Q N .D C 7 O CL N V- O a N O C 0 E W (D E E O C E O U It N O L 7 O c O N Q) z 0 m a� 0 E ro a. a) E ca Z U a) O ri7 so tD O N T O Z c+) N > O O N U _N E W c 0 N `m c 0 a) M m c 0 E w a) U L m > co O cr O N r) O cr LL LL O c 0 a) U) ca m c O E w a) U_ L a) > cu O O a o # / & \ R R 'r a a N � \ \ § § (D o / f j w E G ) § \ 2 q ^ f ~ A § o 0 G 9 § % » ) ° m R � ° IR = (D = § / 2 §§ o P a CV)« e m n a f ) f § a A 0 0 0 / (0\ \ § C \ G 8 \ ci m 2 °° q§ 0 z /\ d\ i d$ Q z d§ d§ § 0 0 o a n e » 2 ) \ % a ) $ C6 z %0 C� z \ § 7 7 [ / S ] ) J §Cl) ) \ § /q\ % u � I?U) d � � Q G m / \ LU ■ z S Cl) } n \ z } } § \ _ / _ § Q \ \ IF z _ - $ 2 \ - « 2Lij m _ � 7 e z k § \ \ \ \ f \ co \ j / a s w » / > / ( § \ 2 \ ) k / \ ! : q 2 = w \ \ } o # / C \ \ \ / CL:§ \ ] / \ 2 / / / ) } ƒ / < < < # §\± / 0 E < F = \ \ \ \ < / I \ <e 0% °e \< ®§ 2 z 0 o LLJ = o o b u a_ e o = e= o! I/ 0 \§ \§ < e e M 0 e = e a §/ G 8 G 8 m Q g 8) 8 m a w a¥ w a 6¥ n % 3 2 R \ 2 4 a w & w & {§ m f 8 G& \ r« 8 G § � w 6 a G Q k® a d Q % 8° 8 8 o ° S° S§ a Q a d w 2 6& 6 6 \ m \§ S S r m � 8 8 8 ,@§@6 6 a§§§ d a d 2 S k) 8 3 2 2 k\ S Q \ ) S) 8 8) q 8\ 8 8 e 6 6 6 a 6 R : 8 8 3 »§ 8 G m 0) $ 6 6 6 m / § o d d § 8 S$ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 6 a o a 6 a a 6 a 6 a S S S$ S G S S R W q a 8 3 ) ## 6§ 6 w§ d f a m E _ \ G 8 g 2 q % m§ G 8$§§ b m % % d g q % o e � \ ¥ 3 8 8 8 3 G 8 8 8 8 E / 7 E w d' co a e e a d a d a / § § E \ I ) \ LU o o § a)o 5# (ISj t z co f j \ 0M _ 0\ CCQ ® G co 7 c} 3 \ # R k 3 COLU \ 3 3 \ m\\\ e z 3 \ 2 e E c/ = 2 cm 2 § / \ 7 z � o) . o = m co/ / \ / � } \ } / / 2 \ § g § G § ) \ \ a e 7, 3 e, i =__ 'Im o\ Q � \ \)/ § /)ƒ O N O O Cl) O Cl) CO V O u) N O 7 O O Cl) V O) M O M O O O Cl? cCcpR 00 O O O f� O (O M M N C07 C07 N O C^D O n 7 co0N M N r M r N CO 1� r V' (n N N co r N N r r r r r (h N N O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O (O to 0 �) O O O O 0)0 Il O CA O O O ao O O O o0 a0 O N O N O O O O O r r 0 r O O O O O O O O 0 r 0 r O O O O O 0 8 0 8 S o 0 0 8 S o 8 0 0 8 8 0 8 E N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cD O O O O Om w T O ON m w (D ll� � O N N C9 O M I? cq 0� O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O10 O _M 'A 0 «7 O O OO w O 00 m OD O O 0 M M 0 N O N O O OR CO O CO CD O O N '7 O M O O CO O O N r O r O O O O O O O O O . r 0 r O O O O 0 v� q v o o a b 8 o b o o b o o a 8 o b o a b g a) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 (O O T O N- (D CD N 7 v O O O N O) CO N � IQ O V O O N N O N N N O (D Ch O r r O N N O r2 0 N O O M O) 0) 00 N O O) 0 CV () CO O O 00) O O n (00, O n O O V' O O^) CM7 N n O CO O N O N O O fl n O f, n r, O M (O O (A O O N n O V' O O O M O CO M O) O (O 0 O W 7 N CO m (D M O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O CO O O O O O (h O M O O N N O N N N O It N O N O O N N 0 O O O O d N O r0 O N@ N a Q CU N N @ N O Q CO N 'a � H N N 7 �'� N 7) \ N Q (� 0 @ @ O .a N N .a N y U) N C. 7 ~ M M ~ d O _ O a O OO U a O R N O O O O O H Y @ @ CC O (n r C C C C O (D O ?: -NC.7 O r r c) o m m m (u emc) °c) N r c) c O N O O O 3 r c) c) 0) O Ur Vr r ) O) m 0) L L Q)T @ O C U U @ T C U U @ T C C C C C U U r V@ N N N N Q)L C C U@ L C C U (q "' '> '> '> .> L C C O O N C C C C U CU ) U N a) @ @ @ @ @ U N CU a) Q)LL LL LL LL H F H H> a. U.C. d F co E iL r E t— E 'r- a �- LL 00 00 O O S n M O ^ V V n V n O n LO LQ LQ N N W (0 M 00 C N r Iq rl r O O O n O O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �J T O M � aryl N O N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 (O� c0 O Cl) N m w R w n O O O c`'-�I ch O c7 O O N N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O O O r r r n M O O O rM O M N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O s s S S S s o S b . S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S S S . S S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a d Cl O O n O r r M W N a M LO O (n M M c0 n M o O n M c c - O r r O W O r 00 0 r (D O O O E > �v U X Q �LI O) C 10 S S � Iq(q S a S o � ; 0 0 0 n T vi r o 0 0 0 Q , a) a ur c ll 0 ' O V c0 a u7 00 O cQ v N O (O O Cl) n O) M O N n to O O 7 . N N O N O O CCCVVWII Cl) M O O O Q) O v < 0 o Ln n coo o Ln rn '1 p 7 O •- O r N O _O �o O (II i J O N N N O (0 O` N 0) 0 (n t(0 V1 O N N _ N O C � d N h —O r C O O O O O N Y p O V ` O U Y . 7 U Q — > >. 2 n O O O � co n 00 O O) > 0)N 7 3 (nn ON a 9- v z ; *' >` r C C C O C O C C 7 (o r �'' 'n c N U 0 cz > co > co > (o C > co a)T c) co 0 7 7 a 7 O iL U E F-• W v F d t N W ,, CO m m O Q V 7 0 o. co (o 1 ai cT1 N� E '� ¢ N> E '� m U ro .X D .� a C7 a CL i= Q � a r a (i N c 0 0 r a1 a a N _N N m w Q a cu 0 E m E 0 1 � > c � F- E m O' �--- W C v a a m m n ¢ Ir O c 4- cv O O T cc N a 7 t 0 0 as O O O 0 co O n 0 a L V r N N ca O C cu O T a m CL N Q cn O L O O L L c co `o 0 ~ 0 ro m m 0 O 00 Lq O O O r- coN 0 cu a N �p O N a p N O L a rn c L 00 r N 00 o' E Zoo 7 C O N F- N W O ~ > 0 3 c X UJ r a O N O .UUn N d rn �o a Co N 0 N N N _O O N a O) C fC a co ro L o_ m E a O' W m O Cc i u co O a co 0 U co O to O c0 c6 CL O) C 0 0 a L Lo N 0 Q {: ƒ �k} « e CL k j ) k 0 ) ) ) � / \ { ) Q 2 2 ] \ f 7 C6 E E \ ! a } % \ ) $ ) + b - 2 § 6 E t m / ) } ~ § z 2 ƒ \ \ q ± a i C § \ \ ( S \ B § G / q ) $ m o o ¥ / Co.\ 9 � m m $ Q e 8 3 O m w e a q § § � \\ 7 3 \ 8 3 Cl) CV) k ) \ $ ) § § � 3 7 7 8 8 3 § 60 6 d Q i a § 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6 6 a 6 6 S S 8 q 8$ 3 § 6 § o k � § / S z§ q § $ § § b m o I o 6 « ) © E - d/ f 8 § @ COO n a n d a / § § 0 E I I / / o \ / $ / k \ / 2 a 6 § 3 3 3) z ° _ _ ° _ k§ \@/ k k k k S/ D E t/ 2§\ > ) \ G � ) ) ) D &) ) \ /�)� O N O 0) p N O 0) co) 7 0) c7 co V O h I� O M O "? M O M O CD C? O O O ch O h O V' O h O 'V' 0) V ITOi 0i v h h V N h It N M N M c7 cl C'7 N C'M N W h O O r- N N N N N r r r r r to co a0 00 h r O O 000 h � S O z O O ; O cD O LO LO r a 0 N 7 r O O O O O O O O O �o O O 2 O O O N O to O O O O O O O 0A 7O O O a0 W O cp N a0 O r r 0 r O O r r O r O O O O O O O O O i S S S t7 r7 S S S S S S S S S S v v v 0 0 0 v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O v LO O O a LO O 0) 00 0) 0) CO O W N O O c0 U? N O O 00 C0 O c0 W W O N N N r O O N N r O O O 0 O O O O O N Cn O N O O Cl) N O LO O O 00 00 O OD 00 c0 O N N O N O O 7N O N O O W CO O c0 O O O 0 r a a CV r a r 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 a It NUS S S S S . S o . . cm O O O O O O O O O O O O O A N S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 0 0 0 0 coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O cD O R I O O w O a (0 N a (0 t0 N R �CnO V O O Li O V' O O N N O N N N O r � 07 O O r co O CM O r M OD r 0) 0) co r S C$ S a S m S S 0)S (0 N N O N O O N O N O O h h O h h h O O V' O O p co tl O O O Cl) O) CD co 0) 0) CD co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co Cl) O c7 a O cM a M a a CV N a N N CV a O O CU N _O N N O O a ~ ~ h 7 a N O cV )4 O c�C 0 O N n O C N M � ~a O Na FN 7 r O O Or r- c O cr ON O cOo C m a N C Co O 3-r G\r O O c 'O co O t0 'm tD 'O ro � r C) '2 tC 'O 'O r CA CA r 0) \ O 0) CA c'vj N O '� N c O 'O cC 07 CA c L c L `- h *r- 0) c A-_L c O 'V c C.7 c C C (D 'V CO O C'J O O N CU L c C U N C C to u. LL LL LC) c LL C c E LL O Q U d CU LL > ) IL IL m F- F- > N H F (fi E LL I— E 6 f- L F- Q h- Q 1z Q (O N O V O W (M v m M co O 'IT O to CO O M O M cq O O O f� O (O M N fl Cl? � 7 O 1-0 N N to N N (NO m 000 M r r r r r r r nj O N to (n (n g O O O r M O N O O CO CO O `V�] N O N O O n O O O O O O N r O r O O O O O .i r O r O O r r r O O O O O 1 O T O O N O N (O N O O O O O 0� 0p O N T M T � N O N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 1 0 8 8 0 8 8 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N M a0 to M N 0 a0 W n O O O M a O M O O c0 ORO M O MC? O N N O O O O O N r 0 r O 0 0 0 O 1 r 0 r 0 0 r r r 0 0 0 0 0 O�J r O Nry a OO O = w O O O N M O O OC? O clM O M N CN OO 0 0 O O���0 r r - 0 o b . 8 8 b . b o b . 8 8 8 b 0 8 o g 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 0 8 8 b 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'IT co O c0 N O) (O N V O N r M C (n (O M N O N (O C'M O r r O N N O O O .- 0) Cp CR M (O M O M N r O O O (NO) c0 r r r O (3) O r M ( r (O O O O MC43 8 � M N ^ O i0 cD O nO 0 (O, O O S O (O O '0 O O f� 1� O N (n O (n O O N L r O 0 O O O M N (O O) (O M V 8 4N 8 CO O) O N (O O O) CO O (O O O O O (O (O . O I. M r N (A (n O 7 N O N O 4 N N O N N O N O 0 N Cl) co O O (l f- O O O _ O N N y M O O O N _ _ r N (n a) h a p, O (!7 N a)O (O 0 (O o a o v 1- (n ani aNi a a a a C O�fr„ dU .... CC3 C QC YC•., C U U >. C CO) 'O Y .3sO O OO LO - �O N UQ Q C O �O m N O M CO O O 3 mQ0 0 0 NQ 0 > Q N O) OOCp o CC C C cc > > > >� a a a La `Ud a a a a � ' a Uco EU¢ E ¢ E co �O k ) \ k k \ { E \ \ 2 + - ® ( ± \ / \ \ / ° 7 ) 2 ± / ( ( m k \ § , / k j k LO k�)\ k E 6 o w 2= w k \ \ § � ) & k \ k f { k _ ) � ] § c - E _ _ CL \ \ ) \ = \ § = % k = \ ƒ ) a ) 6 ) 6 ) 6 t ) 6 I J \ } a_ ) / j ƒ } ƒ / ) ) j § \ \ a. k f 0 ( 7 ) & f f k ■ \ 4 d 7 ) { \ \ ) 2 § j \ t k CL / k } Q. 2 § § \ 6 \ \ 8 d j q g $ o a w 2 § j § 8 o d / @ \ } I § § : N m § � 0 J $ @ < 6 Cl) w � q ® \ 2 ) o � /3 G G $ 6 6 w 6 a L . , q 7LL \ j LU c/ & E 2 \ 3 \ u ] 3 ƒ k LL ] ) ] a ! ] / E f g « / § § j \ u ) c \ \ c ± < / < 3 Ul E ' / § Q g A co# 4 )� 6 a w o w ) E E c ' o [ ± i \ c [ § § 2 \ / b S \ CD j p } coe ƒ 0 IL _\ ` L \ f ° CL © ) � k k k § < \ / % ) ƒ ] \ < / \ 0 N n ro p o n n U on ri 10, co cO 0 U) N o N (ci � n W > (Mo W 7 d Vi O N p Co (o CA I— (n N 2 N _N N C(7MY) Ch LL L n rn � Frn Rd 'T Co ((o (o N O >. �9 06 O n N O o (moo (moo H U 0 LO 0 00 N It n O p O O Z cn O O O N a? a O N (0 O F Y E rn E E 0o U c o c c Z 0 N n Cl? = 3 Cl) Co 0) _X � a� n (0 Co JE cr NOD LL x Z co V (o ap a)>pm n CV () 0) O a(n U ui IR M o coa) co a ¢ O a N) o E U ¢ c O a (J O ¢ CO N LO co C E � 7 v� c IL o0' G .•-- �C v IL _ 0$ a� 10 _ E C c O a) 0 E cn Lil ¢ W Z O -2 w J ¢ O ¢ w 0 a 0)o) a)T jCU O 3 r C U = _ o o) a U) f'- a) "ieEO c O a) 0 y n N N O O g a��i a) c O m o 0 a) E o (II C c� a o N j c O a) o in 0 a) O R d CL E E N o N .. U) (a ¢ o N O Z M N > n 0 N w .. C N > w a) ~ N C �o o) (D E c U 4) x a ~ r > J t y a 0 c7 V Y L r O 4) O c0 O 7 N O LO N co O O O O O O O O O S M d p co O a0 O O '' M 7 U Y a (D O 0 N 0 O m 3 M U C y N m 7 m O co N O ug to r O o O 0 O o co Cl) O rl co c`oo E O Z U 0 a� M v o Eri u2 o E .- � M E 8 N N m Lq N 0 LO y N a0 O O O O O O N O O a O 0 0 0 0 0 o o N o o m 76 co N O) O U t rn r 0) c O M 0 z E 0 2 c c LL n o 0 0 — 0 r-� r o co a) c0 r O ao N O u> cn > N CO >n r 0 0 r o o v o `0 N E 0 0 N U a) a Y n a7 O 47 ? O N > M co N E 0 2 a y O =3 o c o o o o Cli O M >. O 7 L� TO O N a o o o a� N 0 m 'n o O Cl)E 2 o� o a E Q co co �c r E p LO U U rn Y a w E 'n 2 0 F c E 0 0 cl M ri H H ~> > aci Q U Cl) n Y fa Vl 0 J N T �-- U U > > a7 N ca 7 7 E .a n N N E 2 aai 2 m % CO S F (D ° n ��CV d a`ai ai°i pop F- ro w F CO o, a�i (D T t a 0 0 a n o 0 0 aLi J J J 2 O fn D m H o 0 2 D 2 a 0 N a) w N r N rn cu v N O) 7 (n c O O cc T O N a Q 75 O 2 E 4. U N O Rf O Cfl c O O O i N Q! T N O E z N m D > O 0 cis N C N O E U W a a a g .N > O C n U) o m ca a) c Y O C O O E j y E U � W 9 n. o U E > E z o o U U O Z O N CC N 'p •p C lz � L 0 r- O N 0 cr LL LL 0 O co m w c O U) N E W U m > cu c0 O cc X / § j f aCf) S LLJ \ \ ) / E \ 2 E z I S 2 0 2 J } $ G \ & 7 \ 't a a p @ 3 { § 6 A ° § § / \ w j \ G ) o 0 @ � Lq C ) ) /IT � ) $ f § co) � a a . ¥ \ q 0 m @ ° ° i § § $ G G 0 0 6 a d \ \ § G d g Q a 2 � C § (0) @ d Ci N Ln d d Q * ) § § R $ m _ � m N @ m < o o co\ n m Cl) a § § Cl)7 / j \ q � 9 $ \ 9 0 0 0 0 0 = a j k 4 G q§ J Q m § ° k § cn ) 3 / � \ � \ m 7 e Co $ ) 2 °06 ( f co ) = Q � \ / f ) 0 j Q § n u § 3 / j 3 ts \ � / \/ < \ e \\ D 2 \ ~ / < / e \ t \ /_ k \ e N 2 a 2 \ ® / § < \ e coj u w § § � j u ° cc/ i <\/� — 2 ® 2 t } » 2 £ < a \ m k \ % 2 2 { z / 5 LLJ2 \ / \ z § 2 = \ — c E \ » 0 \ < /j ® < Ir ƒ 2 z u } / / u < � °« }/ C c t ! \ / / a / g < } / \G S) S m G G .)§ m co- ° » ° ) R - ° » 6 / nm n � a w g CO- S & § f°§ G§ f° 8 G Q G% Q \§ 0 0 ° ° $ LO S S° © \ 2 8 8 0 0 3 J o w 0 0 \ r g § § o a o§ § k a d a § q S k\ 8 a@ m \) 8 G ) 2 $- 6 6$ $ $ a 6 @ R/ @ o o @ o o o o N q 5 o� 0 @ o 0 o 0 0- 0 0 0- 0 0 \ k s§ a \ k 0 0 Q a) 0)$ a o a$ $ $ 6 6 a 2% \ 8 a 80% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 S 2 8 a S 3 e q S a° 8 3 7 § § 0) 0 w/ Cl) 0§ e w 4 { 0 q % m% f G q $ S% a coq c g g o/ o o§ m o C o a CL \ 3 8. 8 8 g G G g « /G § 8 S w w a w a 0 a w d Cl) a d \ CO ■ § - § - 2 m o ) ) z o §§ O e a $ Q § 6 2 2 q 6 A ■§ , § 2 2±) 5 G 0 0) CL § R 3 3 k 3 % ®[& d 3 $ z ° _= a e G 9 o B o 3 q m \CD ) ) ) \ § \ / k 3 8 = \ } j /) 0 ] / / ƒ G F 2 § ) ) § 2 \ J % @ @ @ @ k 2 \« g 3 I®!@ LL -ZL 0 /) ƒ)U� 3 O N O O CO V 0) CO M V' m to p V O O M '7 O t� O M O M O cO M O O cO Cl) DLO 00 O O O a0�p) O (D Cl? O n O 7 D) V V O O O (D O n V V co N r o n oc CO n � V IQ N N oc n r N N CO r r r ly O h O O W M O N W O0 O r C? O T O O Op aD O <NWl N N O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O (D (o O (o O O O O pO�I O O n O D) O O O c0 a0 O M M M O r1 N O N O O a0 a0 O r r p r O O O O O O O O O N r O r O O O O O S S S S S S S S S S a S S S S S S S S N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O 00 O D) 00 N O O N O M (O a' N O O c0 c0 O a0 00 M O M V O M O O c0 of O S O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O M_ (o O )o O O 00 c0 O o0 c0 m O O a) 00 O N O N O O c0 OD c0 00 00 O N V O Cl)O O 00 00 O N r O r O O O O O O O O O N r O r O c)O O O V; d' O S O O O O O O S O O O S S S O O S O 00) N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 o O O 6 6 6 6 6 6 O O co O V' (D N a (0 (O N 7 V' c0 O 00 N m O N It n )o O a O O N N O N N N O (O CM O r r O N N O M O N O r 0) 00 r 0) 0) cp r O O 0) O N 0) c0 r r r N r O�Lo O O) (D L(D an 7 (O a0 M M N N O (O (e`wtyJl o o rn S f7 0) o n cD o n (D o r v S rn M r n cD o N O N O O n n O O to O O I, n O Q O O M p (D M O 0) to Cl) O M V N 8 0) (O M O cc..++ O O O O O O O O O O O) Q. O (O O O O O Cl) O M O O N N O N N N O Iq N O N O O N N O O_ O p O y d O N N a N \ _ V) N O _ N o M N q a Cl)N N N N u) 0 ro (a N O. N a a 0 y Q N N Q a O QO 0 O O �V 'Y p Q cr Y p O (� O (0 ~ O C Y N O) O Qf Q >O N to = O N O N O O d u O )o r C c c c z O > (D zz Q ^ N 9 cC cC O O LP Z:N C O N (III m N m CI N c c N L.O. N O O O r C) C CD Ur 6 6 a7 L L r N D7 L L `" N a 0) 0) O O) 0) L L O T 2 O C U U O T c U U O T C C C C C U U U (D (D N N C C n1 C C �0V 0 C7 c c c c a) a) ❑ p iv 'm (emu m(tea N rn > c T LL i2 FLiL H y �- a�i > N a a a a H r c E u- F- E E L a �:-,a =a � � S ncp N O Cl) Cl) Cl)LO V n O IQ to N N O (ND L-) CO It V N r 1IT r O r , .. r N C?N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �]Iq O M � (n (D N O O O aryl N C? N. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O S S S S O O S O O O S O O O O O O OI O O O O O O O (q (D O T N N O O N M M � W N O O O ('7JI C? O C? O O O O O O O O O O O O O C- M O M O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O S O O O S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S C) O O C7 O CJ C) O .r-• m N CR cO') C0 C OD ( CC? S CCi - r r O O O r W O r O O O O Q Lq Ui S r M .r- (^D (OD M O S O L (n O cn O O O O O O V V (D (D co O 00 V N O (D O co I� 0) M �_ O N fl Lf? (D LA p N N O N O O m m O O r, r- O r N '- Q O O ((0 N N N N CQ y —O _1) o N .9- S CD OO O N a N O •C- Q Q p C a CV O _'m m O _ L9 r O N O O N p O CC a)O U y O N 0Ir � � N C \ 07 N C O N n Q O > i ao 7 nj O O O r ui a CY) O) CA O) O C tm C C N Ln m- > 9 '9 G o ro rn a � rn cc- p c9 (0 m p 'j '7 '3 C E o c, (V n a n. a a. a m m m g a U c6 EU a EU m O a H Q N Q Cc n3 1 N � 7 O r I co C CL L N O a U 5 O tf L (f O (C c a o `o i n c c a o rn m c ai s `mac° m o ate) c N O p L v U � ^ p Cc0 > co co Y O y y O > N L O d N f` O 11 O N 7 Q > 'O F' E L N N a J Y 0_ p (C ` ca y O y U co Q w O F— E O � m a t9 'X •� m cr Q " j (0 H LL N 0 0 — — .- T ro a N n N 7 0 L O O O N ro O L9 O ro cu (3) C ro aL a 0 a L rn O Y U F- c0 ro a c E a Q' W m Q u ro a N a N 0 L T O O ro O O O ro rn ro m a 0 a a r N m A 0 0 N LO r 07 N C_ E L � U N W m d 0 a 0 0 O. U N 0 O) j ro n. N O N LO N N 0 0 N R, N C ro a ccco ro L a rn Cl? a ro d d 0 N U a Q> E O. U W m 0 0 ro N Q N 7 L O O N co O N CO O ro ro cm aL a 0 Q L 0 N CD m CL cu d a O L O O U w O ro O O O ro co cm c d a O a N m 0 Q f� O M O M c' Co- N N N N N n O O Ln 110 It O O 2 2 N O O O t x - O O O a r� is o 0 v v IT 0 0 0 a O 0t!') N O O. N N N T ° O N N O N O O x W O_ o_ N 04 O O O N N a g o S o o O tnl O 0 O 0 0 0 N N O O O 0 O ca ca N c� U O o V U U > o. Q O N N O v O O Cl) O C\j Oo •- .Q N .O- cu () UU ❑. 75 N N V cT0 O d0' 0 N O p W p O N N cisO 0 A N N O O N O O O ` a. O L j p O In Ln 7 O 7 �p O CO C N O O O C C co 45 O a o°0 0 c ` o$0gN O c9 O � co co O C7 O O w cu 7 _ R n N C p ca o c c E c o a H co cl _ `° t a O a a m e C OC) tiC° a~0 c R .0 •O' o N cc: W O ONN odoN Uo U Z O o o°O N °- Ld O Oh cn _ N O ¢ O N Y COL 0 d W -pU ° �° O OLn Oo N O W W < LU co toC7 o CA E N n L U i0ifN c c G> .2) Z NNaV (vpi o c z c � c a 7 cn VV)00N C C C y N c6 ft0N rCorn W v U' 6 U 6 r p y w N p ` Q N 0 w O 00 N N C O C O U � Q N U CO dj O C Y C U O N Q Z Z (n 0)O 2 2 2 cz >O fca N N N N C Z a) Gl > c0 r U LL C7 h > L O 7 775 775 O O O .- N ,- M a. m Q m¢ T T 0 U H Q O N O O O N O O) M V' 0) C') CO '7 0 I� n O M O M I� O M O M O CC) M O O O M O I, O V O N O <f O) a 7 m of M (n) N m N S cc S n r N N CV N N r r r r r CD M r O O (q a00 t\ O O M W O O M a0 O (n LO v O O C�D7 u7 a r p O O O O O O O O (n O O (n O O O O N O O O O O O C! 0T O O O O M O M a0 CO O r r O r O O r r p r O O O O O O O O O O O S S S S S S S S V O 0 O '7 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O M V (n O O o O .9NN O O c0 LAN c0 c0 CO 00 CO co Cl) N O N r O O O O O O O O O Ln Ln O (n O O MILn O Ln O O O c0 O O O w O N N C!N O O _ N O N O O OR M O OR M O O r r O r O O N r O r O O O O O O O O O Cn UV) S ? U U O O Od. N OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OS ON N N O O O O O O O O O O O O S S S S S S S S O C?O O O O O O O O C? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O � O O w O V O N V w (O N V' (n (n O v O O Ln O 7 O O N N O N N N O ,2 r O T O r O T O r CA CO r (A CA W r S� S S S �o o A � 'R$ N N O N O O N O N O O n n O r� h t, O R V O p O co IT O O M CA (O C7 CA CA (O Cl)O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M Cl) O M O O M O M O O N CV O N N CV O O O O N N O d 5 O N D d to L O N d co °' O N a O c c c o n Va— a)on as ro� a cu� a \ N ¢ I Y 6 �° Y o m r) 6 d F= off. O �, N N ca o O Ln o c O O o O O Y O Q 0) mm� m m Ln 0 C� (n r -0 a a 'D zO o o� (A cm O o Z (` 2 m a c rn c -.. rn c c .0 O oU (i Cn L r to A L L o ffN N Q N CD C ca �CCCcoT j c C c c ONC C c U 2 N Q1 > C) ZZ C LL Ll. LL N c LL LL LL U 0 C Fo- E� r LL E LL E(N F =LL a pa F=a LA N O V O O M V O CU O O V O LA VI Cl) O M O CO CO O O O I" O (D M tl n O O O I� M N V f� (p O O (D N O N n W m C' a I� I� O N f� pp 'V N V f� O I� O O � 7 V' Cl) N (D CD f� �f V M N G to 7 7 (A N N O n r N � N N c (0 M CO Cl) r r r r r r r N r O O h O N (A N 7 O O O r M O N O O Cp CO O N O N O O O O O O O O N r O r 0 O O O O 1 r O r O O r r r O 0 O O O Cw r rNO N O� O O O O OO � O O O O O ��TO (OO ON OO OO OO O O O O O O O O s S. S S S S S S S S S S S S o S S . S S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O COS (D O M N O w i w N O O O M a O M O O cq CO O (.'-7{J M O M O O N N O O O O O 0 C\l r 0 r 0 0 0 O r 0 r 0 0 r r r 0 0 0 0 0 O CA cq c0 O dyVii O r I� M O O O M O O a0 a0 O M O M O O N N O O O O O O r r 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 r O 0 0 C 0 O O S O S O O S O O O O O S O O O O S O S 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O� O O O S O O O O S O S O O O OI O O O O S S S O O O O O O p� O O O O O O O V co O CC) N O (0 N It O N r M t N (0 co O N (0 M O r r O N N O O O r O CR CD M (0 M O C7 N r 0 01 0 CV 0) CO r r r O O 0 r Cp O r (O O O O a0 M O Il cM N 0I� OO (D 0 It N O NO (CS O O O M O (n O O N N O (fO LO O O n Ln^ Cl) r O O O O O CO a N (D O (D M V V M W N 0 � M 0) 7 O Il (O O O C. O (O O O O O O (O (0 O . O O 1' M r N (D (!) i N O N O O N N O N N O N O O co Cl) O O !l Il- O O O O e-i N - N r O r N co N U U O_ O in (D N O CO co ((DD _N D N OO .C' .Y.ON cm .Q Q m~ ¢Y m~p 0 ccC\jm rO wmm~ - o0 a) O ¢ Q Y O N^ 0 Q Q Q N N c O Q 3= c O w Ni�(n O O O QO O O Qa cm 0) CA CT 0) 0) L L N O C7f O O N O C C C p T d ) m >. C .� U � co a a. d c N d p t ca m m (>u U > > > o > C H F- U Cl a. CL a CL N m m m (ti Q U d ' F= a, �- E '� a E m U i=a -a 0 a co N 2 CL 0 0 Lo LO 2 CL 0 LO 0 a_ 0 N N N N CL 0 LO Lr) 0 CL 0 01 N N 2 CL 0 rn cD 0 i n. 0 00 N IL 0 It co 0 1 0 N 2 0 LO 0 1 0 N N N CL 0 L0 0 i IL 0 D) cD N CL 0 w (D 0 a §$ G \ § Q $ 8 w w 6 a § \ 7 ) 7 7 w 3 @ § 8 @ § o §$ CO Cl) 2 a w w § § §8 8 § » a e Cl) d § Cl) Cl) § 8 R § § 8 § § 6 6 6 6 6 6 d q 8 k q$ 2 4 ° LO ) \ ° § § k / = J q m a Cl) § 2. \ d a a a) - _ \ \ 3 � ƒ ƒ C / S 0 i § a d k k 8 3_ \ < G \d k \ < / u f § \ o ± \ < / S& 6 g _ ) ) a \ § / \ ° ° \ . / \ f g/ Cl) / b 0 ) e k ) k m W ;a \ f \ / < \ e [ f k§ ° k / S U) < ! / J ) < § 2 \ ) ) § g < < J / G a § \ } a s » } § � k / k / . k k Cl) e e S § ) 7 e § # ) 2 k < 2 w (D k / ƒ ƒ } ) # i a c 2 » 0 i cm u \ 2 f k } 4 2 2 § u 21 \ ) @ \ 0 k \ 0 q q f \ Cl)0 ) § « Cl) ) 5 � § » > / IT § 'Ili R 2 J CO § § \ § C . K % 7 p & � / a 2 & mf > -a § ƒ g g ° 3 2 G F- § $ IL® . f $ @ $ § C\j 0 co q § ) ) = 0 0 0 2 = # 0 & k \ 4 £ 3 15 0 / 9 § * § k \ k 2 = 2 \ j = ® a = 2 . t § j% z r= g a V � E / & 2 { > \ e k e > 9 � 3 JCO < � ° 0 j § § \ � E ■ k .. k k — d = 2— = C § o q S \ / # \ 7 \ 2 $ k c 0 / LU < 2 3 0 \ � } 0 < = u 0 5. ( a G \ ¥ ° )¥/ $ 7 \ { \ / \ D cn 2 $ \ o 0 [ \co \ ) ; k k k } a 0 E j « ] Z § k \ m 3<ƒ $ 0 \ ! § ƒ E / 3 » cc D f/ 8 % ) @ / ° ) ` t 9 ` ) / & a R ) / a q k / a c 3¥ 7 k ) f \\\ o\ — / \ § / O c0 r O N O O O O O M N O O O U� O O O O W M O N M 00 O O O - 0 7 U O n O O N t9 co •U C 'Q O Z N N O O to O O O c0 O n rn m rr- � r o 0 o M o co E ro U N Cl? O O 7 c9 O uJ E ,- ,2 CON E U N u7 W O O O O O O N O O T O O O O O O O O N O O <0 O Lq O O v c O CO o y z E 0 = c c 0 FL a O 0 0 ° r� C� o ao N c0 r T (O c0 � O to Lq > M a r o o o o v o T f° T N r E U N = CD N Q EL Y n (O O O O N n O N CO M N E O N (A n 40J to O O Q C 0 o 8 M O a 2 O N a o 00 O M M O E 0 LO LO 0 : E m N rl co Q) Y 7 � 0.t N 0 cou^i F- 0 N 2 U C7 T a F F J T V Y T T N N d j E a a N N O ~ 2 0 0 0 = cep Cc >, m 0 1— a0i a a a -o > o ma o c° L t v r a o a o 0 a > �' 2_ co 2 Z)� o o 0 a� rn ro CL D z 0 2 O O a) 0 E a) E (a Z U () O n`. 'ell t0 O O N T O Z co N > O O N U cu W c O U) O c O () U) c13 m C O N E W a) U L m > cu O cr C O N O O O cr U- LL O c O a) U) ro m N C O O E W m _U L a) > co O cc O ) k \ d m g / d / � S < @ d ® 3 & E a Cl) Cl)§ % \ / b cc )° � ) ) ° L 2 \ / P ~ k ca I \ w § q S \ 9 / [ / \ < 2 § z 9 % § F— / 2 / 7 w E t) § § f / \ § \ § a 7 § ± 2 \ 0 \ ) ; ) ƒ _ 2 w\ 7 ƒ § § \ / \ § \ § 2 7 { a / \ § \ ( ) k t ± S e § p = u 0 § 3 q ) \ I e o_ 2 \ ƒ ` \ / / 2 \ k \ ° \ \ / ) 3 Ir k w z \ 3 u \ ) u } / E § ) m ƒ ® \ / / z ) ± 0 c z j § < w Ir LL / / 7% , a = \ ® \ % / 2 S 7 I 2 $ 0 _ / / ) 0 O a m LD N � E L C N c r O (o r U O ` � � N CL U Cy M 1� O (O O O (O O V O N w 00 N O GO N N N N I?O .-- 00 O N O (O r O T O1 O � r (O N a^0 O ^ O T O .- O O cN,) 0 N M O M O O Q) a O (5 g N 0 0 0 m m � ~ a ° N cc ¢ 25 o O o m a a� y Q o O O o 0 O O ¢ jY y m R 0 ~ 007 C) m cmC C7 C C � > N ¢ ¢ D C ccu cca N (z O7 '0 'a 'm ' 01 0) N C U So ro m (� m c c O O O c� c� S a O 0 fN N N N O C U U _ c c Nm (NC IS coo C7 C C C C U N � td N m ccu m O ro o i i c iL iL ii iL I- a a a a a o � f LZ F- ¢ N \ \ § $ 7 $ § q 7 A $ § $ g a° LO g° S 2 2@—°— / 8 ) � & ; q # # , ` ° » ) 3 ) \ ) I 2 ) d = 3 § @ § f 3 ) )� \ ) ) ) e«= F E= o) E # — _ : 3 I a & § \ ) ) ) ) ) 2 g 2 ƒ ) 3 ƒ S \ < 2 3 § 2 J t / 9 § / D \ 2Rat ) ) \ / ƒ j ] > j ! t 2 ƒ co _ 4 @ , e ] ± \ k \ m i \ � c O .ZL N a) C) D1 a) a rn co aa) Q cu C E m E F, n c E 0. Q W 0 0 cr O rn Cv n. N a 0 N m Q E o. Q W cep 0 tY O T co a7 n. N 0 O L O O U 0 _O a7 N O co ro c a 0 a L N N 0 Q c �N o U 0 E cc c w 0 m N ` co Q r a O I m I- O cD O O cD O a O N O a0 N O W N N N N O O QO O N O (D O O O (D N 0000• O n O 'ITO O O NCl) M N m O m O O � � O a O O 0 O a N N o_ O O O Y O O cc 6T a V) N N Off. cc N aC ~ O O O •a �O 0 O O N 7 C O Y O N f— r 0 O O 3 Q u, o c cO7 c c �_ m m c LO O C7 ¢ m Y rn R m ca m rn � o o rn rn c o 04 O c o ro ca ca c c O O O C7 6 6 C7 *' `� o (n N w N co cs C7 C7 C7 C7 r' U U 0) 0) rn c N 0 (n y N N 0 a) N a) C C O y co (a (a (a (7 N C C C C U d <a R cu @ cc o ro o i c LL LL LL U- r- F o a a a a aca - N � � LL r F Q \\%$ 7\ f G g A$ q$ R Q ° LO @ ° - S § 2 @ - o - \ \ \ » \ \ o W / a 2 g @ _ , § j j - co\ \ ) ' § \ n ] 0 \ § ) ] ) \ / \ d \ ƒ } Cc b § o } k , , k w ) o 0 3 a§ E° P§)° _ _ f f f f 2 2) 2 2 2\ & § L } } ) ) # I I I % < 3 / 0 < 2 / I S a 0 - £ k / k \ \ S 7 \ J k CD§ 2 § ) / \ ) k ) ) 8 cn § ) \ § § ) S § ( \ � G - G / G = w \ 7 \ f § \ 1 ; 3 ) / ) 2 \ a) \ ,a ) / ) \ ) ` g ca 0 a £ c g \ ' ) § ) _ t / ) ) ) ) 2 ] / \ \ k 0\ 3 I \ / \ \ \ / \ / ± ± ± ± \ (D \ \ a)( / \ \ k \ \ § \ � ) \ L = a= = a = o 2 a ) \ Lo j ) § ) } \ } \ \ § } } \ \ 6 6 a/ a)/ $ A 3 / 0 cL} cL) a-\ a- 4} 0 v co LCi N 2 a 0 a ao O_ a ai ccaa O) C N a O U) LL 0 LO Ln i a c'n O_ a 0 LO LO LO N i a- .-0 LO O_ a C O a a� a> n d m E G D U z U) co a) Q V U� O CD n N N U 7 O N a` cli co ca 7 t: V NN Z = J CJ Q ch O co N / § g g ) I \ \ \ / 2 \ r, § LO § � co\ Q / ± 4 2 { { _ / & C ■ \ — § S § k 2 ) k\ ] § \ § w ) 0 \ R coi ] ) ¥ k\ ca , k 0 } § 0 & 0 o k k\ 7 ca E \ n \ § /CL \ ) @ ) \ } § U \ / ) § j ) c / / / } ƒ \ \ t 5 k k 0 0 CD § \ g > s % / 0 —y N N O ap .- O u7 O O O O O U) O cn O O O n O O O O O N cn co O O H v Cl) N Q g C9 o > 2 N o vS (0 Di F- a r°'. rn N O N N m ^ a O O N O O O OD O `` Cl) 0 r c4 F- U to c 0 0 N 00 0 Z y m lq c0 O O O O O O N O T O N O O O O O O O O N O ca cD o E U FT O c 0 Z x o n_ J cr Lo C6 LL a W LO cD c0 r M (D CO cn r O In r O r r O O r O O V O > ~ N E E aD d rn ro cp E CO a tll U O. R1 C N C O cD C O N N a 7 p VJ 7 Z y R N 9 ccu C c Cl) N m 0 D_ Q N m 0 O tOD o O cl co .0 cNtl N (n O 7 O C N a)U a)a Or O d C) � cn m c o M £ N N 0 O O V LO lfl N cn C7 _ U O 7 ? C O LO N 7 7 2 F— L V r c c CDN a r O O O N % N ~ j O O 7 co cC = O >. m N CO m U c O N N cC "c— C O L L .0 L cC N co O O r o o c E co o 0 o rn rn rn a� y L a o a- 0 0 Q W J U M > J J J m 5 J r2 S 5 m m Cn a5 rn cD 0 Un 00 f o r coi rn o � U Un O I, m O CV N Cl) �U C QJ O N ^ E z _T °° 0 U CU CM O O 7 M N 0 N E r r Cl) E 0 U y O _T O R 16 N CA O c O O z E 0 x c LL 0. 00 0 t n o CC (D N > � Co CL td r > E O O � N d Y f� O O CA O r r (h co N E 0 x w c r y ca E E c O C� a)0 CV a) x U L n N O = n 0 2 F`- -o F- co L L � a O O � D Cr F- o o x D do ��Iva�°a 0 o saayysin D y a m m FpOpR[<p DRry k4Oph MpUNTq NOR T O F _ n B _ M Z O ^no ° o no- o 0 � m i ,. n� 0➢ m z m A hem n A 2 r o m° ro v a m vm � Z tD 'tl m _ o. i R ° O o oFoo m� o' �-i K cn ° c o „m p0 < S 2 Om Zi s -� > x s j v 0 Fob- man 9 F° F Z r 3n°; O ill .b - o P II C? C� .� N1 _ 1 FI = N71°50'21'W f _ 274.73__—_— li _ II ' I I i N I II U I I oD rr— - - 1--------1 - - - i-- - - - - - - I o � I II +-- ---- -- — Q ----- ---1— -----� 1 lr O I r— - - - - - O I I � 1"III 12 —28 —L -i -1 I I I I --- -- Z LI`-_I I V m II y I I ' — so' ,n I PITAHAYA I STREET I r 1 I 1 n m o -1 II a 1 rg57 � o 1 � II III L N71 °50' 13' W 270.03' N I I I II I I I ❑ I y] I I IhlS I I d .I ----— rZ�l I' R —3, —• (� I i r c I mnm.) to i I 1 � ILI N 0 I I I N I I U I — 31 Os O II II i _l n° I 1 —e I I 1 � 1 270.01 7 21 N71°30'1TW � t L Q I�--��� hh I// Z- \\ T- i U I� n I o< s ti 30' NO. DATE REVISIONS BY DESIGNED BY MJK VESTNG TENTATHE TRACT MAP NO36284 Carl-KKimAssHom oc ates, inc. _ = DRAWN BY: A. T. cr+ECKED ev: M.J.K. LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK NO. A-3, NIB 21/81-84 V' ~ DATE: O6 O212011 Iv PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 095770000 _ �11 i �nnvr�n G<i 3T34 rT1 R A ' r <Q " m� f I A o�lo nT0 n � N C) ~ � I oa-DC I i A O i I — SUBDIVI��UNDARY— — — _ 50 --50 z 1 w I� O A C N71'50'13'W 270.03', I C7 4a I z a I" r A ° 1' — Iz r. m ro p m C7 o I to 1 1� N 1 m Y ` yT0 Ills v oA o. jTA oNi 0 I' I o"m I oN'O oP� I... A m PITAHAYA " ° I 0 STREET 1 n �eo111110N --ARr K>t o —T PROPER —NE , 1 � 1 \ \ N71_°50'21 W a T 270.01 \ N L :nsr Bultfllrrc; - ~ 1• �A Sap I-. SCALE: I" = 30' �p �t �p 2�p q��j �p NO. DATE REVISIONS BY N DESIGNED BY: M.J.K. V E� U �I G TENTATNE TRACT MAP NCB, 36264 Klmley-Hom DRAWN BY: A.T. ❑��� end Associates, Inc. I'I -Tl m CHECKED BY: M.J.K. LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK NO. A-3, MB 21/81-84 e .oFP,o,� °.'� ono N DATE 0e/02/2011 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PROJECT N0. 095770000 APJ\l 627 PROP. CURB TO IMF m MATCH U CURB & BEGIN SIDEWALK rc ; PROP CUR >7 'MPROVEMENTS GUTTER s !\ � /fC, r. �q. �j MATCH EX CURB & MATCH EXISTING 2 2 of A A O A `' z r- - > C A 2 m m (TC=271.7) 27 C o T i o '� < < O n o 1 rr c GUTTER,(TC=272.0) (C-272.5) (FL=271.2) �i � 'r•�-ti�-SIT I'��c_ .."�.� - m n m c A T � � �, g '?,J PROP. AREA DRAIN z k / & 4"PVC STORM DRAIN (FG=272 3), (FL 271.7) o X n A c A 3' CROSS m O o 2j —� PROP. AREA DRAIN m m m r j 3 GUTTER F O m T J o C� � �Jd I,I � ,'- & 4"PVC STORM DRAIN 2 (FG-271.8).(FL=v1.3) �S N ynl y RF=zes.0) PROP. CURB & - y (FS=265.5) o m GUTTER TO MATCH - 1j ! EX. OVERHEAD 2 v J EX CURB & GUTTER '"T ZZL _ / ELECTRICAL TO (TC=274,7) I 4 � � BE REMOVED (FL 2742) PROPOSED LANDSCAPED �J _- 100 YR EMERGE CY I t LZ - S WALE, S 3 09, SEE rF SPILLWAY PROP !)�� 6S LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR'"j C 2> SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN rrFo m PLANTING'MATERIAL PER PUBLIC WO KS �7� / r ?� 11 PROP, 100 YR SPILLWAY STANDARD 200, SEE so T O� Of j : / SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN !�� a� ( F SHEET C-3 FO DETAIL 2j s) yytt�� rrGrrr����Z (FL=274 6) (7C=274.8) o? - �A V (FL=274.3) PROPERTY J : 1 �° D O BOLMARY - % EX POWER POLE TO 00 / BE REMOVED Ex. SEWER Tj p Gi rr� Fc n A s w V / MANHOLE PER Fo\, 554LZ/ Q O ^ �� O ; EX. 'FIRE HYDRANT i0 BE �2� iz DWG S-1470 RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF TO BE REMOVE Bo c ��. J D WALK..... SWALE... GRADE A o _ �� S -:k . / BREAK,FL=277.53 10.. r % II p \.y i1 1 PRIVATE BIO-SWALE, N N A m rc z 1 50 1 SIDE SLOPE d • `a _ i I j TOP WIDTH=B' 50' rs \[31' RlW l l / BOT WIDTH=2' ,. Q Q A 1 �lt.X ABE �f I 59 :/:��ii" / oVo PROPOSED\�e0 « ROOF DRAIN POINT OF SCHARGE LANDSCAPED SWALLE TO CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND 5-4.0%. SEE RETENTION CHAMBERS LANDSCAPE PLAN p J Y FOR PLANTING -� A77,717171117 / MATERIAL x - r 0�I 1j /oo aono Eo -r iF�� x � I 1 EX. 4" WATER A \\ ,ii WE 95D3W2 TO i `« 1 99LZ ymi`~ EX. POWER POLE TO 2 d r A BE REMOVED ' m BE PROTECTED FC ? n O w < 2p �, i 1N PLACE \2m I 2 z8 „✓/%/// /�/ i,,, 1 �e� ��� mz PROP. CURB & GUTTER MATCH X \ 1 %` I CURB & GUTTER V C O 7 (TC=283.1) B�oJ - $em q �rC� no rmlr N o cmi J m _ J �e n Z - 8 m m PROP. 4'}� N 26 J y (n U Z !\ 2B 96 o o...m.An oomm' oFv� m mLL,om WIDE CROSS �FC� rr I PROP. 7g«�HDPE o c°n nz S� ' O GUTTER 66 STORM. DRAIN o N N '" �r 6S JJ : J»< O n Z n m, n C I' v ^ U n 2 C o « j 5=509 mo> R v, 3- I - EX. WATER METER�� A Ap r T� �san 4 «� AND BACKFLOW m m a m ':: !�\�2s : PREVENTER TIO BE f Q o x z n z p r•, `� r' o o 2 i; Z PROP. WIDENIN 2 6 t N i m 0 0 PROPOSED PRIVATE _ d .q _ C)< y O n ,,, 7. s RELOCATED A" o c o r, A O & REMOVE EX 4' GRATE INLEJ r�,\ < p o m z F o o c O O m z MEDIAN T •• « < FINAL DESIGN v� FG=284.33 lob6 % 0 8% I: <��... , i , "%/ ////i %//// i//i. «� '< r m o -' A N v LD c FL=281.83 4° o .. -\ mm A" nn ! •rT T'. !'G'- _ o D z m So_ n � 6�n < nZ amp r v m LIMITS OF I T m m m m O n z n z z o _!c T ~ m T '" V �1 In I�1 X N N m N 1 1 � n ➢ n D o y C V' r GRADING m v, m z o z o - t 6s' �,ro I 4 0ti O rn�'pmn oe oo avAiv a i r �?n o"A D o? 'c" � n i, � mm A X= 0 Ex. 6 " WATER B6J z - I ) n� %i �// 1 rrc ? 0 2 < D W PER DWG. •I : ti vv vN m x `moo ooJ W-953-2 TO BE PROTECTED IN P' ACE- 9 �83% EX. MEDIAN TO ---- BE- DEMOLISHED rTro 1 �„ "l r Aj PROJECT BOUNDARY /K 9 ?OJ Fo , 0`3 PRIVATE BIO-SWALE, J I I tI %-/,k3:7 SIDE SLOPE � EX. CURB 2s2o rro :1� f 1 gZ>'I,' TOP WIDTH=8' O & GUTTER ! 1 5s L BOT WIDTH=2' ZI ! ? �y`9 IiF1�! �( �t ,f S=20% EX. FIRE HYDRANT PTO �J ,,, �{ I. - �_ II II O PROPOSED LANDSCAPED T J BE PROTECTED IN PLACE O t1 l EX. GAS TO BE N N S SWALE, S 3.639 �I •1 RELOCA iED Q SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING MATERIALROOF TO CONNECTRAIN TO UNDERGROUND GE Q Q D �'933,oJ O RETENTION CHAMBERS EX, FIRE HYDRANT .- MT - 1 PROPOSED HEA6WALL OBE RELOCATED rc FL=288 52 � OUTSIDE OF WALK ' Jl l X. WATER METER & ....y �,/ PROP. CURB & GUTTER TO 1 / BACKFLOW PREVENTOR TO BE - \ MATCH EX CURB & GUTTER _-- 5 RELOCATED AT FI AL DESIGN / rC FCo (rc zs2s),(FL=z9z4) END Ex GAS ° 29 6J /ETC\I REMOVAL � H �! C? PROP. 6" PVC j PROPOSED FOUNTAIN PER LAN APE PLA ti _6,m"T� ,z�� M �cp oa z 2 -mien o z co- m m UmOn p •. O Z w- O 1 O < < n Znz \ 0 L W � � n n O A - n n � O L EX. SEWER 1 96 I 'STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER 9s6<� 5=7-07 DWG. S-1470 TO BE REMOVED rr 1 Ex. ,. SEWER--- �FO c2 Cz 9 j PER DWG. ? l.���e - j- REMOVDDTO BE 9� / '98 9J 300a i i�_V 6 1 Cle r 294 !� 299 `jpQ T.r�, .� 77 ' r� CA v r0 my r O IAOm II II no m=A o� Oo O i o 0 0 �oGi4� ozncm to zm oao mo dD A o =moo c�6J o\ °zl o 06. e �m o izoo_ �r o y -.gym A - mom �A mo a f �xmi !`.A 2 "' DI �; SN °RivF u z - o x o'< o z n 6'6J ti q°° �c o �k Oc rn Un O NJ rNOR � G7 A Z pub n O p x AP1\J 52I-2J1-5 m o m F i m I I 0 y o PROJECT: m DDDDDDDDDD 0 PALM DESERT HOTEL _ No > p ❑=" Kimley-Horn r D Z D F &RESIDENCES `N� f = and Associates, Inc. s D �mm, n m I A DDDDDDDDDD E�gl eeri�g, Planning a�n L��Ir��me�tol co ;l�lra�ts O onng;p X 401 B Street - Suite 600 San Diego, Ca. 92101 4 rJ-640 HIGHWAY 74 2 <m (n Tel: (619) 234-9417 Fox: (619) 234-9433 m PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA �° ° 1ij Al j j REMOVE EX. LANDSCAPE, CONSTRUCT RED WALKWAY PROP. CURB & 6" DEPRESSED, MAX CROSS JTTER TO MATCH SLOPE=2.0% CURB & GUTTER PROP. PIV AND FDC CONNECTION PROP. PED RAM DETAIL B, THIS S E EX. FIRE HYDRA 1 TO BE RELOCATED 3' CROSS CUTTER PROP. RED RI DETAIL B,THIS PROP. 3' UTILITY TRENC PROP. GAS EX. CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN X EX. 4" WATER PER DWG. W-953-2 TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE LANDSCAPE MONUMENT P LANDSCAPE P i PROP. RED R A DETAIL B, THIS ' CONNECT TO EX. WATER PROP. 6" PVC WATER 4' CROSS GUTTER PROP. RED R, DETAIL B,THIS LANDSCAPE - MONUMENT PE LANDSCAPE P LIMITS OF GRADING PROP. ROAD - WIDENING X. 6" WATER PER DWG. W-953-2 TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE P. GAS — CURB AND X FIRE HYDRANT TO 3E RELOCATED 'ROP. PED RAM PER {ETAIAIL BTTTHIS EET VJ mD--- y � I 0' I PAOPERTY- BOIMDARY I ,Y PROP. CURB & GUTTER TO MATCH EX. CURB & GUTTER pj A\1 (FL=2711..5) J 2ly=,J 1_ 1JSE TO OMAOTCD EXIISTINGK PROP. GAS, 3 / BEGIN X. z n r 1 GAS REMOVAL j PROP. WET BARREL nor . SUPER HYDRANT m o p N / p xl ' G _ � O r a t O ib W N W b0 O, Of O O O 00 00 O O OJ O N Vi 0 -• U 0 +O T U A Obi A OAf O N b b b � O b O b 100 � b b OAi o b O b m Lb O N c c c �m nz z c c 0 c 0 c o c n c p �, moo z� ➢ z F O w w w z z m w w w w w w W a o v w w 4: flJ I I / i I, I EX FIRE HYDRANT TO BE SIDE OF RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF WALK n � 00 ^rjo r 0 0 �` O 0 j PROPOSED 8' STONE PROPERTY WALL PER r LANDSCAPE PLANS i \ ;4 j omn OmAomm j 4 �.\ % Az0 A2�C➢O n n, ayzA ., ""I L•" POP. WET BARREL pf�q �r pP�i�pm0 ti ti n n o m SUPER FIRE HYDRANT ➢ �' ➢ / i PRO OSED SIDEWALK. A r _ • ,_ PROPOSED FOUNTAIN ,. �� a� " Z ' .r PER LA D APF PLAN r ti i .I i / I PROJECT I / % BOUNDARY ' •� i EX 8" WATER , jEX. CURB & GUTTER r } •II ^� j �;�p b p 11 ,II 0) co / PROPOSED 8' STONE NO ALL ER O Qi LADSCRAPETl WPLANS v + i - / TO FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF WALK '• '' EX 8" SEWER PROP. PIV AND FDC CONNECTION REMOVE EX. LANDSCAPE, - CONSTRUCT PE D WALKWAY 6" DEPRESSED, MAX CROSS SLOPE=2.0% CONNECT TO EX WATER PROP. 6" PVC WATER & 3' WIDE UTILITY THE CH PROP. 22' DRIVEWAY i � I % �/ r EX TELEPHONE j EX GAS PROP, WET BARREL SUPER FIRE HYDRANT 51 ° 2 PROPOSED " — 0 TO MATCH S S 7 zwmx x Fo o n -A I I ➢oa -y0 � m o mE� O n'An� NOOb y r mNmM x . �v,nNnvtO /wIX] 62/- 9-1-5 o cn�mo oxpvfz n Z x m��nOAA � mox�c � n2nz-� AO�m I I m io � PHOJEOT: PALM a � m DDDDDDDDDD o o DESERT HOTELNN n n Z y & RESIDENCES r Nmmo A " o m= �° 0 DDDDDDDDDD = z ITI m 45-640 HIGHWAY 74 o Z ? PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA n N O W W N O NO A 4 N v p N O N O N O w (n W U O A p O N O W O II II II II II II II O II W II U II O �O II N II A Lb Cb b 11f' UU is Q O A U Ol U U O rn rn rn rn O D n rn rn m o� A A A m m a o, rn w w w w m m m o o o m m o m m o 0 =z� A mOAy 4➢ �Oyp n �x p➢VO o � ti � n�ao R mZn � F O= A cn�n zzoz mov, mm-o p0 c 1�71 �z'cz^q - U II A_ � nl m 2 y n r �m n� nn RI - w 0 0 00 I ) 000 0� -_ - F 0000 O O 00 59 o m n 000 O v� O O O O S o v z ��xc ps �J o A O� I ��U000 o� g mew �o pv n O I ✓ 1 o N o n � cn ALKVC- II venom (l I o $ ? . 11� y ❑ = ❑ Kimley-Horn m and Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Environmentol Consultants 401 B Street Suite 60 San Diego, Ca.. 92101 Tel: (619) 234-9411 F— (619) 234-9433 2 2 I � n. V I Ido I ego BOUNDARY I PROPOSED UNDERGROUND"' RETENTION CHAMBERS XR O O i i i't it N SOU OC �=0 Om➢ OmAO�� AmZ a^�O A^i0 to c VI mc�o mo�2�Z n r�Z � Zmo An Ann,Z�jnO r=� rZr rZ� ZOO �mZ ti I o o e aPROPOSED FOUN 7A IN PER LAN APE PLAN sas c>➢o - m A PROP, 18 HOPE n n �o — STORM DRAIN I'r 5-509, FOR BYPASS FLOWS ONLY i ,7... I; � I Amz PROPOSED UNDERGROUN2 i A ➢ o RETENTION , "' 1, sn I CHAMBERS ' i➢zA_.. 2, 7: i I q E PROPOS SIDEWAt m i r A20A000 O➢ZnZn z�Z➢ 0 BOLWDARY _ RRovRsrrY eot>reoaRr I a 00 OO tg " O 0g ✓ -co v n y y D 319 y o f �a o o < N lJ l � S m z 'z ]OO I4C;] o m n —z n U rn n APly b 2/-?J l-5 w x v � X a a � T n ~ O N D Z PROJECT: O DDDDDDDDDD o p o PALM DESERT HOTEL a N p N D p Kimley Horn nz 0j & RESIDENCES Nm== Z r n u and Associates, Inc. Engfneerinq. PI"^nnq E°"'nn r.° W z � -z ° p A DDDDDDDDDD nna .e°'°I ;,I1°nI, $ O O C Z 45-640 HIGHWAY 74 — <m 407 B Street Sulte 600 San Dego Ca 92101 Te (619) 234-9411 F— (619) 234-9433 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA n N m PROJECT: m DDDDDDDDDD o Fp � m p PALM DESERT HOTEL p NA D �=� Kimley Horn f m=No o --_= r _ Fm and Associates, Inc. g n y & RESIDENCES Z mo = p DDDDDDDDDD Z. Engineering, Planning and Fn vironmentol Considtants Z O 45-640 HIGHWAY 74 omc — �� �° 71 B Street 3 -9 og0 Son F19) 3 92101 rec (ens) 23a-9an Fa.: (si9) 234-ea33 4,33 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA F D n Michelson, Wilma From: Linda Brown [hoonoo@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 12:36 AM To: CityhallMail Subject: Rosewood Hotel Though we are not in the desert this month, we have heard about the upcoming hotel property planned and we are so excited about it. Please approve the development. It's crazy that we don't offer a nice hotel on El Paseo. Vote yes, please. Linda Brown 399 Tomahawk Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92211 hoonoonaol.com web.me.com/hoonoo s CHAMBERoF COMMERCE Where Business is Living July 08, 2011 Mayor Jean Benson City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Springs, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Benson and Council Members: 72559 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phone (760) 346-6111 Fax 346-3263 www.pdcc.org email: info@pdcc.org At our recent Board of Directors Annual Planning conference our Board of Director reaffirmed our support of the Rosewood Hotel Project on Highway 74. This project will be an essential element of the City, the El Paseo business corridor, and other businesses. It will function as an anchor and enhancement to El Paseo by providing appealing amenities while attracting visitors and patrons for the shops and restaurants. The economic benefits will be substantial. to the City and its residents: - The construction of a project of this size will benefit the building industry, trades people and material suppliers with its estimated 100 -150 non- permanent direct construction jobs and $125,000,000 in total cost - When completed, the project is expected to permanently employ approximately 250 people - The increased pedestrian traffic the project will create on El Paseo will drive sales volumes, and in turn drive the sales tax revenue to the City - The approximate $2,000,000 in direct revenue to the City from the project (TOT + Property Tax Increment) will be a financial boost to the City - The hotel will also help attract other businesses to the area because of its amenities and strong corporate relationships that already exist The City would benefit tremendously from a 5-star hotel anchoring El Paseo and generate growth for the area, the City, and local businesses. Most importantly, the project will help differentiate Palm Desert from other Cities in the Coachella Valley and will solidify Palm Desert as the destination for luxury travelers, that we want coming to our City and spending money. 5,, .C„„, , C„""'',. ACCREDITED The City has an opportunity to fill a distinct need that can create a host of benefits and improve the desirability of Palm Desert. The Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at their recent Board Planning Conference voted unanimously to continue to support this project. We are fully supportive of the project and believe its development will lead to a very significant asset for the City. Sincerely, r Jay Ch to ton Chairman of the Board 2010-2011 Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Natalie Russo Chairwoman of the Board 2011-2012 Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Cc: Mayor Pro Tern Bob Spiegel Councilwoman Cindy Finerty Councilman Bob Kroonen Councilwoman Jan Harnik Barbara deBoom, IOM, ACE President/CEO Palm Desert Area Chamber Of Commerce Palm Desert City Council July 6, 2011 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578 Re: Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO. 36284 Public Hearing July 14, 20114:OOPM To Whom it May Concern, We wish to express our disagreement with the proposed developments referenced above. Our house fronts onto Ocotillo Drive right across from the proposed development. We currently have a quiet residential street and are concerned that adding a hotel, bar and grill, along with shops and a ballroom will significantly increase the traffic and noise on Ocotillo Drive. We believe the increased traffic will increase the crime in the area. The building may also block our views to the west. All these factors would negatively affect property values and adversely affect the tranquil nature of our neighborhood. This area is residential and we feel adding commercial properties are not appropriate. We do not believe adding condo or other residential units would bring these negative side effects. We therefore urge rejection of the proposed plans as currently configured. Sincerely, Brereton and Wenona Strafford 45530 Ocotillo Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 July 10, 2011 TO: CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: CAROL FANELLI, 182 SANDPIPER SUBJECT: PROPOSED ROSEWOOD HOTEL DEVELOPMENT I am in opposition to the aforementioned due to height, which though concessions were made, still does not adhere to city code, mass, lighting, additional stress on existing utilities --water, electric --as we already have periodic outages, and most of all, the inevitable increased traffic, noise and congestion resulting from this project. Respectfully, PIERSON & KAREN FORBES 252 SANDPIPER STREET PALM DESERT, CA 92260 `. o T July 7, 2011 Mayor Benson Mayor Pro Tern Spiegel J City Council Members Finerty, Harnik and Kroonen City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive rn Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Proposed Rosewood Hotel Members of the City Council: Since 2002 we have been residents of Palm Desert and reside in Circle 2 of the Sandpiper at Hwy 74 and El Paseo. We understand the City's need for revenue in these difficult economic times, but approval of the proposed Rosewood Hotel project is a dangerous precedent. The General Plan, Community Design Element and Zoning Ordinance provide long term guidelines for development that benefit Palm Desert residents. The inconsistencies of the proposed project with these planning documents are too numerous to list. But to highlight two important issues: 1. The Community Design Element specifically states: "Within the context of existing development and appropriate design, new structures should be similar in height to and compatible with other buildings in the vicinity, with the goal of preserving and enhancing design qualities of the built environment while maintaining important viewsheds." With heights ranging from the maximum height of 60'to a minimum of 36', the project is unquestionably incompatible with existing single stou residential development on three sides of the groject. 2. The Community Design Element also states "The height and width of building elevations should not be dramatically out of character with existing neighborhood development, the streetscape or natural scenic viewsheds." This massive 380,000 sq. ft. development on four combined parcels totaling 217,000 sq. ft. (after the City deeds the frontage road) is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan. When we invested in our property, to understand what could be developed on the site, we relied on the General Plan, The Community Design Element and the Zoning Ordinance. The hotel project as proposed would have been unimaginable at the time. Should this project be approved, future development is left to the discretion of the Council elected at the time and not the legal documents that are supposed to guide development. If this project is desirable for the City on this site, the General Plan needs to be amended. Otherwise the developer should find another site. Si erely, ,1 Pierson and Karen Forbes hop ,\AavorJean Benson Mayor Pro Tern Robert Spiege, Council Member Cindy Finerr+ Council Member Jan Harnik Council Member William Kroonen City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 I remain opposed to the development of the Rosewood hotel. It will have an impact that has not been assessed by proper "Impact Studies". Impact Studies are the job of Planning Department to carry out as a pro -forma study. These studies were side-stepped. Also, height restrictions in our City s Comprehensive Plan were essentially ignored. In my opinion, the impacts of this development will be substantial and of course irreversible. I have elaborated my position to Mr. Bagato of Palm Dessert Planning. I have had many conflicts with our local County "planners" being biased toward land development, for political reasons?? I don't know the reason. But in my case it has involved land -use attorneys and private funds to clarify citizens' objections. We have lived 6 months each year in Palm Desert for the last 10 years. We care! John and Sally Brookbank 1109 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92260 ` / f g rr YK -/i Q% � �.., OPPOSITION TO ROSEWOOD PROJECT c.a n ATTN; Palm Desert City Council N 'v > DATE; 7-09-11 My objections are as follows: 1. The timing of this very important meeting. Why wasn't this meeting held in season when all of our residents could be present? The length of time it will take to complete a structure of this massive size will make it imposable for us to sell or rent while the construction is ongoing. This will place a huge financial burden on some of our owners. It only seems right that they should be able to voice their opposition in person. 2. Since we are only about 125 feet from the construction area, we will be exposed to excessive amounts of DUST, DIRT, TOXIC FUMES, and LOUD UNSETELING NOISE, 8 to 13 hours a day for two and a half to four years. Just in our circle alone we have elderly people with heart conditions, cancer and serious respiratory disease. We also have very small children that come to visit their grandparents. Most of us came here for the clean air and the peace the desert has always provided. 3. 1 don't understand how they can say that a facility that large with 30,000 people a year, coming and going, won't effect traffic on 74 and around town, the massive use of electric power, and our very precious water supply. I know it is possible to generate more electrical power, but at what cost and to whom? We can't generate more water ---- no water folks, no beautiful Palm Desert! 4. Will the density of wealth in that small of an area attract more crime? My husband talked to a sergeant in P.D police force yesterday who said he knew nothing about the hotel and was not happy about the prospect. We have already experienced a large increase of muggings and robberies on El Paseo this year, do we really need more high profile targets for criminals? 5. Last, but not least, if this project is allowed to go forward it will forever change the Palm Desert that we know and love. It will just be another high density mess that people come here to escape. I heard someone say it best, "Wrong place, wrong size, wrong time." P- Anne Maze July 10, 2011 TO: CITY COUNCIL. - CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: CAROL FANELLI, 182 SANDPIPER SUBJECT: PROPOSED ROSEWOOD HOTEL DEVELOPMENT I am in opposition to the aforementioned due to height, which though concessions were made, still does not adhere to city ty code, mass, Lighting, additional stress on existg utilities --water, electric —as we already have periodic outages, and most of all, the inevitable increased traffic, noise and congestion resulting from this project. Respectfully, 7/6/2011 Dear Mayor Benson and Council members, I am writing this letter in opposition to the Rosewood Hotel proposal on Hwy. 74 in Palm Desert. I am a native Palm Desert resident and currently live in Sandpiper directly across from the proposed site. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't have my breath taken away by the beauty of my surroundings and I fear this is all about to be a memory with the advent of such a hotel. It's kind of like having the Queen Mary dropped into your backyard pool.... it just doesn't fit! The building is over the allowed height ordinances any way you cut, hack or shape it. It's too tall. It will obliterate the view that so many of us enjoy and that which is supposed to be taken into consideration and protected via the city charter. It seems all the standards and rules go out the window once someone waves enough cash around. So if one hotel is allowed to be above the height limit, what then for Palm Desert? Is it up to the highest bidder with the best seductive marketing to decide our fate? I feel the same is true with the noise this hotel will bring. Again there are rules in place to protect the surrounding environment, but with rooftop bars, restaurants and events, it seems to me that this too will be ignored and the surrounding neighborhoods will suffer. As for the traffic.... this is truly my main concern. I drive the 74/El Paseo intersection every day and have seen traffic significantly increase since Fresh and Easy along with J. Russell have moved to that corner. It really is a very busy intersection and I can't believe there isn't going to be major problems ensuing. Lets face it, you are going to have people entering and exiting the hotel off Hwy 74 with no traffic control whatsoever. All traffic in and out is going to be valet. Really? Who isn't seeing this nightmare in the making? We also are having traffic problems outside out gate F across from Fresh and Easy with everyone making a U-turn at that first opening. It's really a problem now... can't imagine how much worse that will be. I have been to every meeting regarding this issue and all I keep hearing is about how much money Palm Desert will gain. The merchants of El Paseo are heavily in support of this project and why not when some are actually sitting on the Palm Desert Planning Committee. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? So in closing, let me ask you this. If we are gaining so much, what are we going to lose? What about the beautiful vistas that are the heart and soul of Palm Desert, the very reason people come here at all? It's not just about shopping on El Pasco, Palm Desert has so much more to offer than that. A quiet place to leave the city noise and traffic. Do we want to be just like everyone else? Please think it over before it's too late and we wake up somewhere totally different. �0 ,� Y�., To the Mayor and Council, My wife and I own a unit at the Sandpiper Development (262 Sandpiper). We have opposed this hotel project from the first application submitted by the developer to the city. The city of Palm Desert has a well thought out planning and building code which limits commercial structure to a maximum of 35 feet, this application surpasses that limit by 40%. 1 understand the tallest part of the hotel is now 60 feet. The sheer mass of the proposed hotel compared to the single story and two story residential homes surrounding the hotel proposal, is out of character to the well planed city of Palm Desert. It is my understanding the city is granting title to the frontage road to the developer. This secondary parallel road to Hwy. 74 in my opinion is very important to the flow of traffic in and out of Palm Desert. The granting of this road could start a new precedence to other future developments along Hwy 74. The idea of a Rosewood Hotel is very appealing, I'm sure, to the Palm Desert planning department. My I suggest the city assist the developer in locating another location that is more compatible to the neighbors and a possible land swap with the developer may satisfy all parties and residents surrounding the proposed hotel site. I hope city counsel members consider this proposal very seriously and of the impact that it will have on the community. We as residents of Sandpiper are very proud of the heritage of our development and would like to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Sincere Gerald and Deborah Metheral fA� �) 26?11 LID) �- � _ J %�1 E�� � ,�i1 � L Z-t 17� 1 h'E..SE f%�SE2(/%��It%�✓'S F���� ��1 X T S141DOC'IP41: lC !�l lam' I.�i'� �� 5 4F A) e) r� Gc� l z� ,U ' �r�r" ?'�T l�^�' �L RL S��Z t L D ii C f��� �JC /ePn C l,�r ,'S cal ' r� E�eT)E� l �nu)C-ems T I% LT Phi um fIC✓n �Cs��''�1 , OR- l ,e< i��i2.2� �� � ��SE 2 7 1�7 �° Z_ l �►z� �yv'� �%fa'��5� � 1�7 e el July 9, 2010 Mayor Jean Benson and Members of the Palm Desert City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Rosewood Hotel, Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA Dear Mayor Benson and Palm Desert City Council: c r-- r.� r oo I believe the right hotel project on Highway 74 will add attraction to the City of Palm Desert and hopefully help businesses on El Paseo. However, there are concerns regarding the proposed Rosewood Hotel project. First, the size makes one think you will be parking the "Queen Mary" in that area. The fact that the building will be three stories and a portion of it four stories, doesn't seem to fit into the surrounding area. At one time, two stories was the maximum. Second. It is my understanding that Rosewood Construction has filed for bankruptcy. This makes people a little nervous. According to the person presenting the project at the last Planning meeting, an Asian company will be handling it, but the speaker didn't know the name of the company. Really)?I Who are they and what do you know about this company? Third, the traffic on Highway 74 can be pretty heavy during the season. I've seen some very bad accidents, so I am thankful for the signal at Shadow Mountain and Highway 74. According to your plan one of the main entries will be across from Pitahaya without a signal. Are you aware of how fast cars are going as they come down the hill - - - especially if they don't have to stop for a red light at Shadow Mountain? I realize you are anxious to create more revenue and jobs for the city; however, "Times are Tough." Will the hotel really have that much occupancy with such a slow economy? How are other hotels in the area doing? One last question: "Why do you wait until summer to bring these matters before the citizens of Palm Desert. So many of the residents in this area have left for the summer. They are unaware and have "No Say" in this matter. Thank you for reading this. As I said, "I am not against a hotel, but feel the City Council needs to really scrutinize the proposed project." Sincerely, 6) a, L Carol J. Scoville 46018 Shadow Mountain Dr. Palm Desert, California 92260 JULY 12, 2011 �J To City Council Members Palm Desert, Ca 92260 -o sP Mayor Jean Benson Mayor Pro Tem Robert Spiegel CO rn Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Jan Harnik Council Member William Kroonen Re: Rosewood Hotel Proposal Whilst I am very much in favor of a hotel on this site I wish to voice my concern for the above project and the lack of regard that the architects, developer and city officials have shown in following our city codes concerning the height and density of the building. Some time ago when the wall was built around the Sandpiper complex some of the residents in #1 requested a higher wall on the corner above the "Sandpiper" name in an effort to mitigate traffic noise and exhaust emissions as vehicles accelerated up the hill and round the corner for the left-hand turn onto El Paseo. This request was rejected by the city as not complying with the overall design and it would also spoil the view of the mountains when travelling up and down Hwy 74. 1 think we asked for a 6ft wall! Has consideration of a turn lane or traffic signal been addressed for the entrance to the hotel, if not maybe it should be? Respectfully, Barbara Hughey Palm Desert Resident at 162 Sandpiper Michelson Wilma e��•,� ncctr�c ..L_f-1 ES E R T CA From: tdfillet@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:27 PM 2011 JUL 13 AM 8: 50 To: CityhallMail I live in pm desert and support building the rosewood hotel. Toni Carney 74185 desert tenada trail Palm desert, ca Sent via B1ackBerry by AT&T 1 Mayor Jean Benson Mayor Pro Tern Robert Spiegel Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member William Kroonen Council Member Jan Hamik Dear Council Members, ERK'S OFFICE >'ALH DESEF;T. CA 2011 JUL 13 Ate 8: 49 My name is Craig Armstrong I am a second -generation Palm Desert native, a third generation Coachella Valley native. My wife Megan and I are now raising our own family here and we are very proud and passionate about our great city. I am writing you after attending the last planning commission meeting regarding the proposed Rosewood Resort. I would like to respectfully ask you to reconsider the size and height of this proposed development; both the footprint and height are well beyond the city's building code. Developers have lead the architectural review board and the planning commission to believe the variances and easements granted are needed to justify the size of the project to receive five star resort status. I am asking you to please not be confused by this, this is all about maximizing sellable square footage to accelerate the return on investment and not hotel status. It is not the residents of Palm Desert who are responsible for the high price initial investment this group made to have to justify a project this size, I urge you to not sacrifice one of Palm Desert's most beautiful and scenic neighborhoods with a building so out of proportion and inconsistent of flow, right in the middle of our city. This is a great location for a beautiful hotel, and it is because of the many years Palm Desert has carefully developed the gold standard for successful responsible building and code enforcement. It is this high standard that has made Palm Desert a five star city and the reason that it has been sought out by this developer. It is also this high standard that the current businesses and residents have lived by and supported successfully for decades. This is the greatest of compliments for our city and shows foresight and leadership second to none; there is no reason to sacrifice the integrity of these core building blocks to have to lure in developers. The attraction is why we all (or our families before us) came here; the weather, the views, the cleanliness, the beauty, is what has established our high quality for life for our families, it is not a hotel or the close proximity to Gucci, Starbucks, or Tommy Bahamas. What is important are the attributes listed above, and yes with good service and style, and Palm Desert has that right now. Thank you and I appreciate your reconsideration of this huge project it is not unreasonable to ask the developer to design a building within the parameters given, without special requests, variances and easements but guided by honesty, integrity and the existing high standards of building codes and ordinances that we know have been so successful in building Palm Desert. Respectfully, e Craig and Meg strong 72-748 Beavertai t. Palm Desert, Ca 92260 D LEm OFFICE :.i.ti DESEP, i, CA 2911,1UL 13 AM 8: 49 Mayor Jean Benson Mayor Pro Tem Robert Spiegel Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member William Kroonen Council Member Jan Harnik Re: Proposed Hotel Development on Hwy 74 Dear Mayor Benson and City Council Members, I am a 37 year Palm Desert resident and care deeply about the success and beauty of our city. I am writing you as such in opposition to the current size and height of the proposed Rosewood hotel. In my years living and watching our valley grow unfortunately there are many examples of special interest developments from outsiders that have no regard and no respect for our quality of life the true beauty that attracts visitors to our city. Please do not sacrifice our city's integrity for another short -sided development. Please up hold the zoning and design standards that maintain the city's beauty and long-term property values for all of us residents. Sincerely, Marian J Armstrong 72 868 Skyward Way Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Mary Helen Kelly I 46100 Burroweed Lane ,.,, _ Palm Desert, CA 92260-5575 �-- July 12, 2011 ca a The City of Palm Desert -{ 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive -= O T Palm Desert, CA 92260 N rn The Honorable Mayor Jean Benson: Dear Jean, Thank you for the time and energy you give and the dedication you have serving the City of Palm Desert as Mayor. I know you have concerns for every project coming before you and after studying the same facts as every other council person; you may base your vote on a different opinion from others. I also know you have access to facts I do not have. I am not able to be in attendance Thursday so I am writing to encourage you to approve both the plans for Vons to relocate to the former Mervyn's Center and the Rosewood Hotel on Highway 74. Council members are elected to study facts and if necessary grant variances for projects that benefit the city and the majority of its citizens. I hope you will come to the conclusion that these two projects are those that will benefit Palm Desert and its citizens. Following are my thoughts on these two projects: VONS 1. Vons will relocate, if not to another place in Palm Desert, than to a place outside the city. The people living near its current location will lose Vons anyway you vote. 2. By insuring that they stay in Palm Desert their move will revitalize the Mervyn Center, retain and increase revenue for the cityS General Fund which allows Palm Desert to have the best public safety, parks, art, streets, medians and well kept neighborhoods. 3. They have worked with the city to meet all requested changes and a variance from an ordinance adopted for another era should be made and approval given for Vons project. THE 5 STAR ROSEWOOD HOTEL 1. They have done more than anyone could expect to visit, talk to and make adjustments for neighbors and city concerns. 2. To make further adjustments would take away the ability to make a profit and maintain their 5 Star rating which is the attraction for the high end clientele this project will attract to Palm Desert. 3. A 5 Star hotel in this location will be a boon for El Paseo which makes Palm Desert different from any other city in the Coachella Valley and attracts the people who contribute to Palm Desert's General Fund through Sales and Transit Occupancy Taxes. 4. It is estimated that this project will generate 1 million in Transit Occupancy Taxes plus the building fees to support Palm Deserts General Fund expenses — Public Safety, Parks, and Roads etc Letter for approval of VONS and the 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 2. From Mary Helen Kelly 5. With Redevelopment Funds being taken from us by the State, please do not lose this opportunity for additional revenue by delaying or denying approval. 6. Every time a project is continued or sent back for changes the cost of the project escalates and they will eventually move on to a location where officials are more accepting of their efforts to meet local requests. 7. Highway 74 is already a main artery to South Palm Desert resorts, high end homes, high density residential apartments/condos, the mountain resorts, and a route to the Hemet Valley, San Diego, the southern beaches and all the towns in between. This hotel will not make a dent in increased traffic. 8. Mountain views for neighbors are all around them to the south and west and the ambience of their own properties will remain. 9. Palm Desert has been waiting for a 5 Star hotel of this size for a long time. This corporation has a tract record for producing results and is well know among the clientele who will be using it. I have been a resident in the desert since the time when the area between Palm Springs and Indio was connected by a two lane road with little in-between but sand and agriculture. Many changes, which at the time I didn't particularly like, took place which took away from the small town atmosphere and beautiful date groves. Thankfully the council and staff in Palm Desert maintained the family atmosphere and natural resources while bringing in the kinds of commercial/retail/tourist resort/hotel projects that provide us the funds to have the life style we all enjoy and a city which attracts visitors that provide income for our city. There will always be some who do not want change, even though they were part of the change in the past. Please consider all of the positive reasons to approve these projects without further delay. In the current economic climate we may not have another opportunity like this for a long time. Sincerely, 1�& ' Mary ele Kelly Long ime Palm Desert Resident July 11, 2011 Palm Desert Mayor and City Council 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Plain Desert, CA 92260 RE: Rosewood Hotel Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council; El Paseo has often been referred to as the "Rodeo Drive of the Desert" However, anyone who has been to Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills is aware that there are several luxury hotels oilRodeo Drive or within walking distance on Wilshire Boulevard. El Paseo is missing that one element that would truly make El Paseo a shopping destination. I believe it would attract people just for the shopping experience alone increasing business for the street and the whole community. I am urging your approval of this magnificent 5-star hotel that would truly be the jewel in the crown of El Paseo. Sincerely, L,� z 7(zz� Glenda Boynton 45833 Highway 74 Palm Desert, CA 92260 :f=I V ED K'S OFFICE ", LH D E S E R T, CA 2011 JUL 13 PM 3: 10 Ross & Yvette McKenzie 3127 Wessex Close Victoria, B.C. V8P 5N2 July 6, 2011 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 To Whom It May Concern: RE: PROPOSED HOTEL/CONDOM114 UM PROJECT CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 & VTTM NO.36284 We are writing this letter to express our concerns regarding the above mentioned proposal for the Rosewood Hotel project. As we live in Canada we are unable to attend the public hearing June 14, 2011. We have owned a condominium unit in Circle 2 of the Sandpiper complex since 1989 and have always thought of it as our place in heaven. It upsets us to think the City of Palm Desert feels this development would be beneficial to the area. Looking at the map shown on the legal notice we received (copy attached) you can see how absolutely ridiculous this development looks. It is far too big and tall for the area, not to mention unsightly. There is nothing else in the area even close to the height of this building and the guests and tenants using the 40-seat roof bar and grill would be looking right down on us sitting on our private patios! If we really need to have this hotel in Palm Desert, maybe a better location would be the north end of Monterey Avenue, where there is lots of desert space and not in a residential area. Highway 74 is already a very high traffic volume road. We cannot imagine what adding another 82 transient units along with a restaurant, bar & grill, spa, fitness centre, ballrooms, conference rooms and retail would do to this already huge amount of traffic. El Paseo is a lovely street with many unique shops & restaurants, why would you want to change this and have this monstrosity at the end of the street? Also, adding a 2100 square foot restaurant and a bar & grill could kill some of the already existing restaurants and bars in the area. Palm Desert is a very special place to us, as we know it is too many people who either live or visit the area. We hope City Council will consider the many concerns of the residents of Palm Desert and decide against approving this development. Yours truly, Ross enzie rvette McKenzie Unit #213 — Sandpiper Palm Desert 2011-07-08 Mayor and Council Re: Rosewood Hotel t CLERK'S OFFICE '.; fi D SEPT. CFI 2011 JUL 13 PM 3: 10 We are opposed to the Rosewood Hotel project as presented for the following reasons: We bought in Sandier assured by zoning that any adjoining development would comply, particularly in respect to height. The financial impact of devaluation to individual owners (retirement savings) is far more serious than to a large corporation who will ultimately walk away. The height of the wall facing Highway 74 will unquestionably magnify traffic noise which is already excessive. A sound barrier along Highway 74 against Sandpiper must be required. Claims the project will be a five star is simply window dressing. I doubt Rosewood, in the final analysis, will meet that criteria. Bringing this before council in July when 90% of the owners are absent is unjust and weighted in favour of the developer. The business interests are naturally in favour because they don't live beside it. The proposal itself is out of place with the ambience of El Paseo. Individual residents who will be forever impacted by Rosewood should be given a waited consideration in respect of their existing investment and negative impact on their piece and quiet. If the economics of this project are dependent on squeezing in a few more units then the lot is simply too small. It would be better land use to re -develop the under utilized property near the Safeway between El Paseo and Highway 111. Bob and Barb Sharp 282 Sandpiper Palm Desert 92260 7/13/2011 - HAND DELIVERED TONY BAGATO PRINCPAL PLANNER y � Y," E tI✓ S 0 F F I C E .' Cie . L k, 2011 JUL 13 PM 3: 58 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO: CITY COUNCIL RE: ROSEWOOD HOTEL PROJECT 14-Jul-11 In making your decision regarding the 5 star hotel proposal, please keep in mind the following: Mr. Matt made several commitments during his presentations; can they be kept? The hotel will employ 250 - 300 people, in a variety of positions; the employment will be full staff, full-time, full year. Will Rosewood agree? Which is true: Rosewood Hotel "has committed" or "is willing to commit" $23 million to this project. This sum is dramatic, but reasonable for construction, d6cor, and landscape costs. "A five star experience requires 10 foot ceilings". Will patrons not return if ceilings are 9 feet? I have been told that the slide presentation as shown greatly diminishes the view impact from Sandpiper. Again, why reliable staking is paramount and required to satisfactory action. Matt assured those attending the last City meeting that "in 5 years vegetation would hide the top floor from Sandpiper 3 view." Why would Rosewood plant vegetation that would hide the Hotel completely from Hiway 74' OTHER QUESTIONS AND CAUTIONS: I have not heard a positive statement from Rosewood that they have partnered with this project. Approval, if any, must restrict the hotel enterprise to the Rosewood only. Would the City Council approve this project if it were adjacent to COD or City Hall or another site? Can this be seen from hiway 10 ? All floors, including one at at 50' , will be lighted all night for safety. I have been told that the slide presentation as shown greatly diminishes the view impact from Sandpiper. Again, why reliable staking is paramount and required to satisfactory action. Matt assured those attending the last City meeting that "in 5 years vegetation would hide the from and top floor. Will and why would Rosewood plant vegetation whose purpose is to hide the Hotel completely from Highway 74? I would ask this council to meet with Mr. George Fong, Rosewood Sr Vice President of Architecture & Design. Before giving your approval, discuss the desires and minimum design from Rosewood. In my heart, I believe Matt wants to present the Golden Goose to Rosewood, when they might compromise/make "concessions" to have the distinction and honor of a Palm Desert, El Paseo location. If it is not known, in meeting with Rosewood ask what are their financial expectations for the first 5 years and 10 ye This will dramatically impact Palm Desert's financial flow and planning for years to come. Who is in the driver's seat on this project. In one of the early meetings, Matt Joblin made the statement, " I have already made several concessions" for Palm Desert. We the people value our lovely town and love it for the tranquility and beauty of nature. This project will cause Palm Desert to make a giant step forward toward, a step that does not have the lure of El Paseo, and we may never return to being the same beauty. In my heart I do not believe this project cares about Sandpiper. Neither I nor many neighbors were ever contactec despite this info being in City files. My name may not be associated with a "pro" approach, but concern definitely. In tallying pro/con responses, please note who made the comments: a resident, local business, or major corporatis It makes a difference. Corporations are generally interested in profits, not communities. My final comment: the roof -top activity will have a negative influence - noise, music, laugher, sound of water, all that goes with day -time AND evening entertainment. -on the joy of living in one's home. Reduce the mass, lower the height, find another location for the pool and entertainment. The problem: this site cannot accommodate project demands. Do we the local people sacrifice our loved life-style' Before all is approved or discarded, please verify with Rosewood personally what they will accept. Thank you for reading and considering my comments. I wish this list was shorter, but I will continue to voice my concerns as along as you are listening. Jan Coffyn �/, 363 Sandpiper, PD/ 40 Lagunita, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 6/8/2011 Hotel Management Services I Rosewood... ROS F,WOOD !,il l l , ,,� 4:t Home Vision, Mission, History The Rosewood Difference the feeling guests experience when they step into a Rosewood hotel is the result of the Design pi Operating Philosophy company's painstaking attention to detail during the months and years that comprise the The brand development, design and construction phase of a project. Rosewood's design team supports Rosewood Residences( the creative process behind each project to achieve a perfect balance of form and function. Corporate Structure Rosewood does not have a rigid set of design and construction standards that demand Development wvvith Rosewood J _ _ _ con o manner chat many aige chain luxury brands moo, rIisPead, we strive to design each hotel specifically for its location, destination and desired guest experience. C George Fong - Senior Vice President of Architecture & Design George Fong rejoined Rosewood in 2007 as Vice President of Architecture &Design after six Regis years as Vice President of Technical Services & Project Management for Starmod's St. his Mr. Fong brings 27 years of international and Luxury Collection brands. In position, design construction projects. experience in the luxury hotel sector to bear on Rosewood and Prior to St. Regis, Mr. Fong was the Vice President of Design & Construction and a partner �,k7? with Foresthills Hotels & Resorts. He had been with Rosewood in various positions from 1985 ,`16 until his departure in 1998 as the Vice President of Design & Construction. He is a graduate of the London City and Guilds Institute. Katherine Blaisdell - Vice President of Development Construction In 2007, Katherine Blaisdell returned to Rosewood as Vice President of Development Construction, a role that focuses on the design and construction aspects of Rosewood properties in development. Ms. Blaisdell's previous tenure with Rosewood spanned almost 20 years during which time she helped oversee the development and redevelopment of numerous world -class properties as Director of Design & Construction. Before returning to Rosewood, she served as Director of Project Management & Construction for St. Regis Hotels & Resorts and as Vice President of Design & Construction for the Kor Group. rosewoodhotels.com/ ... /corp_a rchitectu r... 1/1 6/8/2011 Hotel Development Services I Rosewood ROSEWOOD r.. tn•,I. • .1�- Horne vision, :fission, History The Rosewood Difference i)esign & operatin_g_Philosop_hY the Brand iosewood Residences® Corporate structure Development with Rosewood Since our founding in 1979, we have bestowed on each of our properties a one -of -a -kind ambience and style. Whether in one of the world's great cities or on a remote tropical isle, each is designed to enhance every aspect of a guest's experience by reflecting the Igtic stis culture, hiss and geo raph . It is our belief that true world -class status is achieved only vjjj_" hotel or resort combines the values and traditions of its host community with exceptional service, a luxury pro uuct an incre r e a i n fo-ldetail. Rosewood has strong working relationships with hotel architects and designers around the world and can provide recommendations for a particular project or explore new relationships as appropriate. Collection vs. chain approach A celebration of what is unique about the location, architecture and history Creating new masterpieces, re-creating classics Rosewood is consistently recognized by leading industry publications as one of the premier luxury hotel operators in the world. Please click here for a list of recent awards and honors. 1/1 rosewoodhotels.com/.../design.cfm 6/8/2011 Luxury Hotel Development I Rosewood H... ROSEWOOD H O nt e Vision, Mission, History fhe Rosewood brand is built on a reputation for unparalleled attention to detail and impeccable personal service. it represents dining experiences that are memorable, inventive The Rosewood Difference Design & Operating Philosophy and considered among the world's finest; spa treatments and facilities that are renowned for The Brand providing the ultimate in pampering and relaxation; and, the sense that each of our Rosewood Residences distinctive properties is the only destination of choice for discriminating guests. Corporate Structure Through advertising, collateral, direct mail, public relations, trade show events and regional Development with Rosewood sales office efforts, the Rosewood brand is consistently reinforced. In naming hotels and resorts, we seek to leverage the allure of the Rosewood brand while building on the location or identity of an individual property. This theme is reflected in the complementary branding of Rosewood Residencest, Sense, A Rosewood Spat, Rosewood Suites and other branded amenities and in -room products. rosewoodhotels.com/.../brand.htm 1/1 6/8/2011 International Hotel Development I Rosew... 4rr1 E-I ti s Iti; il._ 11, 1.. ,,r. Home Vision, _M _fission, Histoiry The Rosewood Difference Design & Operating Philosophy The Brand Rosewood ResidencesO Corporate Structure Development with Rosewood rosewoodhotels.com/.../history.html Fulfill the dreams of our employees, guests and owners To be recognized and respected as the consummate operator of ultra -luxury hotels in desirable destinations throughout the world. Rosewood Hotels & Resorts has firmly established itself at the pinnacle of the highly specialized niche market of ultra -luxury hotels. The vision of luxurious, residential -style hotels began with Caroline Rose Hunt, and was fu er eveloped by a group of highly motivated international hoteliers. From 1979 to 1997, Rosewood Hotels & Resorts was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Rosewood Corporation, a private company owned by the Caroline Hunt Trust Estate. In late 1997, Rosewood partnered with a private investment fund headed by Maritz, Wolff & Company to form Rosewood Hotels and Resorts L.L.C. with the strategic objective of accelerating growth in both national and international luxury hotel markets. We respect our guests, employees and owners. We deliver exceptional service to our guests. '(/We encourage every individual's contributions and personal growth. I we honor diversity. We foster work environments that provide personal pride through job satisfaction and a balanced life. We embrace the environment and surroundings. ly We promote open communications, innovation and creativity. Do the Right Thing. 1/1 Michelson, Wilma From: Steve Fuchs [steve.fuchs@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:32 AM To: CityhallMail Subject: Support for Hotel Dear City Council: I live at 73241 Bursera Way, about one mile from the proposed hotel project on Hwy 74 and am enthusiastic about having a five star hotel in our wonderful city. I attended the planning commission meeting. The developer has taken into account the needs of its neighbors and has made very substantial concessions as a response. In other words, they seem like good neighbors. I also listened carefully to those opposing the project. While I respect their views and even have some sympathy for their concerns, the actual impact on them will be minimal; minor obstruction of views from only certain areas of Sandpiper. In light of the substantial benefit to the community and the relatively minor impact on the Sandpiper neighbors, I believe it would be in the city's best interest to proceed with the project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Steven L. Fuchs, J.D. 760-673-7359 760-406-5758 (fax) Klassen, Rachelle From: Hermann, David Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:54 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FVV: Contact Us Submission Hi Rachelle, Here is another communication from a resident regarding the proposed Rosewood Hotel. David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6380 Submission information ----------------------------------------- Submitter DB ID : 1567 Submitter's language : Default language IP address : 99.121.202.75 Time to take the survey 22 min. , 33 sec. Submission recorded on 7/13/2011 5:51:18 PM Survey answers ----------------------------------------- Your Contact Information First name: * Robert Last name: * Harvey E-mail Address: * robert.harvey(@dsusd.us Address line 1 130 Vista Valle Address line 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State CA Zip code: * CA Phone number 760-341-2886 I Am a: Palm Desert Business Owner [] Palm Desert Resident [x] Dear City Council Representatives and Mayor, Palm Desert has been the most organized, well run city in the valley during my 27 years of residency in the Coachella Valley. The city sought to compliment homeowners, businesses, and services in an efficient logical manner. It is my sincere hope that this continues with the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. 1 First, as you well know these are difficult economic times. The city has already begun progress to add jobs and continue services by expanding the retail and hospitality businesses on E1 Paseo. These shops and restaurants need to be continually fed by visitors, and the Rosewood would be a wonderful economic source to help sustain these shops and add necessary growth. As a teacher I would be excited to see new money come into the local schools, and jobs for some of our parents seeking employment. Second, I visited Santa Barbara and its Canary Hotel. The Canary is a boutique hotel in downtown Santa Barbara. It fit right into the area going unnoticed even though it was in the heart of the city. Traffic never backed up, noise was not an issue, and the guests walked in and out quietly to shop and dine. I mention this so that all are aware that the Rosewood should not hinder traffic or noise. It will thrive on Hwy 74 by becoming a quiet beautiful destination for its guests. Third, the location will not impact the residents of Palm Desert, including those of Sandpiper and the streets surrounding the area. The views of the hillside will not be impeded for Sandpiper. I live close to these projects and walked them to check this myself. The down valley view of the Hwy 10 corridor is all that is blocked; the hillside views are still easily accessible. Noise on Hwy 74 is loudest when used by motorcycles. This sight is already zoned for a hotel and that zoning makes sense. Lastly, the organization for the Rosewood Hotel has met your demands and worked with the city and its residents. The time and commitment by this company to do this has been impressive. You will be approving an investment in not only our economy but the integrity of our community. Sincerely, Robert Anthony Harvey 2 Klassen, Rachelle From: Hermann, David Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:54 AM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel comments: PLEASE PASS ON to Council members, thank you Hi Rachelle, Here is a communication from a resident regarding the proposed Rosewood Hotel. David David Hermann Public Information Officer City of Palm Desert 760-776-6380 From: Dianne [mailto:diful(c�aol.coml Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:49 AM To: InformationMail Subject: Rosewood Hotel comments: PLEASE PASS ON to Council members, thank you Honorable Council: Living on Pitahaya since 1976 1 have seen many accidents at my corner, including a fatality that I personally witnessed, where a young father burned in his car after being hit by a pickup truck on Hyw 74 at sunset New Year's Eve some years back. Does this then justify more signals as a solution? Add Pitahaya to Haystack, Shadow Mountain, El Paseo, Highway 111? And then perhaps include additional directional signage to that which already clutters the west side of Hwy 74. How else will people know to turn left quickly after crossing El Paseo? I am in agreement with the Letter to the Editor in today's Desert Sun: Does it really need to be 4 stories????? And why does the schematic show only an overview of the project rather than what it will actually look like from street level. There is certainly technology to provide this. I am not against a hotel — but I am against the size of it, the height of it, and the potential dangerous traffic conditions that can arise. I'm also sorry that the people who live on Ocotillo will not see a gorgeous mountain silhouetted sunset again. So sad. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Dianne Funk 72-755 Pitahaya Palm Desert Michelson, Wilma From: maryt513@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:10 AM To: CityhallMail Subject: in favor of Rosewood and oppose Vons move As a resident of Sandpiper I am IN FAVOR of the Rosewood Hotel and feel that it will be a tremendous asset to the area and the community ... a vacant lot full of trash is no asset!!!! those few who oppose will find in time that they will be singing the praises!!!... The Rosewood Group have been more than kind and bending over backwards to comply with the wishes of the Planning Commission and of the City Council..Please APPROVE the plan. As to the Vons issue please let them stay for the time being .... since we know that they are going to close the store anyway!!! Safeway/Vons must really be feeling the competition ....... Have you invited Stater .Bros.to come to Palm Desert? Thanks you for your consideration ..... Good luck.... by the way the fireworks were just beautiful.... and the funeral service, etc. handled so well Palm Desert is definitely ON THE MAP!!! Mary Maloney SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: / -S I/ Business: Name: 1 �' �I11 L ft ` �cs s✓ Address: rn Telephoner _ // / Z E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. ti o t, I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approv of e Rosewood Hotel. r- 4 Dated: '-71( I / / i :.*s <n i CJ Business: w n � Name: rI (� l � Address: Telephone: 7(o V E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you,to support the7 ap roval of the Rosewood Hotel. — Dated: 1 3 J�J a c r— Business: r Name: W Address: f L Vt l V i Telephone: _I(Co I T / & - L'Q�q E-Mail: 14CS5l CCt I e (J'�< = Ul1 f - r-© ' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingthe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approvalofthe Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: r i e G`G` V/ ►��y G �' r c� �; Name: c- > w m Address: 73 4'4 U l a - C /t 92zio d Telephone: 7 y E-Mail: .e V �� ��� ✓1�V / l 0 (e a-0 J' rot,^ SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of E1 Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: —7• IS - I 1 Business: 7\e`F h 'l Name: L • �� 1 �`iO.eV Address: 7a-990 &C LueiJ 4e Z-- oa v^ beseir4 Q 7.Z. C7 Telephone: 76 0 '..3 `40 -a-7S .3 E-Mail: a0tAtor% (1) C�CO L,..L Q' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: • t? ' r Business: Name: Address: � ._ Qrn- o ..rn r An Telephone: ((0 2� E-Mail: `- Q SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and: urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: I I 1�2 1 i Business: Name: hmandA-mi,- Address: 11 �) 6 l Ca)_yI 6 a L (i- PAAtD= S ; a Bail Telephone: LqU0) qZ✓ 61C2cl(I E-Mail: n i,... .r 't7 sT—iTi "' SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: _Z�'13/11 Business: Name: Address Telephone E-Mail: 'W-1 �r J cn . rn SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: ) Name: An AA Address: Telephone: q (.Qy -'�L4 ( Z-1 Q E-Mail: (2) +-b1-- SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: A/1✓ 1 n Business: Urn — CIO Name: S rn Address: _72-q (l red Pas P _) Pa1,-Y) Duc4: L . Q9 Telephone: __7U 0 • (Q � I (a43 E-Mail: Q O I C cioq SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 7I Business: Name: V a a� W Address: �A" u. =- r Z Q Telephone: E-Mail: �� �i V- r) &_-JAVr4 . UC V -ectu SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business:DUyIjV,_,��U\�MtYo,� Name: Address: 1;7 :wy, Telephone: T c 0 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: -F� Name: Address: Telephone: �"n " I E-Mail:r`� J� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support th--e7a proval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: / 1-2 Business: Name: r� m Address: r r �� Telephone: �%�� `7 n >n E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: ri �n C7 T � <2 / i= > Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the appprovialf of the Rosewood Hotel. 7 Dated: / J J I - C= `11n' Business: J.,Ry� �—"� F 'In ,:;, fT7 .ef� r Name: Address: �IV Pln '�1 :iF-C Telephone: CaZ�___ :7 Ln 3 � 0 6j�S-3 E-Mail: � W L-� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. 1 am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval f the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: t (� Business: 1 u"! 21 Name: c�`� l� lk "(YIS- otz� ,. n -*, Address: Telephone: \_ ! -' 0 ) 1 C' E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: ,� !SC If Name:���{'��� r rY, Address: —Z2 Telephone: 26i2 7�—:2 ( � E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ( ( t5 " ( r Business: R c ` Name: Address: J � o CIA, ZZ J �- Telephone: E-Mail: c r- .c- -v r SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 0 w Business: {— Name: - -y, Address: k aj k /, 14 a -A VvI Telephone: E-Mail: y1p, !�� �� %/ /7 '0 a OL e6ol SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: ram, Cz Name: i w C Z_— r— cft -ya. 1 i'1 Address: n �l Telephone: ��� � �,`jY- E-Mail: ro SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: N 4 Business: C= Z Name: / 1 �_ LZ ZZ' -� i rl -4, �'�1�� 1�//���C%G1�G� C :" Address: � ,p rn Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 'ta J i Business: Name: Address: c j >c7 Telephone: E-Mail: LmF-z-� 1-a L / lJ c) )32/C l -YJ /11'J SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: j 5 , Z U Business: LL SJ Name: C t C'Q c.,1r1 ���GL, _. is Pct Se Address: M C A e Ho — °� 6 3 b Telephone: E-Mail: �7 I D I A P Z 1 GS is L Cam SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Busines Name: Addres! ME Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ( 1 :3 Business: /�Jj�.e)2 Name: k4 fL C . Zr Address: rn CA Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: CGI:l1M \ j V-6a_s' Name: lhlr'1 JJJ40 MI nZ Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. PV I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel.,? Dated: -`�M Business: 0 rn Name: A1, 0117%' if � / Address: Telephone: C/(J E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ) t ?, � i I Business: r-- �c� �i l a l�' vnl r� „ Name: r Address: _►,, r'e iZ-I-, C��12ZLor� D 7 Telephone: 7 Ub v 3 4U - ap �;b E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: J f2 U Name: Address: 0 „ f c, CA m Telephone: 3 cl0-- 3 Ca 3 8 E-Mail: �Wy- (it u @ z1 df �a Coc` 1 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval oftheRosewood Hotel. Dated: Z-13 Business: _. r Name:i�/�i/�/' Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: `3/ 7I Business: w rn Name: �!� r-� �lI e Tim �I �►�� � '0o�, Address: Telephone: E-Mail: S W ee fi��, i 1 c m SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Z{ c� cil 0 Name: S 2_ C yrc�.ti `u in. Address: ��[ l4� �ir )0, s, —j'��-►1 m �)-e-,S j- 4- C-_4 Telephone: 80 V6 -; 96),f9 7 E-Mail: �Lc�. q C_0-� 0 '40 0 /. , "'o At, SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: CZI_I? _� I Business: NsEkr U -aNCIF— J�)C E' Name: Address: 0, 9 ��d►-� Telephone: E-Mail: rn _ �C x> SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. a I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: / 1 rry � t r; ar �.._ Business: `J SS�'11 . 7 Qn Name: Raffldn HU�Y,�ze Address: `7 2 1 K' c S �� p,__I I m r F f--A- -I z 2� o 00 Telephone: 3 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: EuZsA , l,'���� Name: J 33 �c- Address: CL rn Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: /-� I �/ � 7` Business: Name: 01C—) + rt, op Address: - 7! 40 e" L P' .3e 6 ?a ( v, b 5erJ (�4 Telephone: 16 ?(Do - 3110 - a(o'3? E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingthe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the �approval of the Rosewood Hotel. - Dated: ( -3- 1), Business: 1 C Name: l� i Address: Telephone: l E-Mail: (y L SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding�the Rosewood Hotel. I look forty d to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you,to support the ap oval oAhe Rosewood Hotel. Dated: % Business: Name: r Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL 4- TO: Palm Desert City Council » a Palm Desert Planning Commission., f I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed 04 Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well sr aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will rn confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingithe Rosewood Hotel. I look for and toe opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you,to support the ap royal o the Rosewood Hotel Dated: �. Business: 7 Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingithe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: 0 Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �`- �� °`• Business: / Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: V (✓�� � 1' � ��� �. �`"� `M J� � �-- V r gn SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brouW to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the are4-- surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. ON Dated: -7 / 1 3` 1 Business: Name: U �r i-, 1 i Address: % -7 1 F', a P--7) rrn c) -tfS-(t_-Y_+- ')-2.�;d Telephone: (7 6 G ) 3-q 1 — -1 (;4) E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel Dated: D Business: / I .. Name:nm Address: L- l MZZY Lif ek C. 222�0 Telephone: �c� J �^ C3 2 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will. certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. q c., I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you,to rC- support the ap roval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: V) Business: Name: Dle-a ei, rA LIa P& Address: I Telephone: E-Mail: a . SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will. certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding�the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated:' f;' 1� r Business: _ -v Z Name: CA Address: Telephone: / 2_�7 E-Mail: /� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding=the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge youto support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: . / ` 1 3 < c r— r Business: Name: Z J G `Cc �_ �, Address: Telephone: E-Mail: Jii M -C R i rn SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding1he Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you,to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel Dated: �I 13 "- Business: OName: tit Address: � ►� ; � C�4 17 zz6n s 3 Telephone: ` 7 - E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will. certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundin&the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 73v r �l \ a CU \ 4 Business: r77 _ {I y Name:0 �0., 0� Address: °r' Telephone: -7 b U C_ 7 l a\ a j E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: A; -13 _ 11 Business: Name: Address: yo� sle-o Telephone:��' E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ` Business: W) f lP(2 Name: �� r' --k �C_�s��QC(�� 1�1 Address: 7 U -1- `GID lz 7 c/u palmsfl ce qz- U Telephone: L. E-Mail: ` _ : ,- - Y > rri SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: �j 21�1 J`.��' 1 1 �(a 1 (7i�► Name: Address Telephone E-Mail: c I��1 7 C' [Q C�ZZ1U ----) 1 o C-. 1-4 Lr 1-4 - es � v Fn ►.1 `1 /-A G 5Ct2 e C---, v--n./--\ 1 L_ : C vr- I SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. i ADated: Business: Name: / _ v Address: y J Telephone: G-' ' t� �� — 7 4::::7' E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: �, `�1 =' C= �.� err. rr Name: �0 P `� m Address: CA C1 22bc'�, Telephone: '-) �0 0 f ED Z" C) 1� C -I E-Mail: l'��� MOI f �St KA5 in C.rA SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding,the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, _and.urge you,to 2 support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel.Zz L � Dated: �� r , Business: ' (?X�d G I j,[� --2r v "2 Name: �' ar Address: ���-• 1✓1���f (��j �„_ 1 X C�i q 2,2. It Telephone: �C20 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: _7 - / 1 i / Business: �u Name: L Address: �- > n Telephone: 24 � 3 �` 37e d 3 z1 / 41 �l E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: J D 4 (a- apt,\ Business: V �y SSECL A - Name: 21 C. Address: C=� Telephone: �3 0 3 —S E-Mail:1 G �'� (rL SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to suppo Dated: BusinE Name: Address: / 9-) qq(o v c T iLne) L� [ -Z3 E-Mail: a c r -v r SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: z3 — %l Business: Name: / 2J Address: �oZ / eL G� ti Telephone: / 16 E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Nit Business: Name: c r*� YT Address: -Q •z 0�ti2 �1 77 C3 t' I• �` C �b� D �j b�' Telephone: E-Mail: 1Wt'� f�i�� MUIV CXl SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. a I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to r �" support the a prova of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: `�J • � � � Name: ouov'k Address: C/ I Pit s Cy Cr - (---�)IC,2n S_ Telephone: tX oL ( t E-Mail: S Jun rmail, �� SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingthe Rosewood Hotel. N O I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you,to -, 77 �t' y support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. — M "", Dated: t 73 -o x+ rn Business: c ;> 6 m r Name: �GiUYIL'%i 041`nA(), G'C Address. l.` Y1 Telephone: E-Mail: NA SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, an.d.urge you.tocz -, support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: i < -0 � (� -:7 y� jl Business: cooC, ' V-1 C-6 U Name: Address: Pc� Telephone: lY 0 E-Mail: C LAl iM A C U SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, anl,urge you,to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: &;K;' C�) Telephone: E-Mail: rn rn co 0 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the/Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: Telephone: l �G' ` �( V !Z /^ E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. o _ Dated: C= n M ter., Business: u S.j �0 Jcjp" Name: nclC`,e m rc� Address: �3 ((� C� rm Ct r C. &Z , ZZ CrZ C ) Telephone: / 1p 0 5 G 9-"; a-9 I E-Mail: i SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and.urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address Telephone E-Mail: V v1 S t) ,,� �? 4 h evc r -Rebecca �1Y (-t"P_ � (' b ) 2 I C-1 --1 � u'k, SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding,the Rosewood Hotel. ry 0 I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. r- //Dated: -v Business: Name: I�V�� � MCI Address: 4 4 Telephone. E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundin&the Rosewood Hotel. ru "ufl- *C0 :a 7(&OL rn I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and,urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Gin Gti �(,� � 0 VJ U Name: 4a Address. CAIWALtd+b Telephone: O -7 U/ E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the app oval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: l J Business: U `A Vz/ z 1 Name:e- Address: 7 Telephone: V [ 5_3 ` E-Mail: LNE '�t , q' � 0 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, business person in, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and urge you to support the ap roval of the /Rosewood Hotel. Dated: l f �t Business: �'Ju5� 00 Name: Vr�. Address:��� Telephone: o l E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will. certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingthe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, -urge youto support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: i Address: Telephone: E-Mail: , o SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingthe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, _and,urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: �r , Name: V0"�(% ((1I7 -• �.�!�� Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a , needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. r I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, andurge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Z-A-5 1 co Business: Name: Address: Telephone: 76 E-Mail: �f �� V' to SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. rIz I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated:��Zs_/ l r 5,t Business: 5 e `L� Name:ell Address: Telephone: E-Mail: C_ c r-- oo SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, _and,urge you,to support the appr val of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: l� l Business: Name: Address z Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, willcertainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, -urge you,to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: �✓ Business: C}— �I�JJG �-- -x t-, -Io C_ cn -at Name: Address: Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: ti r- t X7 Business: �j �+ S'L) �� L./ %Z� �' ru �. �xa Name: Address: 11?4: � %5.ge., Z�-AAf Ae9"-. , 6'4 f�ZAda Telephone: %�© E-Mail: l��Y�'v.Xa a") . C;.0&2 SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area 4 surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. c r— I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and, urge you to support the approval/of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: Address: C--145 � zw'z 7t /0 Telephone: E-Mail: SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surroundingsthe Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, _and, -urge you to support the appr val of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: JI - KZRI l —N-1 Sal" 4 Name: ����T1� �� 1`RWI r h Address: I t �V �i I ra � l m Telephone: -I J� HA E-Mail: From: Cinzia Zanetti <cinziazanetti7@yahoo.corn> Subject: 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Hwy. 74. Hearing. Date: June 27, 2011 3:28:07 PM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Hi Robert , I was back east in Connecticut/ Nyc and unable to attend the hearing on June 21 st. I am in support of the project. We need to elevate the look of that corner and a luxury hotel would tie El Paseo in with Rt 74. 1 am concerned with the set back and landscaping. I think it is crucial that the front of the hotel is set back enough and not sitting on the street. Also , lush elegant landscaping such as the Gardens on El Paseo will improve the look of that area. I Hope this project succeeds as we need to create positive revenue and bring in the customer that will shop at all the high end boutiques and galleries. Thank you , Cinzia Zanetti 73196 Bill Tilden Ln. Palm Desert , CA 92260 cell # 213 - 399-4790 From: Amy Smith <asmith @ chartwellproperties. net> Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 28, 2011 9:39:34 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com From: Sydney Rucker[mailto:sydney.rucker@cosbar.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:38 AM To: Amy Smith Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel Amy, All my husbands family is in town this week into next, I'm sorry I won't be able to make it. As a resident of the city and Manger of The Cos Bar at Ell Paseo I support the Rosewood Hotel project. I believe it will benefit not only the local neighborhood but will also support the local economy which is in need of extra foot traffic and excitement. Please allow this project to move forward. Thank you. Sydney Rucker Manager Cos Bar at El Paseo 73080 El Paseo Suite 2 Palm Desert, Ca 92260 (760)341- 6699 On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Amy Smith <asmith(i4charhvellproperties.net> wrote: The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Please let me know if you can attend. If you cannot attend the hearing please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and we will ensure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Amy Amy Smith Associate Vice PresidenvProperty Coordinator CHARTWELLPfti311FIR"IIFS, 1,"s(�, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200 r,-_J Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tel: (760) 341-4888 a" Fax: (760) 568-9958 Email: asmith<ii?.chartweilpronerties.net r sy— Web: http:;/w�w�ro.chartwellpro�erties.net _ "__ . �'" nz;� . Apr -- Sydney Rucker Cos Bar at El Paseo Manager From: Amy Smith <asmith @chartwellproperties. net> Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 28, 2011 9:40:17 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Susan Stauber is the general manager of Chico's. From: Susan Stauber [mailto:sstauber@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:25 AM To: Amy Smith Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel Hi Amy I will be unable to attend the hearing please feel free to put my name down in support of the hotel project. Thanks, Susan From: Amy Smith Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:16 AM To: asmith(a)chartwelIL)roperties.net Subject: Rosewood Hotel The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Please let me know if you can attend. If you cannot attend the hearing please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and we will ensure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Amy Amy Smith Associate Vice President/Property Coordinator CHARTWELLPROPFIRTIF,.IN(_ 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tel: (760) 341-4888 Fax: (760) 568-9958 Email: asmithd�chartwelloroperties.net Web: http:,,/wkvw.cliartwellj2ioperties.net o 2. t— �—r,:, 1 � <w c'7 From: Amy Smith <asmith@chartwellproperties.neb Subject: FW: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 28, 2011 9:42:03 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Laser Med Spa is at 73-655 El Paseo, Suite N From: Ellen Salkin [maiIto:laser.express@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:33 PM To: 'Amy Smith' Subject: RE: Rosewood Hotel HI AMY/DAVID, THIS IS ELLEN, I WISH I COULD MAKE IT THIS EVENING, BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO GIVE THE ROSEWOOD HOTEL OUT SUPPORT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO THE EL PASEO AREA NOT ONLY FOR FOOT TRAFFIC, BUT TO INCREASE JOB OPPERTUNITIES AS WELL. I HOPE THE PROJECT GETS APPROVED. THANK YOU, ELLEN SALKN- PRESIDENT LASER MED SPA From: Amy Smith [mailto:asmith@chartwellproperties.net] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:16 AM To: asmith@chartwellproperties.net Subject: Rosewood Hotel The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Please let me know if you can attend. If you cannot attend the hearing please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and we will ensure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Amy Amy Smith Associate Vice President/Property Coordinator CHARTWELL PROPERTI EIS, INC. 73-061 El Pasco, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tel: (760) 341-4888 Fax: (760) 568-9958 Email: asmith((i�chartwellpronerties.net Web: hUp: Llwcvw.chartwellproperics net SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: Name: yw/ _7 =r `:) 1 �. 27 l0 �' 0 Address:/- 7- Telephone: E-Mail: �14dz" &U �J ��/ z ' �— SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: 1 Business: Name: Address.. Telephone: E-Mail - 7 Tv" — 3 It a ._ �—/ .3 i 61 ZG / Cis.-,,. f , C_.. L SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel Dated: 03 P, l i Business: r-- Name: Address:�_]��i Telephone: E-Mail: 1 GWVI 'T l7 0 61 LCCM SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 150 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel Dated: Business: 6va6 1a1, /'Zea) m k) a 7U Name: Address: ,to un �ZZ� cn o (�/ `/'-� 9 Telephone: E-Mail: gcmc glcy_ r SUPPORT FOR ROSEWOOD HOTEL TO: Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert Planning Commission I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed Rosewood Hotel, to be located just south of El Paseo on Hy. 74, in Palm Desert. I am currently a resident of, or frequent shopper in, the City of Palm Desert, and am well aware of the economic benefit a Five Star project like the Rosewood Hotel will confer on businesses located in the City of Palm Desert. The Five Star nature of the Rosewood Hotel, and the projected $2,000,000 selling price for the adjacent condominiums, will certainly bode well for the values of the surrounding properties. This, coupled with the anticipated 1S0 construction jobs, 250-300 permanent jobs, $1,000,000 in projected tax revenue to the City of Palm Desert, and the significant amount of additional business that will be brought to the Palm Desert business district by the upscale hotel guests, will provide a needed economic boost to Palm Desert, its diverse business districts, and the area surrounding the Rosewood Hotel. I look forward to the opening of the Rosewood Hotel, and. urge you to support the approval of the Rosewood Hotel. Dated: Business: e � 1 /) Name: Address: Vr4 L i1-1 n-_ S (E� k—�- to C� Telephone: I 7 4 -7 7 E-Mail: C" r n �^ 'XI tr � 7,, _�. r ry, �L:'J a' c7 m From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Support for new Proposed Rosewood Hotel in Palm Desert California Date. June 21, 2011 3:28:21 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark nvroark'ei me aun Begin forwarded message: From: faw3group@verizon.net Date: June 20, 2011 3:29:52 PM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Support for new Proposed Rosewood Hotel in Palm Desert California To Whom it May Concern My name is Frank Walsh and I am freind and colleague of Bob Roark. In my experience with Bob, His projects have been in well positioned locations and are carefully chosen to enhance a community while being mindful of its surroundings. It is my personal opinion this proposed five-star resort will definitely enhance the property while immediately bringing the area to higher level of property values and immediate sales tax revenue to the surounding area. Bob,and his group I believe will create a new level in hotel service too an already A+ zip code. I am also a frequent guest at Rosewood resorts and will tell you they are truly above the rest, with a quaint almost home feel! I believe this project would be a huge benefit to the area and thats why I fully support this project. Thank you, Frank Walsh FAW3 Group Inc. Consultant to Walt Disney Family Trust 1187 Coast Village Rd #217 Santa Barbara, CA. 93108 faw3grouo(a)verizon.net fawalsh3 aaaol.com (805) 252-8075 Cell From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:29:39 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwro trUi.me.com Begin forwarded message: From: Nick Roche <ndroche@verizon net> Date: June 21. 2011 5:54:09 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Mr. Roark, My wife and I fully support the construction of the Rosewood Hotel. The hotel will be a great asset to the Palm Desert Community and a boost to the local economy. Nick & Joyce Roche Palm Desert, CA From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:30:09 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwroaiUu nne.com Begin forwarded message From: "McCracken, Shelby" <Shelby.MccrackenCvbbvacompass.corn> Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT To: "rwroark@me, corn" <rwroark@me.com> Cc: "rlpiypin@me.com" <rlpippin@me.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Dear Mr. Roark and Mr. Pippin, I very much support this project. I have heard about it for several years and I think it's a great attribute to our great city of Palm Desert and I feel property values will go up and our economy will benefit from the boost. Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass Bank 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood project Date: June 21, 2011 3:30:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rwroarkliime oni Begin forwarded message: From: Mike Collins <Mike@twfaw.com> Date: June 21, 2011 11 24:40 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Cc: Ron -Desert Contractors' Assoc «n@desertcontractors.orq> Subject: Rosewood project Bob, am planning on attending the hearing if at all possible tonight but in the event that I do not, then, please accept this Email as evidence of my support for this project. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be a benefit to the community and to business's in this valley as well as Palm Desert itself. As qualifications for this opinion; I declare that I have lived in the Coachella Valley since 1960, 1 represent a licensed, bonded and insured contracting company that regularly employees upwards of 50 pay rolled employees. I have been a business owner in the Coachella Valley for 30 of those years. .14_11 ilwfcollins The WORKS Floor & Wall www.twfaw.com 979 So.Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs CA. 92264 mikelo)twfaw.com 0- 760,770,5778 F- 760.770.5715 C- 760.250.7862 0 sue- c ."' CJl > f 9 O �n T ,y .s �1� i.l.f�',.,,{�t.(R��".+b�' . ��lil...�r�.w�.� i •.�'-� .�(2/7!'TL .L?'4 i.L,'j.%'f.Fyr,S"`i^ W; �r1_- � � '� ,(ilk 1 f`l L�C".r ,- 4�v�'�/Y"L✓y `�" L� �cK�^!t�lte CAL From: "McCracken, Shelby" <Shelby.Mccracken@bbvacompass.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 11:03:25 AM PDT To: "rwroark@me.com" <rwroark@me.com> Cc: "rlpippin@me.com" <rlpippin@me.com> Dear Mr. Roark and Mr, Pippin, I very much support this project. I have heard about it for several years and I think it's a great attribute to our great city of Palm Desert and I feel property values will go up and our economy will benefit from the boost. Thank you very much, Shelby McCracken FSA BBVA Compass Bank 420 S. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-2021 760-325-3643 fax t.._ > ram-- t) C7 r+t c, r'I VJ TT _ 7C x7 Gn C I"P'3 From: "k, plann" <kmplann@gmail.com> Subject: We support your project Date: June 21, 2011 10:19:09 AM PDT To: rlpippin@me.com Martin and Karen Planaysky 46252 Verba Santa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 We highly support the Rosewood Project -43-088 maclisc>" 11•C.-!N. 92201 i Phc>nc----• Fax - To: Bob Roark Regarding: Rosewood Hotel. Hi Bob. I will be out of town so I am unable to attend the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 21" I just wanted to voice my support for your project. I find it hard to believe that in these economic times that local planning departments are not doing everything in their power to promote economic development. Adding a viable business to a community that will expand the tax base and increase retail activity in that community would seem to something a responsible body would want to pursue. Again I want to reiterate my support for you project and applaud you willingness to take a financial risk in these times of economic uncertainty. Good luck. Sincerely, Brock Babich 43088 Madison St Ste 101 Indio, Ca 92201 760 899 7591 From: Paul Graham <paul@thelatc.org> Subject: Palm Desert 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Development Date: June 20, 2011 3:21.08 PM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Cc: rlpippin@me.com, Paul Graham <paul@thelatc.org> ► 1 Attachment, 26.0 KB Dear Mr. Pippin, Good afternoon. We support your project in our neighborhood. We cannot make the Tuesday, June 21 meeting; however [if we could attend] we would unequivocally support your project. We truly believe this 5 Star Hotel is the perfect compliment to our Palm Desert El Paseo neighborhood and to the surrounding Coachella Valley community. Good luck with your project and please call upon us for your future support. Sincerely Paul Stuart and Andrea Graham 72787 Tamarisk Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Best regards, Paul Stuart Graham General Manager Los Angeles Theatre Center 514 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 489-0994, ext 105 (213) 489-1851 f LON Z4 CHIRL From: Alan Pace <apace@petra-inc.com> Subject: Rosewood Hotel Project Support Date: June 20, 2011 3:18:36 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Hi Bob — Just a note to lend my support to the Rosewood Hotel. As a businessman living in the Coachella Valley and with an office in Palm Desert, I think a Project such as the Rosewood Hotel and the business a 5-Star hotel would bring to Palm Desert would increase the appeal of the area and for residents and visitors. Good Luck and let me know how else I might help. Alan Pace Vice President/Geologist Petra Geotechnical r" o a Y� _0 y V i 4r -ry '7 1'7 rri AT'£ k-a F From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Date: June 21, 2011 3:25:50 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark --• 3_ rwroarUdme coin r - Begin forwarded message: rr^ err' From: richard danskin Galleries <danskingalleries@richarddanskin corn>_ Date: June 20, 2011 9:49:02 AM PDT T To: Christian Hohmann <email@christianhahmann.com> CS1 Cc: rwroark@me.com "" r' Subject: Re: Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 support Reply -To: danskingalleries@richarddanskin.com :•• We can not attend the meeting, as we are out of town. However, we do support the Hotel. The hotel will be good for the city, new jobs in construction, new jobs upon opening, new visitors to the city, many of whom will visit El Pasco. shop and eat. Having looked at the site of construction, we can see no down side to anyone involved. There may be slight views effective by residents on Ocitillo, but I am sure that can be kept to minimum. Other than that, we are amazed you are getting negative reaction - perhaps people (residents and nearby businesses) are just looking for a little payoff in these tough times. Count us as part of your support when you speak to the city. Go ahead and provide our contact information if required or asked for Geoff and Val Douglas, Gallery Owners richard danskin Galleries LLC 73-111 El Paseo, Palm Desert CA 92260 760-568-5557 On Wed 15/06/11 13:18 , "Christian Hohmann" email@christianhohmann.com sent: After attending a meeting for the proposed 5star Rosewood Hotel on Hwy 74 we were approached by Bob Roark with the request to speak in support of the Hotel on behalf of the Gallery Association at the Planning Commission Hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6pm at the Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers (73-10 Fred Waring Dr.) The hotel would bring very affluent shoppers to El Paseo and I feel it would be important to show our support. Would someone be interested in speaking? I offered to go, but now there is a chance that I won't be back from L.A. in time for the meeting. More importantly, before anyone speaks on behalf of the association, could everyone in favor write a few lines back in support of the hotel and copy Bob Roark ( rwroarkPme.com) in. In case none of us can go, at least they would have our e- mails in support. Many thanks, Christian From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Date: June 21, 2011 3:26:34 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark nvroarkd'rn e, com Begin forwarded message: From: Jonathan Stahl <istahl@shastafire.com> Date: June 20, 2011 11:22:40 AM PDT To: rwroark@me.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Palm Desert Bob, We completely agree with you. The Coachella Valley needs this project. We will not be able to attend the hearing, but support your efforts. The construction industry in the Coachella Valley is in desperate need of a project this size. The potential for future development in the surrounding areas once a hotel is established is great, as I'm sure you are aware. This would only benefit our community. Thanks for the heads up on the project, and again good luck at the hearing. Sincerely, Jonathan Stahl Vice President Shasta Fire Protection, Inc. 3584 La Campana Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 (760)323-5993 Fx(760)323-8895 www.shastafire.com From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject. Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:27:23 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin@me.com> Robert Roark rvvroarkri%.me eom Begin forwarded message: From: Charissa Lee <charissalee@me.com> Date: June 20 2011 2:13 40 PM PDT To:'Robert Roark' <rwroark@me.com> Subject: RE: Rosewood Hotel Robert, I am not a bid tired of hearing from you and completely support your project. We need jobs and revenue and visitors. No brainer. Unfortunately I am out of town tomorrow What can I do to show my support. Should I send an email to all of the council members. Do you have a list? Thanks, Charissa Charissa Farley Farley Interlocking Pavingstones Located at The Paving Stone Place 75135 Sheryl Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.773.3960, fax 760.773.1910 Cell 760.219.1089 charissa@farlevoavers. com www.farleypavers.com -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Roark [mailto:rwroark@me.coin] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:04 PM To: charissa@farleypavers.com Subject: Rosewood Hotel Charissa: I know you are probably tired of hearing from us, but we really do need your help. The Rosewood Hotel project is scheduled for hearing before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 6 00 p.m. on Tuesday. June 21, 2011 at the Palm Desert City Council Chambers. Even in these tough economic times, there are people out there who oppose all development, even though development is sorely need to create jobs and opportunity. We need to show the Planning Commission that there is support for a new development in Palm Desert, and your presence at the hearing would greatly help. Please attend if you can. If you cannot attend the hearing, please shoot me a short e-mail voicing your support for the Rosewood Hotel project, and I will insure that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. Every voice in support helps. Thanks. Bob Roark Robert Roark rwroark@me.com From: Robert Roark <rwroark@me.com> Subject: Fwd: Rosewood Hotel Date: June 21, 2011 3:32:04 PM PDT To: Robert Pippin <rlpippin @me.com> 1 Attachment, 5.5 KB Robert Roark rwroark'ierne.cot Begin forwarded message: From: Bruce Maize <maize@empinP estdev com> Date: June 21. 2011 2:37:25 PM PDT To: into@ci palm-desert.ca.us Subject: Rosewood Hotel Dear Chairperson Sonia Campbell and members of the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: I am contacting you today to voice my support for the Rosewood Hotel project, agenda item Case No. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and TT 36284. As a 25 year resident of the Coachella Valley, I have witnessed several cycles of development and today we are in what is arguably the worst development cycle of our lifetime. No one has been immune to the downturn in the economy including the city. This one project has not only the ability to add a phenomenal flagship hotel in the heart of this fine city but to also provide an economic catalyst at the perfect time. This project alone will generate over $1 million per year in annual revenue directly to the city, 250 — 300 permanent jobs and 100 — 150 construction jobs. The positive economic impact of these specific dynamics are enhanced with the additional benefits derived from the shopping, dining and lifestyles of the guests and owners of the hotel and condominiums. The development of this luxury property is without question a project that is deserving of the city's unqualified support. Palm Desert, although positioned in the heart of valley and well appointed with wonderful hotels, is lacking a luxury hotel property. Other cities in the valley have benefited at the expense of Palm Desert. The developers have worked diligently and openly with the community to ensure there is compatibility with this new hotel and the adjacent properties and they are deserving of your support. Thank you for this opportunity to submit this message of support and I trust this Commission acts favorably by approving this project at this evening's meeting. 0 Thank you, Bruce D. Maize C PresidentLi r—r t �VFSI r t 4t— DEVELOPMENT, U, 42575 Melanie Place, Suite S Palm Desert, CA92211 (760) 568-2850 - office "r (760) 568-2955 - fax ' The City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 July 12, 2011 Dear City Council Members: I am an owner of a Sandpiper Unit (233) and am deeply concerned about the Rosewood Hotel project. The two previous hearing presentations to the City (Architectural Review Commission- June 2010, Planning Commission- June 2011) were scheduled when I was out of town. I have looked at the dimensions presented and see that my view of the mountains will be obliterated by this building being proposed. This is important to me as I rent out my condo, and this new building will significantly impact the sense of privacy as well as the view, thus affecting my ability to rent. I do not object to the expansion and considered development of Palm Desert. It is a desirable community and I support Council's attention to its needs. The height of the building suggested by the plans for the Rosewood project are not in keeping with our image. I would however support a more conservative height in keeping with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si nee re l /J CathPochel David- y� J 233 Sandpiper Circle Palm Desert, CA 92260 Permanent Address: 35814 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85086 Daytime Phone: 602-321-4570 v r` 7/11/2011 City Council City of Palm Desert Palm Desert, CA Re: Planned Development of the Rosewood Hotel �- n Members of Council: I am writing to protest the development of the Rosewood Hotel as currently designed. The variance request to exceed current building height standards for this locale should be cause enough to reject any building/development permit. Besides height, the aesthetics of the overall design are not compatible with surrounding commercial architecture and certainly are not with the neighboring residential community. Additionally, noise, the added lighting and traffic congestion impacts resulting from this development have not been adequately considered. I urge the Council to deny permits for this development. Since , Gi 0 d LeMond 142 Sandpiper Palm Desert, CA 92240 cm n RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Clerk Record for the Benefit of the City of Palm Desert Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 (Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder's Use Only) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 09-507 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND EP-MONTEREY, LLC ORDINANCE NO. 1225 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Development Agreement" or "Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2011 ("Agreement Date") by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"), and EP-MONTEREY, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). City and Developer are referred to individually as "Party," and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS This Agreement is entered upon the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of City and Developer. A. The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning that would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. B. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs and risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (the "Development Agreement Legislation"), which authorizes City and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property. C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, City has adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements, which procedures and requirements are contained in City Municipal Code Chapter 25.37 (the "City Development Agreement Regulations"). This Development Agreement has been processed in accordance with the City Development Agreement Regulations. D. Developer has a legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 4.97 acres located at 45640 Highway 74, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Property'). E. Developer intends to develop the Property as a condominium, hotel, and retail project (defined more fully in Article 2 below as the "Project'). F. The complexity, magnitude and long-range nature of the Project would be difficult for Developer to undertake if City had not determined, through this Development Agreement, to inject a sufficient degree of certainty in the land use regulatory process to justify the substantial financial investment associated with development of the Project. As a result of the execution of this Development Agreement, both Parties can be 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 assured that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City planning and development policies and requirements, which assurance will thereby reduce the actual or perceived risk of planning, financing and proceeding with construction of the Project. G. City is desirous of advancing the socioeconomic interests of City and its residents by promoting the productive use of property and encouraging quality development and economic growth, thereby enhancing employment opportunities for residents and expanding City's property tax base. City is also desirous of gaining the public benefits associated with the Project, which are in addition to those dedications, conditions and exactions required by laws or regulations and as set forth in this Development Agreement, and which advance the planning objectives of, and provide benefits to, City. H. City has determined that by entering into this Development Agreement: (1) City will ensure the productive use of property and foster orderly growth and quality development in City; (2) development will proceed in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Palm Desert General Plan (the "General Plan") and will implement City's stated General Plan policies; (3) City will receive substantially increased property tax and other tax revenues; and (4) City will benefit from increased employment opportunities for residents of City created by the Project. I. Developer has applied for, and City has granted, the Project Approvals (as defined in Section 1.4) in order to protect the interests of its citizens in the quality of their community and environment. As part of the Project Approvals, City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter "CEQA"), the required analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The environmental effects of the proposed development of the Property were originally analyzed by the MND (as defined in Section 1.4.1) approved by City on , 2011, in connection with the Project. City has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the "MMRF) to ensure that those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are enforced and completed. Those mitigation measures for which Developer is responsible are incorporated into, and required by, the Project Approvals. J. In addition to the Project Approvals, the Project may require various additional land use and construction approvals, termed Subsequent Approvals (as defined in Section 1.4.6), in connection with development of the Project. K. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867. As required by Government Code Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in City's General Plan. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 L. On June 21, 2011, the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), the initial hearing body for purposes of development agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2254. On , 2011, the City of Palm Desert City Council ("City Council') adopted its Ordinance No. [ ] approving this Development Agreement and authorizing its execution. M. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Development Agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals), thereby encouraging planning for, investment in and commitment to use and development of the Property. Continued use and development of the Property will in turn provide substantial housing, employment, and property and sales tax benefits as well as other public benefits to City, and contribute to the provision of needed infrastructure for area growth, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Legislation was enacted. N. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, its Planning Commission and its City Council at publicly noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable and in conformance with the City General Plan, the Development Agreement Legislation, and the City Development Agreement Regulations and, further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City's residents and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises set forth herein, City and Developer agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. Parties. 1.1.1. Cam. City is a California municipal corporation, with offices located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. "City," as used in this Development Agreement, shall include City and any assignee of or successor to its rights, powers and responsibilities. 1.1.2. Developer. Developer is a California limited liability company. "Developer," as used in this Development Agreement, shall include any permitted assignee or successor -in -interest as herein provided. 1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement. 1.2.1. Property. All of the Property, as described in Exhibit A and shown in Exhibit B, shall be subject to this Development Agreement. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 1.3. Term. 1.3.1. Effective Date. This Development Agreement shall become effective upon the effectiveness of the ordinance approving this Agreement (the "Effective Date"). 1.3.2. Term of the Agreement. The term ("Term") of this Development Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years, unless extended or earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement (including, without limitation, pursuant to Section 10.2). The Term has been established by the Parties as a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop the Project and obtain the public benefits associated with the Project. 1.4. Proiect Approvals. Developer has applied for and obtained various environmental and land use approvals and entitlements related to the development of the Project, as described below. For purposes of this Development Agreement, the term "Proiect Approvals" shall mean all of the approvals, plans and agreements described in this Section 1.4. 1.4.1. MND The Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved with findings by the City Council on [date] (the "MND"). 1.4.2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map. On June 21, 2011, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 36284. 1.4.3. Development Agreement. Development Agreement. On June 21, 2011, following Planning Commission review and recommendation, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Ordinance No. [ ] approved this Development Agreement, which incorporates exceptions to Special Setbacks under City Municipal Code Section 25.30.290 and Off -Street Parking under City Municipal Code Section 25.58, as set forth and depicted more fully in the other Proiect Approvals and authorized its execution. This Development Agreement also authorizes exceptions to Special Setbacks under City Municipal Code Section 25.30.290 and Off -Street Parking under City Municipal Code Section 25.58, as set forth and depicted more fully in the Project Approvals. 1.4.4. Precise Plan. On , 2011, the City Council approved Precise Plan [ I. 1.4.5. Conditional Use Permit. On , 2011, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit [ I. 1.4.6. Subsequent Approvals. In order to develop the Project as contemplated in this Development Agreement, the Project may require land use approvals, entitlements, development permits, and use and/or construction approvals other than those listed in Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.5, above, which may include, without limitation: development plans, amendments to applicable redevelopment plans, El ORDINANCE NO. 1225 conditional use permits, variances, subdivision approvals, street abandonments, design review approvals, demolition permits, improvement agreements, infrastructure agreements, grading permits, building permits, right-of-way permits, lot line adjustments, site plans, certificates of occupancy, parcel maps, lot splits, landscaping plans, master sign programs, transportation demand management programs, encroachment permits, and amendments thereto and to the Project Approvals (collectively, "Subsequent Approvals"). At such time as any Subsequent Approval applicable to the Property is approved by the City, then such Subsequent Approval shall become subject to all the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement applicable to Project Approvals and shall be treated as a "Project Approval" under this Development Agreement. ARTICLE 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 2.1. Project Development. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Property, in accordance with the Vested Elements (defined in Section 2.2). 2.2. Vested Elements. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density and/or number of residential units, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property are as set forth in: a. The General Plan of City on the Agreement Date, including the General Plan Amendments ("Applicable General Plan"); b. The Zoning Ordinance of City on the Agreement Date ("Applicable Zoning Ordinance"); C. Other rules, regulations, ordinances and policies of City applicable to development of the Property on the Agreement Date (collectively, together with the Applicable General Plan and the Applicable Zoning Ordinance, the "Applicable Rules"); and d. The Project Approvals, as they may be reasonably amended from time to time upon an amendment in accordance with Section 5.4.2 of this Agreement, are hereby vested in Developer, subject to, and as provided in, the provisions of this Development Agreement (the "Vested Elements"). City hereby agrees to be bound with respect to the Vested Elements, subject to Developer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. The intent of this Section 2.2 is to cause all development rights which may be required to develop the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals to be deemed to be "vested rights" as that term is defined under California law applicable to the development of land or property and the right of a public 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 entity to regulate or control such development of land or property, including, without limitation, vested rights in and to building permits and certificates of occupancy. 2.3. Development Construction Completion. 2.3.1. Timing of Development; Pardee Finding. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that, subject to any infrastructure phasing requirements that may be required by the Project Approvals, Developer shall have the right (without obligation) to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its reasonable subjective business judgment. 2.3.2. Moratorium. No City -imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Property, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of City, the electorate, or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative or final), building permits, occupancy certificates or other entitlements, issued or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Agreement; provided, however, the provisions of this Section shall not affect City's compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court -imposed moratoria or other limitations. 2.3.3. No Other Requirements. Nothing in this Development Agreement is intended to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project at all or in any particular order or manner, or liability in Developer under this Development Agreement if the development fails to occur. 2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules. 2.4.1. Governing Rules. Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Development Agreement, development of the Property shall be subject solely to (a) the Project Approvals, and (b) the Applicable Rules. 2.4.2. Changes in Applicable Rules; Future Rules. a. To the extent any changes in the Applicable Rules, or any provisions of future General Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances or other rules, regulations, ordinances or policies (whether adopted by means of ordinance, initiative, referenda, resolution, policy, order, moratorium, or other means, adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or any other board, commission, agency, committee, or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate) of City (collectively, "Future Rules") are not in conflict with the Vested Elements, such Future Rules shall be applicable to the Project. For purposes of this Section 2.4.2(a), the word C. ORDINANCE NO. 1225 "conflict" means Future Rules that would (i) alter the Vested Elements, or (ii) frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements in relation to the Project, or (iii) materially increase the cost of performance of, or preclude compliance with, any provision of the Vested Elements, or (iv) delay in a more than insignificant way development of the Project, or (v) limit or restrict the availability of public utilities, services, infrastructure of facilities to the Project, or (vi) impose limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Project, or (vii) increase the permitted "Impact Fees" (as defined in Section 2.6.3) or add new Impact Fees, except as provided in Section 2.6.3, or (viii) limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals; or (ix) apply to the Project any Future Rules otherwise allowed by this Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and project sites; or (x) require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than those required by Applicable Rules; (xi) establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Property any fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes), assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees imposed by third party utilities; (xii) impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not specifically authorized by Applicable Rules; (xiii) limit or extending the time for the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals; or (xiv) in any way materially adversely affect the developability, financability, or any other critical aspect of the Project. To the extent that Future Rules conflict with the Vested Elements, they shall not apply to the Project and the Vested Elements shall apply to the Project, except as provided in Section 2.4.2(c) herein. The City shall provide a minimum of five (5) days advance written notice to Developer of any meeting agenda at which a proposed Future Rule that could affect or be applied to the Property will be discussed. b. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any Future Rules from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. City shall not support, adopt or enact any Future Rule, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or spirit and intent of this Agreement or the Project Approvals. Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rule that would conflict with the Vested Elements or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement or the grant of any approval(s) to another project that could have the effect of adversely affecting the capability or adequacy of the systems serving the Project (e.g., traffic, sewage, water impacts). C. A Future Rule that conflicts with the Vested Elements shall nonetheless apply to the Property if, and only if (i) consented to in writing by Developer; (ii) it is determined by City and evidenced through findings adopted by the City Council that the change or provision is reasonably required in order to prevent a condition dangerous to the public health or safety; (iii) required by changes in State or Federal 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 law as set forth in Section 2.4.3 below; (iv) it consists of changes in, or new fees permitted by, Section 2.6; (v) it consists of revisions to, or new Building Regulations (as defined in Section 2.11) permitted by, Section 2.11; or (vi) it is otherwise expressly permitted by this Development Agreement. d. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties shall have prepared two (2) sets of the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules, one (1) set for City and one (1) set for Developer. If it becomes necessary in the future to refer to any of the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules, the contents of these sets are presumed for all purposes of this Development Agreement, absent clear clerical error or similar mistake, to constitute the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. 2.4.3. Changes in State or Federal Laws. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65869.5, in the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date ("State or Federal Law") prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet in good faith to determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension of this Agreement that may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement and the Vested Elements. City shall provide written notice to Developer of any proposed or enacted State or Federal Law that could affect this Agreement within five (5) business days of the City learning of such proposed or enacted State or Federal Law. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such State or Federal Law. In such an event, this Development Agreement together with any required modifications shall continue in full force and effect. In the event that the State or Federal Law operates to frustrate irremediably and materially the vesting of development rights to the Project as set forth in this Agreement, Developer may terminate this Agreement. In addition, Developer shall have the right to challenge (by any method, including litigation) the State or Federal Law preventing compliance with, or performance of, the terms of this Development Agreement and, in the event that such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect, unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise, except that if the Term of this Development Agreement would otherwise terminate during the period of any such challenge and Developer has not commenced with the development of the Project in accordance with this Development Agreement as a result of such challenge, the Term shall be extended for the period of any such challenge. 2.4.4. Conflicts. In the event of an irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and the Applicable Rules (on the other hand), the provisions of the Project Approvals shall apply. In the event of a conflict between the Project Approvals (on the one hand) and this Development Agreement, in particular, (on the other hand), the provisions of this Development Agreement shall control. ORDINANCE NO. 1225 2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals. 2.5.1. Processing of Subsequent Approvals. City will act reasonably to accept, make completeness determinations, and process, promptly and diligently, to completion all applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project, in accordance with the terms of this Development Agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: a. the processing of applications for and issuance of all discretionary approvals requiring the exercise of judgment and deliberation by City, including without limitation, the Subsequent Approvals; b. the holding of any required public hearings; C. the processing of applications for and issuing of all ministerial approvals requiring the determination of conformance with the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, site plans, development plans, land use plans, grading plans, improvement plans, building plans and specifications, and ministerial issuance of one or more final maps, zoning clearances, demolition permits, grading permits, improvement permits, wall permits, building permits, lot line adjustments, encroachment permits, conditional and temporary use permits, sign permits, certificates of use and occupancy and approvals and entitlements and related matters as may be necessary for the completion of the development of the Property ("Ministerial Approvals"). To the extent that additional information is required from Developer to process an application for a Subsequent Approval, City shall notify Developer in writing of all such additional materials within ten (10) day of Developer's initial submission, and City shall process to completion all such applications within thirty (30) days of the initial submission. In the event that Developer submits multiple applications for Subsequent Approvals concurrently, the City shall consider all such requests concurrently unless otherwise requested by Developer. 2.5.2. Scope of Review of Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City shall not use its authority in considering any application for a discretionary Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Project Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions. The scope of the review of applications for Subsequent Approvals shall be limited to a review of substantial conformity with the Vested Elements and the Applicable Rules (except as otherwise provided by Section 2.4), and compliance with CEQA. Where such substantial conformity/compliance exists, City shall not deny an application for a Subsequent Approval for the Project. E ORDINANCE NO. 1225 2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions. 2.6.1. General. All fees, exactions, dedications, reservations or other impositions to which the Project would be subject, but for this Development Agreement, are referred to in this Development Agreement either as "Processing Fees," (as defined in Section 2.6.2) or "Impact Fees" (as defined in Section 2.6.3). 2.6.2. Processing Fees. "Processing Fees' mean fees charged on a citywide basis to cover the cost of City review of applications for any permit or other review by City departments. Applications for Subsequent Approvals for the Project shall be charged Processing Fees to allow City to recover its actual and reasonable costs of processing Developer's Subsequent Approvals with respect to the Project. 2.6.3. Impact Fees. "Impact Fees" means monetary fees, exactions or impositions, other than taxes or assessments, whether established for or imposed upon the Project individually or as part of a class of projects, that are imposed by City on the Project in connection with any Project Approval for the Project for any purpose, including, without limitation, defraying all or a portion of the cost of public services and/or facilities construction, improvement, operation and maintenance attributable to the burden created by the Project. Any fee, exaction or imposition imposed on the Project which is not a Processing Fee is an Impact Fee. No Impact Fees shall be applicable to the Project except as provided in this Development Agreement. City understands that long-term assurances by City concerning Impact Fees were a material consideration for Developer agreeing to develop the Project, to pay the Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit C of this Development Agreement and to provide the public benefits associated with the Project. a. For a period of five (5) years from the Effective Date (the "Fee Limitation Period"), only the specific Impact Fees listed in Exhibit C shall apply to the Project, except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Section 2.6.3(a). During the Fee Limitation Period, no change to an Impact Fee in Exhibit C (other than by the inflator, if any, permitted in Exhibit C using the specific index identified herein) resulting in an increase in dollar amounts charged to the Project that is adopted after the Agreement Date shall apply to the Project. If, after the Agreement Date, City decreases the rate of any of its Impact Fees existing as of the Agreement Date, Developer shall pay the reduced Impact Fee in effect at the time of payment. No Impact Fee other than those listed in Exhibit C may be imposed on the Project unless it is a fee which meets all of the following criteria: (i) the fee is imposed citywide equally on all new projects, including without limitation on all new hotels, on a nondiscriminatory basis; (ii) the fee is not used, directly or indirectly, for new or replacement transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, park facilities or open space acquisition, educational facilities, housing, art or police or fire facilities; (iii) the fee meets all nexus and rough proportionality tests and other legal requirements; (iv) the fee is adopted by ordinance by the City pursuant to a nexus study which, in addition to other legal requirements, calculates the fee on new development based on a spread of the cost of the subject facility or facilities or to the entire population creating the need for or benefiting from the facility, whether that population is existing or new due to the development, and 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 calculates the fee on new development based solely on the new development's fair share of such cost spread; and (v) the fee is not of a type that would by operation apply only to the Project and to no other projects located in the City. City acknowledges that no new fee may impose on new development the fair share of a facility or repair attributable to or benefiting the existing population, but City must instead charge such costs to the existing population through other fiscal devices or find alternative funding sources for such existing population's fair share. b. Any Impact Fees levied against or applied to the Project must be consistent with the provisions of applicable California law, including the provisions of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. ("AB 1600). Developer retains all rights set forth in California Government Code Section 66020. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall diminish or eliminate any of Developer's rights set forth in such section. 2.6.4. Conditions of Subsequent Approvals. a. In connection with any Subsequent Approvals, City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions including, without limitation, normal and customary dedications for rights of way or easements for public access, utilities, water, sewers, and drainage necessary for the Project; provided, however, such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules or Project Approvals, nor inconsistent with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. Developer may protest any conditions, dedications or fees while continuing to develop the Property; such a protest by Developer shall not delay or stop the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. b. No conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals shall require dedications or reservations for, or construction or funding of, public infrastructure or public improvements beyond those already included in the MMRP. In addition, any and all conditions imposed on Subsequent Approvals for the Project must comply with Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 herein. 2.7. Public Services. City hereby acknowledges that it will have, and shall reserve, sufficient capacity in its infrastructure, services and utility systems, including, without limitation, traffic circulation, storm drainage, flood control, and sanitation service, as and when necessary to serve the Project as it is developed. To the extent that City renders such services or provides such utilities, City hereby agrees that it will serve the Project and that there shall be no restriction on hookups or service for the Project except for reasons beyond City's control. 2.8. Taxes and Assessments. 2.8.1. Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms. City is unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new or increased assessments covering the Property, or any portion thereof. City understands that long- term assurances by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments were a material consideration for Developer agreeing to process the siting of the Project in its present 11 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 location and to pay long-term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City shall retain the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of new assessment districts covering all or any portion of the Property. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.6 above, City may impose new taxes and assessments, other than Impact Fees, on the Property in accordance with the then - applicable laws, but only if such taxes or assessments are adopted by or after City-wide voter or City-wide landowner approval of such taxes or assessments and are equally imposed on other land and projects of the same category within the jurisdiction of City, and, as to assessments, only if the impact thereof does not fall disproportionately on the Property vis-a-vis the other land and projects within City's jurisdiction or the portion of City's jurisdiction subject to the assessment. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to limit Developer from exercising whatever rights it may otherwise have in connection with protesting or otherwise objecting to the imposition of taxes or assessments on the Property. In the event as assessment district is lawfully formed to provide funding for services, improvements, maintenance or facilities which are substantially the same as those services, improvements, maintenance or facilities being funded by the fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in an amount equal to Developer's new or increased assessment under the assessment district. Alternatively, the new assessment district shall reduce/credit Developer's new assessment in an amount equal to such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement. 2.9. Life of Project Approvals and Subdivision Maps. 2.9.1. Life of Subdivision Maps. The terms of any subdivision or parcel map for the Property, any amendment or reconfiguration thereto, or any subsequent tentative map, shall be automatically extended such that such tentative maps remain in effect for a period of time coterminous with the term of this Development Agreement. 2.9.2. Life of Other Project Approvals. The term of all other Project Approvals shall be automatically extended such that these Project Approvals remain in effect for a period of time at least as long as the term of this Development Agreement. 2.9.3. Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term of the Agreement, the term of any subdivision or parcel map or any other Project Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval, which shall commence to run on the date that the termination of this Agreement takes effect (including any extensions). 2.10. Further CEQA Environmental Review. The MND, which has been approved by City as being in compliance with CEQA, addresses the potential environmental impacts of the entire Project as it is described in the Project Approvals. Nothing in this Development Agreement shall be construed to require CEQA review of Ministerial Approvals. It is agreed that, in acting on any discretionary Subsequent Approvals for the Project, City will rely on the MND to satisfy the requirements of CEQA 12 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration or environmental impact report unless required by CEQA and will not impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals and the MMRP or specifically required by the Applicable Rules. 2.11. Design/Development Standards. The Project consists of a hotel and residential condominium development as set forth in the Project Approvals, including without limitation the Precise Plan for the Project. The Project's height, parking requirements, and set back requirements shall be as approved in the Precise Plan for the Project. 2.11.1 Hotel Luxury Standard Developer and City agree that, if constructed, the Project shall be constructed to a minimum of four -plus star quality standard or higher (the "Luxury Standard"). The Project shall be deemed to have been constructed consistent with the Luxury Standard if the Project is consistent with each of the following criteria: (1) The average standard hotel room within the Project is greater than five hundred (500) square feet; (2) The Project includes breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurant dining services available to Project residents and guests seven (7) days per week; though, breakfast and lunch may be combined in a brunch service on weekends and holidays; and (3) The product of the total amount spent on Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment ("FF&E") for the Project (inclusive of both hotel rooms and publicly available common areas) divided by the number of hotel rooms constructed in the Project shall equal at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) (the "Per Room FF&E Allowance"). Developer shall provide documentation to City prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project establishing that the Project has met the Luxury Standard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing on February 1, 2015 (an "Anniversary Date"), and continuing each year thereafter unit issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Per Room FF&E Allowance shall be increased to reflect any increase in the cost of living since the prior Anniversary Date, as computed below: On each such Anniversary Date, the Per Room FF&E Allowance shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor (the "Bureau") for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside, California area - All Items (1982-84=100) (the "CPI") for the month of January of the calendar year in which 13 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 such Anniversary Date falls, and the denominator of which shall be the CPI for the month of January of the prior calendar year. The Per Room FF&E Allowance for the twelve calendar months commencing with the Anniversary Date in question shall be the greater of the product of such multiplication or the Per Room FF&E Allowance for the calendar day prior to the Anniversary Date in question. If the CPI ceases to be published on a monthly basis, City shall propose a reasonably comparable index published by the Bureau in place of the CPI (the "Replacement Index"). After City has made its selection of said Replacement Index, City shall notify Developer of such selection and of any adjustments City believes are reasonably necessary arising out of City's selection and use of the Replacement Index. Such selection and notification of adjustments may be objected to and challenged by Developer if either the selection or adjustments are patently unreasonable. 2.12. Developer's Right to Rebuild. Developer may renovate or rebuild the Project within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become functionally outdated, within Developer's sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the Vested Elements, shall comply with the Project Approvals, the Building Regulations existing at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City acknowledges that, due to market conditions at the time of such rebuilding or reconstruction, Developer may, in its sole discretion, seek to modify the density or ratio of hotel rooms to residential units as necessary to meet then current market conditions, which such modification the City acknowledges would be consistent with the Project Approvals so long as such modification does not result in an overall net increase in the building square footage or the combined total number of hotel rooms and residential units. In no case, however, shall Developer be required to modify either the density or ratio of hotel rooms to residential units. 2.13. Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply. Any and all tentative subdivision maps approved for the Project shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7, if, and to the extent, required by Government Code Section 65867.5(c). ARTICLE 3. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES; ALLOCATIONS OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 3.1. Public Infrastructure. In conjunction with construction of the Project, Developer shall reconstruct and reconfigure a portion of the Highway 74 Frontage Road, the surface improvements of which shall be conveyed to City in accordance with the terms of this Article 3 (the "Public Infrastructure"). 3.1.1. Acceptance; Maintenance. Upon completion of any and all Public Infrastructure to be completed by Developer, Developer shall offer for dedication to City from time to time as such Public Infrastructure is completed, and City shall, acting 14 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 reasonably, promptly accept from Developer the completed Public Infrastructure (and release to Developer any bonds or other security posted in connection with performance thereof in accordance with the terms of such bonds), and thereafter City shall maintain the Public Infrastructure. Developer may offer dedication of Public Infrastructure in phases and the City shall not unreasonably refuse to accept such phased dedications or unreasonably refuse phased releases of bonds or other security so long as all other conditions for acceptance have been satisfied. 3.2. Public Improvements. City shall use its best efforts to work with Developer to ensure that all Public Infrastructure in connection with the Project is (i) designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable City standards, (ii) reviewed and accepted by City in the most expeditious fashion possible, and (iii) maintained by City after acceptance, including, without limitation, maintenance of the public parks. Developer (or its affiliates or contractor(s)) shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals necessary for development of the public infrastructure. ARTICLE 4. ANNUAL REVIEW 4.1. Annual Review. The annual review required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 and Section 25.37.070 of the City Municipal Code shall be conducted for the purposes and in the manner stated in those laws as further provided herein. As part of that review, City and Developer shall have a reasonable opportunity to assert action(s) that either Party reasonably believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement, to explain the basis for such assertion, and to receive from the other Party a justification for the other Party's position with respect to such action(s), and to take such actions as permitted by law. The procedure set forth in this Article shall be used by Developer and City in complying with the annual review requirement. 4.2. Commencement of Process. The Director of City's Department of Community Development/Planning (the "Planning Director") shall commence the annual review process by notifying Developer in writing at least forty-five (45) days prior to the anniversary of the Effective Date each year that the annual review process shall commence as specified in Section 4.1. Failure of Planning Director to send such notification shall be deemed to extend the time period in which annual review is required until at least forty-five (45) days after such notice is provided. City's failure to perform an annual review pursuant to the terms of this Article 4 shall not constitute or be asserted as a default by Developer. 4.3. Developer Compliance Letter. Not less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the Planning Director's notice pursuant to Section 4.2, Developer shall submit a letter to the Planning Director demonstrating Developer's good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and shall include in the letter a statement that the letter is being submitted to City pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65865.1. 15 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 4.4. Planning Director Review. Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of Developer's letter, the Planning Director shall review Developer's submission and reasonably determine whether Developer has, for the year under review, demonstrated good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. 4.5. Planning Director Compliance Finding. If the Planning Director finds that Developer has so complied, the Planning Director shall schedule the annual review for the next available meeting of the Planning Commission and shall prepare a staff report to the Planning Commission, which shall include, in addition to Developer's letter, (i) a demonstration of City's good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; and (ii) the Planning Director's recommendation that the Planning Commission find Developer to be in good faith compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. 4.6. Planning Director Noncompliance Finding. If the Planning Director (or the Planning Commission, on review of the Planning Director's recommendation pursuant to Section 4.5) reasonably finds and determines that there is substantial evidence that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement for the year under review, the Planning Director shall issue and deliver to Developer a written "Notice of Alleged Default" specifying in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the Planning Director (or Planning Commission) reasonably claim constitutes material noncompliance, all facts demonstrating substantial evidence of material noncompliance, and the manner in which such noncompliance may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the Development Agreement. In the event that the material noncompliance, if proven to be true, would qualify an Event of Default pursuant to Article 6 herein, the Parties shall be entitled to their respective rights and obligations under both Articles 4 and 6 herein, except that the particular entity allegedly in default shall be accorded only one of the 60-day cure periods referred to in Sections 4.7 and 6.1 herein. 4.7. Cure Period. If the Planning Director or Planning Commission reasonably finds that Developer is not in compliance, the Planning Director shall grant a reasonable period of time for Developer to cure the alleged noncompliance. The Planning Director shall grant a cure period of at least sixty (60) days and shall extend the sixty (60) day period if Developer is proceeding in good faith to cure the noncompliance and additional time is reasonably needed. At the conclusion of the cure period, the Planning Director shall either (i) find that Developer is in compliance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 4.5; or (ii) find that Developer is not in compliance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission as specified in Section 4.8. 4.8. Referral of Noncompliance to Planning Commission. The Planning Director shall refer the alleged default to the Planning Commission if Developer fails to cure the alleged noncompliance to the Planning Director's reasonable satisfaction during the prescribed cure period and any extensions thereto. In addition, the Planning Director shall refer the alleged noncompliance to the Planning Commission if Developer 16 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 requests a hearing before the Planning Commission to review the Planning Director's determination of non-compliance. The Planning Director shall prepare a staff report to the Planning Commission which shall include, in addition to Developer's letter, if any, (i) demonstration of City's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement; (ii) the Notice of Alleged Default; and (iii) a description of any cure undertaken by Developer during the cure period. 4.9. Delivery of Documents. At least five (5) days prior to any City hearing regarding Developer's compliance with this Development Agreement, City shall deliver to Developer all staff reports and all other relevant documents pertaining to the hearing. 4.10. Planning Commission Compliance Finding. If the Planning Commission, following a noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 4.5 or 4.8, determines that Developer is in compliance with the material terms and conditions of this Development Agreement, and that determination is not appealed to the City Council, the annual review shall be deemed concluded. City shall, at Developer's request, issue and have recorded a Certificate of Compliance indicating Developer's compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement. 4.11. Planning Commission Noncompliance Finding; Referral to City Council. If the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 4.5 or 4.8, reasonably finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the material terms or conditions of this Development Agreement and that Developer is in material breach of this Development Agreement, Developer shall have a reasonable time determined by the Planning Commission to meet the reasonable terms of compliance approved by the Planning Commission, which time shall be not less than fifteen (15) days. If Developer does not complete the terms of compliance within the time specified, the Planning Commission shall forward its recommendations to the City Council and the City Council shall hold a public hearing regarding termination or modification of this Development Agreement. Notification of intention to modify or terminate this Development Agreement shall be delivered to Developer by certified mail containing: (i) the time and place of the City Council hearing; (ii) a statement as to whether City proposes to terminate or modify this Development Agreement and the terms of any proposed modification; and (iii) any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceedings. At the time of the hearing, Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The City Council may impose conditions to the action it takes as necessary to protect the interests of City; provided that any modification or termination of this Development Agreement pursuant to this provision shall bear a reasonable nexus to, and be proportional in severity to the magnitude of, the alleged breach, and in no event shall termination be permitted except in accordance with Article 6 herein. 4.12. Relationship to Default Provisions. The above procedures shall supplement and shall not replace that provision of Section 6.4 of this Development Agreement whereby either City or Developer may, at any time, assert matters which either Party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development 17 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Alleged Default and following the procedures set forth in said Section 6.4. ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS 5.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation. This Development Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation as those provisions existed at the Agreement Date. No amendment or addition to those provisions or any other federal or state law and regulation that would materially adversely affect the interpretation or enforceability of this Development Agreement or would prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Development Agreement shall be applicable to this Development Agreement unless such amendment or addition is specifically required by the change in law, or is mandated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event of the application of such a change in law, the Parties shall meet in good faith to reasonably determine the feasibility of any modification or suspension that may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation and to determine the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement and the Vested Elements. Following the meeting between the Parties, the provisions of this Development Agreement may, to the extent feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. If such amendment or change is permissive (as opposed to mandatory), this Development Agreement shall not be affected by same unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to amend this Development Agreement to permit such applicability. Developer and/or City shall have the right to challenge any new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and in the event such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. The Term of this Agreement may be extended for the duration of the period during which such new law or regulation precludes compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 5.2. Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement. This Development Agreement may be amended from time to time or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of both Parties in writing in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation and the City Development Agreement Regulations. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. All amendments to this Development Agreement shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals. 5.3. Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer and development of the Property hereunder may demonstrate that refinements and clarifications are ORDINANCE NO. 1225 appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this Development Agreement, City and Developer reasonably agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such operating memoranda shall constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 5.3 or whether the requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 5.2 above. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute any operating memoranda hereunder on behalf of City. 5.4. Amendments to Project Approvals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, Developer may seek and City may review and grant amendments or modifications to the Project Approvals (including the Subsequent Approvals) subject to the following (except that the procedures for amendment of this Development Agreement are set forth in Section 5.2 herein). 5.4.1. Amendments to Project Approvals. Project Approvals (except for this Development Agreement the amendment process for which is set forth in Section 5.2) may be amended or modified from time to time, but only with the written consent of both Developer and the City (in their respective sole discretion) and in accordance with Section 2.4. All amendments to the Project Approvals shall automatically become part of the Project Approvals. The permitted uses of the Property, the maximum density, the intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, the provisions for public improvements and financing of public improvements, and the other terms and conditions of development as set forth in all such amendments shall be automatically vested pursuant to this Development Agreement, without requiring an amendment to this Development Agreement. Amendments to the Project Approvals shall be governed by the Project Approvals and the Applicable Rules, subject to Section 2.4. 5.4.2. Administrative Amendments. Upon the request of Developer for an amendment or modification of any Project Approval, the Planning Director or his/her designee shall reasonably determine: (a) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (b) whether the requested amendment or modification substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules. If the Planning Director or his/her designee reasonably finds that the requested amendment or modification is both minor and substantially conforms with the material terms of this Development Agreement and the Applicable Rules, the amendment or modification shall be determined to be an "Administrative Amendment," and the Planning Director or his/her designee may approve the Administrative Amendment, without public notice or a public 19 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 hearing. In those instances where the Planning Director believes an application for administrative amendment will generate significant public interest or significant policy issues, the Planning Director may refer the application to the Planning Commission for review and action. Each decision made by the Planning Director pursuant to delegated authority in accordance with this Section shall be placed as an information item on the Planning Commission agenda together with a summary of the Administrative Amendment. If the Planning Director receives a written request for a Planning Commission public hearing and action by the Planning Commission any time during the review process but no later than ten (10) days after the action of the Planning Director, or at the Planning Commission meeting for which the information item is on the agenda, then the Administrative Amendment shall be set for Planning Commission public hearing and action. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, reductions in the density, intensity, scale or scope of the Project, minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the overall design concepts of the Project, substitution of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections and facilities that do not substantially alter design concepts of the Project, amendments to the master sign program, and minor adjustments to a subdivision map or the Property legal description shall be deemed to be minor amendments or modifications. Any request of Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval that is determined not to be an Administrative Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Rules and this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 6.1. Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the Parties in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 10.2 hereof regarding permitted delays and a Mortgagee's right to cure pursuant to Section 9.3 hereof, any failure by either Party to perform any material term or provision of this Development Agreement (not including any failure by Developer to perform any term or provision of any other Project Approvals) shall constitute an "Event of Default," (i) if such defaulting Party does not cure such failure within one hundred twenty (120) days (such one hundred twenty (120) day period is not in addition to any cure period under Section 4.7, if Section 4.7 is applicable) following written notice of default from the other Party, where such failure is of a nature that can be cured within such one hundred twenty (120) day period, or (ii) if such failure is not of a nature which can be cured within such one hundred twenty (120) day period, the defaulting Party does not within such one hundred twenty (120) day period commence substantial efforts to cure such failure, or thereafter does not within a reasonable time prosecute to completion with diligence and continuity the curing of such failure. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the Event of Default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and the manner in which such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. During the time periods c ORDINANCE NO. 1225 herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Development Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. The waiver by either Party of any default under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Development Agreement. 6.2. Meet and Confer. During the time periods specified in Section 6.1 for cure of a failure of performance, the Parties shall meet and confer in a reasonably timely and responsive manner, to attempt to resolve any matters prior to litigation or other action being taken, including without limitation any action in law or equity; provided, however, nothing herein shall be construed to extend the time period for this meet and confer obligation beyond the 120-day cure period referred to in Section 6.1 (even if the 120- day cure period itself is extended pursuant to Section 6.1(ii)) unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. 6.3. Remedies and Termination. If, after notice and expiration of the cure periods and procedures set forth in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, the alleged Event of Default is not cured, the non -defaulting Party, at its option, may institute legal or judicial reference proceedings pursuant to Section 6.4 or 6.6 of this Development Agreement and/or terminate this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 6.7 herein. In the event that this Development Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 6.7 herein and litigation or judicial reference is instituted that results in a final decision that such termination was improper, then this Development Agreement shall immediately be reinstated as though it had never been terminated. 6.4. Legal Action by Parties. 6.4.1. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Development Agreement. All remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any Future Rules that would conflict with the Vested Elements or the Subsequent Approvals for the Project or reduce the development rights provided by the Project Approvals. 6.4.2. No Damages. In no event shall either Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in damages for any default under this Development Agreement, it being expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to either Party for a breach or violation of this Development Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Development Agreement. This 21 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Development Agreement including, but not limited to obligations to pay attorneys' fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party's choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party's rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Development Agreement by the other Party. 6.5. Effects of Litigation. In the event that litigation is timely instituted, and a final judgment is obtained, which invalidates in its entirety this Development Agreement, then Developer shall have no obligations whatsoever under this Development Agreement. In the event that any payment(s) have been made by or on behalf of Developer to City pursuant to the obligations contained in Section 2.6, City shall give to Developer a refund of the monies remaining in any segregated City account into which such payment(s) were deposited, if any, along with interest which has accrued, if any. To the extent the payment(s) made by or on behalf of Developer were not deposited, or no longer are, in the segregated City account, City shall give Developer a credit for the amount of said payment(s) as determined pursuant to this Section 6.5, along with interest, if any, that has accrued, which credit may be applied by Developer to any costs or fees imposed by City on Developer in connection with construction or development within or outside the Property. Developer shall be entitled to use all or any portion of the credit at its own discretion until such time as the credit has been depleted. Any credits due to Developer pursuant to this Section 6.5 may, at Developer's own discretion, be transferred by Developer to a third party for application by said third party to any costs or fees imposed by City on the third party in connection with construction or the development of property within City, whether or not related to the Project. In the event that Developer has already developed or is developing a portion of the Project at the time of any invalidation of the Development Agreement, then any such refund or credit shall be limited to the amount paid by Developer that exceeds, on a pro rata basis, the proportion and uses of the Property retained by Developer to the entire Property. This Section 6.5 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. 6.6. Judicial Reference. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 638, et seq., all legal actions shall be heard by a referee who shall be a retired judge from either the Riverside County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, the United States District Court or the United States Court of Appeals, provided that the selected referee shall have experience in resolving land use and real property disputes. Developer and City shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before such 22 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 referee. If Developer and City are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either Party hereto, either Party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the Parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 6.6 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 6.6, either Party shall be entitled to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, or to enjoin the other Party from an asserted breach thereof, pending the selection of a referee as provided in this Section 6.6, on a showing that the moving party would otherwise suffer irreparable harm. Upon the mutual agreement by both Parties, any legal action shall be submitted to non -binding arbitration in accordance with rules to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. 6.7. Termination. 6.7.1. Expiration of Term. Except as otherwise provided in this Development Agreement, this Development Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement as set forth in Section 1.3. 6.7.2. Survival of Obligations. Upon the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement as provided herein, neither Party shall have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property under this Development Agreement except with respect to any obligation that is specifically set forth as surviving the termination or expiration of this Development Agreement. The termination or expiration of this Development Agreement shall not affect the validity of the Project Approvals (other than this Development Agreement) for the Project. 6.7.3. Termination by City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Development Agreement, City shall not have the right to terminate this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Property before the expiration of its Term unless City complies with all termination procedures set forth in the Development Agreement Legislation and there is an Event of Default by Developer and such Event of Default is not cured pursuant to Article 4 herein or this Article 6 and Developer has first been afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged default before the City Council and this Development Agreement is terminated only with respect to that portion of the Property to which the default applies. Compliance with the procedures set forth in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 and 6.7.3 shall be deemed full compliance with the requirements of the California Claims Act (Government Code Sections 900 et seq.) including, but not limited to, the notice of an event of default hereunder constituting full compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 910. 23 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 ARTICLE 7. COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development Agreement shall reasonably cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. 7.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies. Other public agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Development Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. Nevertheless, City shall be bound by, and shall abide by, its covenants and obligations under this Development Agreement in all respects when dealing with any such agency regarding the Property. To the extent that City, the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, agency, committee, department or commission of City constitutes and sits as any other board, agency, commission, committee, or department, it shall not take any action that conflicts with City's obligations under this Agreement. 7.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants. Developer shall apply in a timely manner in accordance with Developer's construction schedule for the permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. Developer shall comply with all such permits, requirements and approvals. City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain (a) such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time, at the request of Developer, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to enter into binding agreements with any such entity to ensure the availability of such permits and approvals, or services, at each stage of the development of the Project; and (b) any grants for the Project for which Developer applies. 7.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. 7.4.1. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or Developer relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or approval of any Subsequent Approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity. City shall not stipulate to or cooperate in the issuance of any such order. 24 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 7.4.2. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement, the procedures leading to its adoption, or the Project Approvals for the Project, Developer and City each shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action, to select its own counsel (and pay for such counsel at its own expense), and to control its participation and conduct in the litigation in all respects permitted by law. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. City retains the option to select and employ independent defense counsel at its own expense. If, in the exercise of its sole discretion, Developer agrees to pay for defense counsel for City, Developer shall jointly participate in the selection of such counsel. Notwithstanding the provisions of California Government Code Section 66474.9, City shall not require, as a condition for a tentative map application or approval, or any other applications for Project Approvals, that Developer defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City from any claim, action or proceeding against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul a City approval concerning a subdivision. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 7.5. Revision to Project. In the event of a court order issued as a result of a successful legal challenge, City shall, to the extent permitted by law or court order, in good faith seek to comply with the court order in such a manner as will maintain the integrity of the Project Approvals and avoid or minimize to the greatest extent possible (i) any impact to the development of the Project as provided for in, and contemplated by, the Vested Elements, or (ii) any conflict with the Vested Elements or frustration of the intent or purpose of the Vested Elements. 7.6. State, Federal or Case Law. Where any state, federal or case law allows City to exercise any discretion or take any act with respect to that law, City shall, in an expeditious and timely manner, at the earliest possible time, (a) exercise its discretion in such a way as to be consistent with, and carry out the terms of, this Agreement and (b) take such other actions as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the terms of this Agreement. 7.7. Defense of Agreement. City shall take all actions that are necessary or advisable to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Agreement. If this Agreement is adjudicated or determined to be invalid or unenforceable, City agrees, subject to all legal requirements, to consider modifications to this Agreement to render it valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law. 25 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 ARTICLE 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS 8.1. Right to Assign. Developer shall have the right to sell, assign or transfer ("Transfer') in whole or in part its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement, to any person or entity at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall the rights, duties and obligations conferred upon Developer pursuant to this Development Agreement be at any time so Transferred except through a transfer of the Property. In the event of a transfer of a portion of the Property, Developer shall have the right to Transfer its rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement that are applicable to the transferred portion, and to retain all rights, duties and obligations applicable to the retained portions of the Property. Upon Developer's request, City shall reasonably cooperate with Developer and any proposed transferee to allocate rights, duties and obligations under this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals among the transferred Property and the retained Property. Other than Transfers of individual residential condominium units located on the Property, Developer shall provide City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the close of escrow for any Transfer the identity of the proposed transferee, a summary of the proposed transferee's qualifications, and a copy of the proposed assignment and assumption agreement between Developer and the proposed transferee. 8.2. Release upon Transfer. Upon the Transfer of Developer's rights and interests under this Development Agreement pursuant to Section 8.1, Developer shall automatically be released from its obligations and liabilities under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred, and any subsequent default or breach with respect to the Transferred rights and/or obligations shall not constitute a default or breach with respect to the retained rights and/or obligations under this Development Agreement, provided that (i) Developer has provided to City written notice of such Transfer, and (ii) the transferee executes and delivers to City a written agreement in which (a) the name and address of the transferee is set forth and (b) the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the obligations of Developer under this Development Agreement with respect to that portion of the Property transferred. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer's obligations under this Agreement by such transferee, City agrees to look solely to the transferee for compliance by such transferee with the provisions of this Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such transferee. A default by any transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer's rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such transferee. The transferor and the transferee shall each be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such transferor/transferee, and any amendment to this Agreement between City and a transferor or a transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such transferor or transferee. Failure to deliver a written assumption agreement hereunder shall not affect the running of any covenants herein with the land, as provided in Section 8.3 below, nor shall such failure negate, modify or otherwise affect 26 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 the liability of any transferee pursuant to the provisions of this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the individual owner of any residential condominium unit located on the Property that has been finally subdivided, constructed and sold, shall have no obligations under this Development Agreement, including without limitation, the obligation to participate in periodic review as required under Article 4, above. 8.3. Covenants Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, reorganization, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation or otherwise) and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder (i) is for the benefit of such Property and is a burden upon such Property, (ii) runs with such Property, (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successive owner during its ownership of such Property or any portion thereof, and (iv) each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such Property, or any portion thereof, and shall benefit the Property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such Property. ARTICLE 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE 9.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property ("Mortgage"). This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and inure to the benefit of any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 9.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to perform Developer's obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to 27 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement, or by the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. 9.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given to Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed a default, and if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right (but not the obligation) during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the Event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice. 9.4. No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 9 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee's obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Development Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 9 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 9.3. 9.5. Technical Amendments to this Article 9. City agrees to reasonably consider and approve interpretations and/or technical amendments to the provisions of this Agreement that are required by lenders for the acquisition and construction of the improvements on the Property or any refinancing thereof and to otherwise cooperate in good faith to facilitate Developer's negotiations with lenders. ARTICLE 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10.1. Limitation on Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Development Agreement, in no event shall: (a) any partner, officer, director, member, shareholder, employee, affiliate, manager, representative, or agent of Developer or any general partner of Developer or its general partners be personally liable for any breach of this Development Agreement by Developer, or for any amount which may become due to City under the terms of this Development Agreement; or (b) any member, officer, agent or employee of City be personally liable for any breach of this Development Agreement by City or for any amount which may become due to Developer under the terms of this Development Agreement. 10.2. Force Majeure. The Term of this Development Agreement and the Project Approvals and the time within which Developer shall be required to perform any act under this Development Agreement shall be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the Party seeking the delay by strikes, lock -outs and ORDINANCE NO. 1225 other labor difficulties, Acts of God, inclement weather, failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, any development moratorium or any action of other public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services prevents, prohibits or delays construction of the Project, enemy action, civil disturbances, wars, terrorist acts, fire, unavoidable casualties, litigation involving this Agreement or the Project Approvals, or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of Developer which substantially interferes with carrying out the development of the Project. Such extension(s) of time shall not constitute an Event of Default and shall occur at the request of any Party. In addition, the Term of this Development Agreement and any subdivision map or any of the other Project Approvals shall not include any period of time during which (i) a development moratorium is in effect; (ii) the actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the Property prevent, prohibit or delay either the construction, funding or development of the Project or (iii) there is any mediation, arbitration; litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding pending involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. The Term of the Project Approvals shall therefore be extended by the length of any development moratorium or similar action; the amount of time any actions of public agencies prevent, prohibit or delay the construction, funding or development of the Project or prevents, prohibits or delays the construction, funding or development of the Project; or the amount of time to finally resolve any mediation, arbitration, litigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding involving the Vested Elements, or Project Approvals. Furthermore, in the event the issuance of a building permit for any part of the Project is delayed as a result of Developer's inability to obtain any other required permit or approval, then the Term of this Development Agreement shall be extended by the period of any such delay. 10.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties. Formal written notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally (including delivery by private courier), dispatched by certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or delivered by nationally recognized overnight courier service, or by electronic facsimile transmission followed by delivery of a "hard" copy to the offices of City and Developer indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either Party may from time -to -time designate in writing at least fifteen (15) days prior to the name and/or address change and as provided in this Section 10.3. City: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Manager W ORDINANCE NO. 1225 with copies to: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: City Attorney City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Planning Director Developer: EP-Monterey, LLC c/o Friedman Equities, LLC 150 East 58th Street, 21 st Floor New York, NY 10155 Attn: Mr. Peter Friedman with copies to: Friedman Equities, LLC 9355 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Attn: Mr. Matthew Joblon JMH Development 401 West Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Attn: Mr. Jason Halpern Notices personally delivered shall be deemed to have been received upon delivery. Notices delivered by certified mail, as provided above, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated above as the Party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) within five (5) days after a certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. Notices delivered by overnight courier service as provided above shall be deemed to have been received twenty-four (24) hours after the date of deposit. Notices delivered by electronic facsimile transmission shall be deemed received upon receipt of sender of electronic confirmation of delivery, provided that a "hard" copy is delivered as provided above. 10.4. Project as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnershia. The Project constitutes private development, neither City nor Developer is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and City and Developer are independent entities with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Development Agreement shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 10.5. Severability. If any terms or provision(s) of this Development Agreement or the application of any term(s)or provision(s) of this Development Agreement to a 30 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 particular situation, is (are) held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Development Agreement or the application of this Development Agreement to other situations, shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties; provided that, if the invalidation, voiding or enforceability would deprive either City or Developer of material benefits derived from this Development Agreement, or make performance under this Development Agreement unreasonably difficult, then City and Developer shall meet and confer and shall make good faith efforts to amend or modify this Development Agreement in a manner that is mutually acceptable to City and Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Development Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, Developer (in its sole and absolute discretion) may terminate this Development Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to City. 10.6. Section Headings. Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement. 10.7. Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement. 10.8. Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement is executed in (_) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Development Agreement consists of (_) pages including the Recitals, and (_) exhibits, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, which, together with the Project Approvals, constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The exhibits and appendices are as follows: Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property Exhibit B Map of the Property Exhibit C Impact Fees 10.9. Estoppel Certificates. Either Party may, at any time during the Term of this Development Agreement, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting such Party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party, (i) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (ii) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if amended; identifying the amendments, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults, and (iv) any other information reasonably requested. The Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed 31 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 response explaining why it will not do so within five (5) business days following the receipt thereof. The failure of either Party to provide the requested certificate within such five (5) business day period shall constitute a confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and no modification or default exists. Either the City Manager or the Planning Director shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 10.10. Recordation. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868.5, within ten (10) days after the later of execution of the Parties of this Development Agreement or the Effective Date, the City Clerk shall record this Development Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder. Thereafter, if this Development Agreement is terminated, modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Riverside County Recorder. 10.11. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon noncompliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall be in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought, and any such waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach or non-performance of the same or other covenants and conditions hereof. 10.12. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Development Agreement for which time is an element. 10.13. Applicable Law. This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10.14. Attorneys' Fees. Should any legal action be brought by either Party because of a breach of this Development Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Development Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and such other costs as may be found by the referee. Attorneys' fees under this Section shall include attorneys' fees on any appeal and, in addition, a Party entitled to attorneys' fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation, expert witness fees, incurred in connection with such action. In addition to the foregoing award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party, the prevailing party in any lawsuit shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees incurred in any post -judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement. 10.15. Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as otherwise provided herein, City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any third party beneficiary to this Development Agreement and agree that nothing contained herein shall be construed as giving any other person or entity third party beneficiary status. 32 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 10.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Development Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property. 10.17. Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed by each Party on a separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single instrument. 10.18. Authority. Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that the person or persons executing this Agreement on such party's behalf has the authority to bind his or her respective Party and that all necessary board of directors', shareholders', partners', city councils', redevelopment agencies' or other approvals have been obtained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first set forth above. DEVELOPER: EP-Monterey, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation By: Name: Title: ATTESTATION: By: , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: , City Attorney 33 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On _ , 2011 before me, (here insert name of the officer), Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public [Seal] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss: COUNTY OF On _ 2011 before me, (here insert name of the officer), Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. [Seal] Signature of Notary Public 34 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 FXHIRIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PARCEL 1: LOTS 10 AND 11 OF BLOCK NO. A-3 OF PALM DESERT UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 21, PAGES 81 THROUGH 84, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: LOTS 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK NO. A-3 OF PALM DESERT UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 21, PAGES 81 THROUGH 84, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 35 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 EXHIBIT B MAP OF PROPERTY 74 ON10 WAY CL PA $' WOOL 74 TY'MAP f_.SCAL 36 ORDINANCE NO. 1225 EXHIBIT C IMPACT FEES All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Development Agreement to which this Exhibit C is attached to and a part thereof. The following Impact Fees shall apply to the Project as provided in Section 2.6.3 of this Development Agreement: 1. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.44) 2. The Childcare Facilities Impact Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.45) 3. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee (PDMC Ch. 3.46) 4. The Neighborhood and Community Public Facilities Fee (PDMC Ch. 26.48) 5. The Drainage Facility Fee (PDMC Ch. 26.49) 6. The City Signalization Fee 7. Art in Public Places Fee (PDMC Ch. 4.10) 8. Low Income Housing Fee 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pape ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS............................................................................3 1.1. Parties........................................................................................................3 1.2. Property Subject to this Development Agreement......................................3 1.3. Term...........................................................................................................4 1.4. Project Approvals.......................................................................................4 ARTICLE 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.......................................................5 2.1. Project Development..................................................................................5 2.2. Vested Elements........................................................................................ 5 2.3. Development Construction Completion......................................................6 2.4. Effect of Project Approvals and Applicable Rules; Future Rules.......................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Processing Subsequent Approvals. .. ......................................................... 9 2.6. Development Fees, Exactions; and Conditions........................................10 2.7. Public Services.........................................................................................11 2.8. Taxes and Assessments........................................................................M.11 2.9. Life of Project Approvals and Subdivision Maps......................................12 2.10. Further CEQA Environmental Review......................................................12 2.11. Design/Development Standards...............................................................13 2.12. Developer's Right to Rebuild....................................................................14 2.13. Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply.........................................14 ARTICLE 3. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES; ALLOCATIONS OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.......................................................................................................................14 3.1. Public Infrastructure.................................................................................14 3.2. Public Improvements.................................................................................15 ARTICLE 4. ANNUAL REVIEW.....................................................................................15 4.1. Annual Review.........................................................................................15 4.2. Commencement of Process.....................................................................15 4.3. Developer Compliance Letter...................................................................15 4.4. Planning Director. Review.........................................................................16 4.5. Planning Director Compliance Finding.....................................................16 4.6. Planning Director Noncompliance Finding...............................................16 4.7. Cure Period..............................................................................................16 4.8. Referral of Noncompliance to Planning Commission...............................16 4.9. Delivery of Documents.............................................................................17 4.10. Planning Commission Compliance Finding..............................................17 4.11. Planning Commission Noncompliance Finding; Referral to CityCouncil..............................................................................................17 4.12. Relationship to Default Provisions............................................................17 ARTICLE 5. AMENDMENTS.........................................................................................18 5.1. Amendments to Development Agreement Legislation .............................18 5.2. Amendments to or Cancellation of Development Agreement...................18 5.3. Operating Memoranda.............................................................................18 5.4. Amendments to Project Approvals...........................................................19 ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION...........................................20 6.1. Events of Default......................................................................................20 6.2. Meet and Confer......................................................................................21 6.3. Remedies and Termination......................................................................21 6.4. Legal Action by Parties.............................................................................21 6.5. Effects of Litigation................................................................................... 22 6.6. Judicial Reference....................................................................................22 6.7. Termination..............................................................................................23 ARTICLE 7. COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION...............................................24 7.1. Further Actions and Instruments..............................................................24 7.2. Regulation by Other Public Agencies.......................................................24 7.3. Other Governmental Permits and Approvals; Grants...............................24 7.4. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge...........................................24 7.5. Revision to Project...................................................................................25 7.6. State, Federal or Case Law......................................................................25 7.7. Defense of Agreement.............................................................................25 ARTICLE 8. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.........................................................26 8.1. Right to Assign.........................................................................................26 8.2. Release upon Transfer.............................................................................26 8.3. Covenants Run with the Land..................................................................27 ARTICLE 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE..................27 9.1. Mortgagee Protection...............................................................................27 9.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated........................................................................27 9.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure....................28 9.4. No Supersedure.......................................................................................28 9.5. Technical Amendments to this Article 9...................................................28 ARTICLE 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS...........................................................28 10.1. Limitation on Liability................................................................................28 10.2. Force Maieure.......................................................................................... 28 10.3. Notices, Demands and Communications Between the Parties...................................................................................................... 29 10.4. Project as a Private Undertaking; No Joint Venture or Partnership............................................................................................... 30 10.5. Severability...............................................................................................30 10.6. Section Headings..................................................................................... 31 10.7. Construction of Agreement.......................................................................31 10.8. Entire Agreement.....................................................................................31 10.9. Estoppel Certificates................................................................................31 10.10. Recordation.............................................................................................. 32 10.11. No Waiver................................................................................................32 10.12. Time Is of the Essence.............................................................................32 10.13. Applicable Law......................................................................................... 32 10.14. Attorneys' Fees........................................................................................32 10.15. Third Party Beneficiaries..........................................................................32 10.16. Constructive Notice and Acceptance........................................................33 10.17. Counterparts............................................................................................33 10.18. Authority................................................................................................... 33 EXHIBITA.....................................................................................................................35 EXHIBITB.....................................................................................................................36 EXHIBITC.....................................................................................................................37 M REPLACEMENT PAGE 73 ORD. NO. 1225 (DA/PP/CUP 09-507) ORDINANCE NO. 1225 to the fullest extent permissible by CEQA and City will not require a new initial study, negative declaration or environmental impact report unless required by CEQA and will not impose on the Project any mitigation measures or other conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals and the MMRP or specifically required by the Applicable Rules. 2.11. Design/Development Standards. The Project consists of a hotel and residential condominium development as set forth in the Project Approvals, including without limitation the Precise Plan for the Project. The Project's height, parking requirements, and set back requirements shall be as approved in the Precise Plan for the Project. 2.11.1 Hotel Luxury Standard Developer and City agree that, if constructed, the Project shall be constructed to a minimum of four -plus star quality standard or higher (the "Luxury Standard"). The Project shall be deemed to have been constructed consistent with the Luxury Standard if the Project is consistent with each of the following criteria: (1) The average hotel room within the Project is greater than five hundred (500) square feet; (2) The Project includes breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurant dining services available to Project residents and guests seven (7) days per week; though, breakfast and lunch may be combined in a brunch service on weekends and holidays; and (3) The product of the total amount spent on Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment ("FF&E") for the Project (inclusive of both hotel rooms and publicly available common areas in the hotel) divided by the number of hotel rooms constructed in the Project shall equal at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) (the "Per Room FF&E Allowance"). Developer shall provide documentation to City prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project establishing that the Project has met the Luxury Standard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing on February 1, 2015 (an "Anniversary Date"), and continuing each year thereafter unit issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, the Per Room FF&E Allowance shall be increased to reflect any increase in the cost of living since the prior Anniversary Date, as computed below: On each such Anniversary Date, the Per Room FF&E Allowance shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor (the "Bureau") for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside, California area - All Items (1 982-84=1 00) (the "CPI") for the month of January of the calendar year in which 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CEQA PURPOSES, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A PROPOSED ROSEWOOD 82 ROOM HOTEL AND 59 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH ANCILLARY USES AND AMENITIES ON A 4.97± GROSS ACRES OF CURRENTLY VACANT LAND (4.27± ACRES) AND TO -BE -VACATED FRONTAGE ROAD (0.7± ACRES) LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 74, WEST OF OCOTILLO DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE IMAGO ART GALLERY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS KNOWN AS 45-640 HIGHWAY 74. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 10-26, and City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project will not have significant impacts on the environment with mitigation, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice to Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 10, 2010 and again on May 5, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the draft MND and Initial Study to the public for a thirty -day (30) review and comment period beginning on May 5, 2011 and ending on May 24, 2011 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21091(b); and WHEREAS, as set forth below, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MIND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Case Nos., DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 21 day of June 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the PDH Partners, LLC. for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2554 has recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Case Nos. DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; WHEREAS, at public hearing(s) held on this 14 day of July, 2011 and on this day of , 2011, the City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request: FINDINGS: CEQA Findin A. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 and City Guidelines to implement CEQA, the City finds, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Precise Plan Findings: A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of design, consideration shall be given and restrictions shall be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning and use of the subject property and the surrounding property, to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject property, but subject to the same degree of protection of adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this chapter. The standard restrictions imposed in the various zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circumstances" are intended to refer to the case of a permitted case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded by property in the same zone as the lot in question. Prior to 1983, the property was zoned residential with a hotel and restaurant on the property. In 1983, the property was rezoned as part of an approval of a 248 room hotel with two restaurants. After the approval, RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 the previous hotel was demolished and only the restaurant remained. The restaurant was recently demolished in 2009, leaving the property vacant today. The size and shape of the parcels are restrictive, requiring a creative hotel design that will meet the use allowed by the zone without substantial depreciation of property values, and impacts to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. The creative design of the project has prohibited any traffic on Ocotillo Drive, eliminating any traffic impacts to a residential collector street. Restrictions were imposed during the design process such that the buildings are designed with a the taller portions stepped back from the street and neighboring properties to minimize the massing and view impacts, which will protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 meeting the purpose of the Scenic Preservation Overlay District. This will serve to protect the adjacent property owners to the extent practicable from interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. The project is also designed to take advantage of the 28-foot slope by measuring the project from the average grade height as stated in 25.56.300. This design places the tallest building at the north end of the project adjacent to the commercial zone, and the shortest building at the south end adjacent to the residential zone. If the buildings were designed under "normal circumstances" with a 35-foot height limit from grade of each building, it would cause a greater impact to the residential property to the south and the residential properties to the southeast across Ocotillo Drive. As for the setbacks, Section 25.30.290 requires special setbacks for interior lots within the PC-4 District. The requirement is one foot of setback for one foot of building height measured from the ultimate curb location. The intent of this requirement is to provide step backs in taller buildings so that the buildings are terraced, which minimizes the visual impacts. Along Highway 74, the two buildings comply with the special setback. Along Ocotillo Drive, portions of the north (hotel) building are closer to the ultimate curb line than the one foot requirement, however, the building is terraced after the second floor minimizing the visual impacts of the building and meeting the intent of the special setbacks required in Section 25.30.290. The buildings were designed with terraced step backs to enhance the project's relationship with the properties directly adjacent to the east, prevent substantial depreciation of property values in the vicinity, and not to create unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. The reduction of Section 25.30.290 can be granted with approval of the Development Agreement. B. if the proposed precise plan of design would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 3 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 The proposed precise plan of design has been under review by the City for nearly two years, and the project has been reduced in mass and area by 42,000 square feet to reduce overall project massing, minimize the visual impacts to the surrounding properties and protect the aesthetic quality along Highway 74 and adjoining properties. In addition to the reduction of 42,000 square feet, the Environmental Assessment and Initial Study incorporate mitigation measures that will reduce any impacts to less than significant. The proposed project will not substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity, interfere with the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties, or endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. The proposed project will buffer residences to the east from Highway 74 traffic noise. The proposed project is expected to increase property values in the immediate vicinity through the redevelopment of a long vacant lot into a project that includes a high -end boutique hotel and residential condominiums that are expected to have sales prices well above average for the area. C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, the planning commission and city council, as the case may be, may also consider and take into account the exterior architectural design, general exterior appearances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of public utility facilities, and if it is found that the proposed precise plan of design, including the considerations enumerated in this chapter would interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise plan area, or with the existing or proposed use thereof, such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before approval as to remove the objections. The architectural and landscaping design was presented to the City's Architectural Review Commission five times and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. The design of the buildings was well received by the Architectural Review Commission throughout review, with the Architectural Review Commission's only concern being the massing and size of the buildings as initially proposed. Based on input from all community stakeholders and City staff, the project was reduced by 42,000 square feet and the design otherwise substantially modified to reduce the size and massing impacts to the surrounding property owners and along Highway 74. The project's building and landscape design will enhance the property and will not interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the project. As modified, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to views from any public right of way. Further, though private views from within the Sandpiper development are not legally protected, the proposed project will result in no significant impacts to any views from within Sandpiper or any other non -protected view areas. 2 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 Conditional Use Findings: A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; The proposed location of the project is within the Planned Commercial Resort (PC-4) zone. The purpose of the PC district is to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects to provide a range of commercial centers in the City. The project will provide a mix of hotel and residential land uses. The hotel component is located at the north end of the site, which is adjacent to commercial zoning and uses, including an existing art gallery. The majority of the residential component is located at the south end of the site, which is adjacent to residential zoning and with an existing condominium complex. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The property is zoned for hotel development, and in 1983, the City approved a 248-room hotel with two restaurant uses on the project site. Due to the size and quality of the proposed project, the proposed hotel will result in lower traffic impacts than what would be expected from other hotel development and environmentally superior to the project approved previously. The former hotel approved in 1983 would have provided at least two times the amount of traffic impacts along Highway 74. Development of the proposed commercial hotel and residential use will meet all applicable requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code for grading and the California Uniform Building Code for construction, and will not be detrimental to general public health, safety, and welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. The proposed project has registered for and will obtain LEED certification. Construction plans for the project will be reviewed by staff and contracted consultants to ensure the project will be built in accordance with such sections described above. In addition, a comprehensive environmental assessment was conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared, which conclude that with the application of mitigation measures and conditions of approval to be imposed on this project, it will not result in any unmitigated significant impacts and will not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments; 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 The proposed use is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance; the Planned Commercial District allows the Planning Commission and City Council, in enacting a Precise Plan, to approve site specific development standards that differ from other generally applicable standards. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards in the approved Precise Plan. A Development Agreement has been prepared, providing the City and the developer with a higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed and constructed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Precise Plan, including any site specific development standards. No variances or adjustments not included within the Precise Plan and Development Agreement are required for approval of the project. D. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's General Plan. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Goals and Polices section in the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide `an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. " The project represents a mix of commercial hotel and condominium development that will provide a mix of revenue generating land uses. The resort component has the potential to generate substantial revenues for the City in the form of transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax. The higher than average disposable incomes of future project residents and guests is also likely result in positive fiscal consequences for the City, which will fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities that the City provides to the residents and visitors. Goal 1 of the City's Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies section assures "An integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities." The proposed project is an integration of resort residential and upscale boutique hotel. Residential -serving commercial, including Fresh and Easy, Starbucks, and other neighborhood commercial services are within easy walking distance. Both the residents and hotel guests are also expected to make expenditures within the El Paseo commercial corridor. The project also constitutes a new hospitality and tourist commercial product that should complement the El Paseo village area. Goal 2 of the City's Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies section assures 'A pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses. " ON RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 As a part of the El Paseo commercial corridor and with its location on Highway 74, the proposed mixed residential/resort hotel will compliment and create synergies with the El Paseo village area. This type of mixed use supports the City's resort and retail commercial position in the City and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping essentially all project traffic on Highway 74, surrounding neighborhoods are not impacted by project traffic. As noted above and in the discussion under `Aesthetics", the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the adjoining streets (Highway 74 and Ocotillo Drive). Goal 1 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure a `A high quality of life provided within a livable, sustainable and balanced community with a distinct character consistent with the City's status as a premier resort community and important commercial center." The proposed project represents a new high -end resort hotel and resort residential development for the City of high quality design, amenities and value. In addition to the "boutique" hotel component, the project also provides high value residential units that capture both the visitor and part- time resident. The hotel's design and location are contiguous to the El Paseo commercial corridor, which it is expected to complement. The hotel also diversifies the offering of hotel accommodations in the City and should enhance the City's standing as a premier resort community. Goal 2 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure an 'An aesthetically pleasing community appearance achieved on all levels, which preserves and enhances the City's resort identity, community image and natural setting. " The proposed hotel/condo project brings a high level of architectural design to this portion of Highway 74. The project is a positive contribution to the City's architectural diversity and innovation, and should enhance the community image, as other development along and near the El Paseo corridor has done. The project is located in the heart of the City and is not near any natural open space or elevated terrain. Goal 3 of the City's General Plan's Community Design Goals and Policies states that the City shall assure "Standards of community design, architecture, and landscaping that enhance land use and development efficiencies and are integrated with the City's desert setting and natural scenic resources. " The proposed project introduces a high level of architectural and landscape design. It also achieves a high level of land use efficiency, providing 82 hotel rooms and 59 residential units on less than five acres. The project also uses a desert themed landscape plan that adheres to the City's xeriscape landscape guidelines. Being located in the urban 7 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 core of the City, and is located development the project is removed from natural open space areas along a highway with a high level of contiguous No map shall be approved unless the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted that the Planning Commission approved the project, considering the proposed project consistent with the General Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The project will result in the addition of 59 residential units on commercially zoned property. The General Plan does not quantitatively address density in the commercial land use section, however, the residential goals, policies, and programs has a goal to provide "a range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community" The density of this hotel does not conflict with the City's General Plan or any specific plans. In addition, the property is located in a Scenic Preservation Overlay District, which allows the City's Architectural Review Commission to consider preservation of scenic vistas. Though views from private development receive no special legal protections, the buildings were specifically redesigned with a partial fourth floor area reduction and that is set back an additional 45 feet from Highway 74 to minimize the impacts to the scenic vistas and impacts to the Sandpiper Residents to the west. The north building was redesigned by eliminating 12, 000 square feet and stepping back the partial fourth floor 45 feet from the north side of the building to minimize the visual impact to the Imago Art Gallery. Lastly, both buildings have incorporated step backs at the third and fourth floors along Ocotillo Drive, minimizing the size and massing of the project to the properties on the east side of the project. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; The design of the residential component will result in 59 air space condominium units. No physical lots for the residential units will be created. Goal 1 of the Residential Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element states that the City shall provide "a balanced range of housing types, densities and affordabilities that accommodate existing and future residents across all socio-economic sectors of the community." The proposed project broadens the range of residential product in the City by creating a unique resort residential product within the El Paseo village area that will be attractive to both seasonal and year-round residents. E:3 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Although the property is vacant today, 28 years ago there was an existing hotel and restaurant on the property. In addition, the City approved a much larger hotel project on this site in 1983. The site has physical improvements, such as curbs and utilities already providing service to the site. The property is suitable for the proposed development as conditioned and mitigated as described in the Initial Study and Environmental Assessment 4. The site is physically suitable for residential development. The proposed 4.97 acres is physically suitable for residential development with access provided to residents and hotel guests by two proposed driveways located on Highway 74. A separate service driveway leading to a below -grade enclosed service area is provided for deliveries, trash removal, and other service uses that is physically separated from residents or hotel guests. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the property is adjacent to residential properties to the south, east and west. 5. The design of the tract map or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study and Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project and all potential impacts are identified as less than significant. Mitigation measures have been identified and will be incorporated throughout the project construction and operation, as applicable. The project is located in the urban core of the City, has been subject to previous site disturbance and development, and its development will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the tract or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the tract map is consistent with all provisions of the zoning ordinance and the approved Precise Plan. The proposed development is subject to all applicable City development standards and the Uniform California Building Standards Code, which is developed under the Health and Safety Code (Section 18902), and whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any public easements acquired by the public. Approval of the project does include a future 9 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 vacation of the existing frontage road. Vacation of the frontage road for this project will not interfere with access to the remaining portions of the frontage road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the decision - making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Initial Study, and whole administrative record, on file with the City and available for review at City Hall, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Rules to Implement CEQA. SECTION 2. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Rules to Implement CEQA. The City further finds that the Project, as modified and mitigated, will not result in any significant environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received regarding the Project have been examined and determined to not modify the conclusions of the MND or the City Council. The City Council finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, provides adequate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. Relative to identified areas of potentially significant impact, the City Council finds as follows: A. Aesthetics The Project has gone through extensive City review and has been modified to reduce its size and massing to a sufficient degree that it will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, will not substantially damage scenic resources as seen from Highway 74 or surrounding properties, will not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site or area, and will not create a substantial source of light or glare that could affect day or nighttime views in the area. B. Air Quality The Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the PM10 State Implementation Plan or other applicable air quality plan, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 10 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 C. Noise The Project will not exposure people to or result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City General Plan or noise ordinance, will not generate or expose people to excessive levels of ground -borne noise or vibration, and will not result in a substantial permanent increase or temporary or periodic increase in local ambient noise levels. D. Land Use/Planning The Project is consistent with the General Plan Community Commercial and High Density Residential designations assigned to the subject property, consisting of a mixed project that will provide a high -end hotel and new residents with high discretionary incomes to help anchor El Paseo. The property does not physically divide an existing community, and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing a resort commercial center. Other aspects of the project, height, parking and setbacks are also found consistent based on application of the exceptions portion of the Planned Commercial District, and the Project Precise Plan and Development Agreement. E. Traffic The Project consists of a complementary mix of land uses that reduces off -site travel and will generate substantially less traffic than other previously approved land uses for this site. The Project will not generate a substantial increase in traffic or adversely affect roadway capacity. The Project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City of the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways in the vicinity. The Project will not result in a change in traffic patterns, traffic levels or a change in location that may results in substantial safety risks due to design features or other causes. The Project will not result in inadequate emergency access, inadequate parking or conflict with adopted transportation policies plans or programs. SECTION 3. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at City Hall for the City of Palm Desert, located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside within five (5) working days of approval of the Project. SECTION 6. Findings. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 11 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 SECTION 7. Approval. That the City Council does hereby approve: • A Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA Purposes, attached • Development Agreement 09-507, as provided in City Council Ord. No. • Precise Plan 09-507, provided as the site plan for the Project • CUP 09-507, as provided as the Conditions of Approval, attached • Vesting Tentative Tract Map 36284, as provided per the tract map for the Project PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council held on this day of 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor 12 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. DA/PP/CUP 09-507 and VTTM 36284 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801), the approved landscape plan, and the current addition of the City of Palm Desert Plant Maintenance Guide. 4. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. The applicant shall contact Burrtec Waste and Recycling, Inc. to provide trash and recycling services that shall include the provisions of and operation of a stinger/bin truck to maneuver the bins to a collection area above ground from within the underground service area. Depending on the location of the trash and recycle bins, the trash enclosures may be required and shall be consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 8.12 and other conditions, such as number, size, and location of enclosures to accommodate the required number of bins. All bins or enclosures must be screened from public view. 5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. The Art in Public Places Department recommends an onsite public art project for the hotel. 7. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess 13 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribe, the developer or archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return, or artifacts to tribe, etc.). 8. The applicant shall provide designated parking spaces that can be used for electric vehicles, golf carts and bicycles. 9. The proposed project shall meet the specifications of a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified Green Building. 10. Vehicular access or deliveries from Ocotillo Drive shall be prohibited. 11. Due to the parking modifications for tandem spaces and a reduction of parking stalls for actual use based on the traffic study provides, the applicant shall provided 100% valet parking for all employees, hotel guests, visitors, and residents. 12. The applicant shall submit design development plans to the Architectural Review Commission before review of the construction drawings by the City. 13. The Final Development Agreement shall be recorded within 30 days of final approval of the project by the City Council. 14. The future hotel operator shall provide the Community Development / Planning Department with a parking management plan, and traffic management plan for stacking within the project and potential stacking on Highway 74 for special events. Said parking and traffic management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Department of Building and Safety 15. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 16. If the project is constructed with the use of off -site parking, the applicant shall provide the Community Development / Planning Department with parking agreements from said property owners identified in the Parking Study before the issuance of any building permits are issued. 17. The applicant, its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any action, claim, or proceeding against the City that attacks, challenges, or seek to set aside this approval with the counsel chosen by the City, subject to the applicant's approval of counsel and expense at the sole of the applicant. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the applicant and cooperate in the defense. Applicant upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of the City Finance Director to cover any expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. This 14 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 condition does not prohibit the City from participating in the defense or action or proceeding. 18. The average hotel room within the Project is greater than five hundred (500) square feet 19. The Project includes breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurant dining services available to Project residents and guests seven (7) days per week; though, breakfast and lunch may be combined in a brunch service on weekends and holidays. 20. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of the Tract Map and any permits: 1. The tract map shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. 2. The tract map shall record before the condominium plan. The map recording information shall be referenced on the condo plan. A copy of the grant deeds relative to the conveyance of the units shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review prior to recording the condominium plan and deeds. 3. The applicant shall submit CC&R's concurrently with the map for review and approval by the City. Once approved by the City, the CC&R's shall be recorded with the County Recorder's office. 4. The map shall accommodate for 59' of half street of right-of-way along Highway 74. 5. Reciprocal access easement and drainage easement shall be provided for on the tract map. 6. A drainage easement for the benefit of the public to accommodate northerly flows on the frontage road shall be included on the map. 7. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of all off -site improvements. Improvements shall include: a. The installation of a deceleration lane. Design shall be per the approved site plan. b. The installation of an 8' ADA compliant sidewalk and curb ramps on Highway 74. Design shall be per the approved site plan. c. All overhead utility lines shall be placed underground. d. Modify the existing curb adjacent sidewalk on Ocotillo to current ADA standards. 8. The frontage road shall be accessible on the north and south sides per the design of the approved site plan. 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 10. This map may include existing survey monuments that may be disturbed through construction activities. Certain existing survey monumentation may be deemed necessary for preservation and perpetuation subsequent to final construction improvements associated with this project. All survey monuments deemed necessary for perpetuation as recommended by the design civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be identified and shown on the final map for perpetuation. Such survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and if disturbed replaced after construction pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a statement noting whether any monuments will be disturbed and submit monumentation security as determined by the Department of Public Works. 11. The applicant shall submit clearance letters from all utility companies. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 12. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 13. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The Operation and Maintenance section of the approved WQMP shall be recorded with Riverside County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works department. 14. Submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 15. Submit a site -specific geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist. 16. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 17. Submit a landscape plan concurrently with the grading plan for review and approval. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicant must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. 16 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 Applicant must have a stamp or signature from the County Agricultural Commissioner before City approval. 18. Any changes to the civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 19. A Landscape Maintenance Agreement is required and needs to be recorded to maintain landscaping as installed per the approved landscape plan. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY: Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC) 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC) 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards) 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1173. 3. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2007 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 4. All exits must provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 1133B.8 and 1127B.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 6. Provide an ADA accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be ADA accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building & Safety. 7. Please note all residential units are required to comply with CBC Chapter 11 A and hotel units must meet requirements of CBC Chapter 11 B. 8. Public pools and spas shall be approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and then submitted to Department of Building & Safety. Pools and spas for public use are required to be ADA accessible. 9. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-72 10. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 11. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1173 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1173 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1173 or Municipal Code Section 15.15 from the Department of Building & Safety counter staff. 12. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of Building & Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, 2007 California Building and Fire Codes with applicable NFPA and or any other nationally recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department shall set the minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of al buildings per California Fire Code Appendix B. 2. The applicant shall provide a fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure from a permanently installed Fired Hydrant before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The applicant shall provided proof the existing water system is capable of providing the minimum necessary gpm fire flow for 3000 gpm for commercial buildings prior to any project approvals. 4: The applicant shall provide the required fire flow from a permanent wet Barrel Super Hydrant with 1-4" and 2-21/2" discharge outlets located not less than 25' and nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway way prior to any building permits approvals. 5. The applicant shall submit water plans to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system is capable of providing the required fire flow. 6. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all fire appliances including Post Indicator Valves, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants. All Fire Appliances shall not be within 25 feet of a building and all Fire Department Connections shall be within 50 feet of a Fire Hydrant. M RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 8. The applicant shall install a complete NFPA 72 Fire Alarm/Sprinkler Monitoring system as required by the 2007 California Building and Fire Code. 9. The applicant shall install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA 10. The applicant shall install a minimum of 1-2A10BC Fire Extinguisher for every 3,000 square feet, 3' to 5' above grade with no more than 75' walking distance from any point of the business to the extinguisher. The applicant shall install a W' class fire extinguisher as required for commercial kitchens within 30' of the hazard area. 10. The applicant shall install a Hood/Duct Fire Suppression system as per NFPA 96 for all public commercial and private cooking operations with the exception of a single-family residence. 11. The applicant shall install an all weather Fire Department accessible roadway extending to any portion of the building where as a 150' hose lay can be utilized for the inaccessible building perimeter. Construction type of the same shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be rated for 80,000 lbs. Turf block will not be accepted. Fire lane access roadway minimum width is 20' and height clearance is 13'6" Public roadway minimum unobstructed width is 36' with parking on both sides. A Fire Apparatus Turn around shall be provided for dead end streets in excess of 150' in length with approved cul-de-sac or hammer head dimensions. 12. Knox access devices shall be provided as follows: • A Knox Padlock for every manual gated entrance. 13. The applicant shall install an illuminated building address in accordance to the city standards for size and location. The building address shall be installed on the building in an unobstructed locale and the color shall be contrasting to background. 14. The applicant shall submit three sets of the following plans for review including tenant improvement: • Fire Alarm System • Sprinkler System • Fire Main Underground • Hood Suppression System • Site Plan to Scale 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 19 RESOLUTION NO.2011-72 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. CASE NOS: DA/PP/CUP 09-507AND VTTM 36284 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PDH Partners, LLC 9355 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90210 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A Development Agreement, Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a proposed 82 Room Hotel and 59 Unit Residential Condominium project with ancillary uses and amenities on 4.97± gross acres of vacant land (4.27± acres) and to -be -vacated frontage road (0.7± acres) located east of Highway 74, west of Ocotillo Drive, and South of the Imago Art Gallery. The subject property address is known as 45-640 Highway 74. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20