Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/20/2006 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.D. Sep 20 2006 3: 08PH Law Offices of Babak Nafi (805) 593-0946 P- 1 Law Offices of Bnhak Naflcy wutT" FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET �: •,.� „yy DATE; 9J20/06 Nl1MtiER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 7 •a: ?�' FROM: BahakNafwy TO: FAX NUMBER: City of Palm Springs 760-323-8207 v 736 F1lguera,3uile B RE: Palm� P.O. Box 13728 San Lu MESSAGE;ls Obispo • California 93406 See attached ph'805-593-0426 Fax:805-593-0946 boboknallepN:h[Qlebal.met This message is intended only for the use of the IndividuollsJ or entity to which ii is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received This communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and return the original message by mail.Thank you. If document is not received complete and In good condition, please call(805)593-0924 Z)9/ 26/Z00 �eiB�.JL' 0�S a'r• Sep 20 2008 3s09pN Law ❑P ioes of Habak NaFi (8051 S93-0946 p. 2 ; y r Low Offices of 13abak N ffiey September 20,2006 Tay Facsimile-Only ` • ldonorable Mayor Members of City Council City of Palm Springs, 3200 E, Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 93301 fax (760)323-8207 T RE. Application of'Wessman Holdings,LLC for Palm Hotel Case No. 5,1089 PD 322 738 Higuera.Suite B PO. Box i 3728 Honorable Nlayor and City Council members, son Luib Obispo California 90406 For the Following reasons, I strongly urge you not to approve above-referenced ph.805-5934926 application. fox 805-593-0946 I. The project is Grossly inconsistent with the character of the neighbor nod. boEtokncncy4T,pcjcBal nol Auer considering its size and,scale,the Architectural Advisory Cornmittee "AAC" concluded that the proposed project should be denied because it is does not fit the character and historic nature of the neighborhood. It will block views of the mountains, and tower over the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood and is otherwise inconsistent with the character of this historic neighborhood. The City Staff has not provided any rational basis for ignoring the ACC's analysis or conclusion. For the.City to depart from the ACC's conclusions with cogent analysis establishing a contrary conclusion would be arbitrary and capricious. 2. The Planning Commission's approval of the project is null and void because the Commission's consideration of the11roject was tainted by the erroneous belief that the City is bpand by the terms of the Owner Participation Agreement. The evidence is.clear that at the time the Planning Commission considered and voted on this project, its members; and likely,-the Planning Staff;were operating under the false assumption that the City was strictly bound by the terms of the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) between the applicant and the Community Redevelopment Agency. It Sep 20 2006 3: 09PM Law dFFices of Bebak Nafi (an$) 593-0946 p. 3 appears that at the time of their deliberations, some or all members of the Planning Commission believed that they lacked the authority and discretion to impose conditions or deny the project even if they concluded that-the project,as proposed, violates the City's General Plan or zoning regulations. As such, it would appear that the Commission's approval of the project as proposed was so tainted by this clearly false assumption that the decision most be considered null and void. The project should be sent back to the Planning Commission,to reconsider the project in light of City Attorney's correct conclusion that the "OPA does not restrict or limit the City's ability to review the Wessman Company's application. . . . and the City Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the,applieation as provided in the City's Planning Code." 3. The proposed project violates height restrictions and cannot qualify For an exception to this restriction- Section 94.03X0( C) provides that the planning commission and the city council shall establish a full range of development standards appropriate to the orderly development of the site which shall include the following: i. Building heights shall conform to the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Structures which cxceed permitted heights shall be subject to the requirements of Sections 93.03.00 and 93.04.00. As the Planning Conunission Staff Report' explains on page 4,the project's proposed 44 foot height far exceeds the R-3 zone's 30 foot height restriction for hotels. Because high-rise buildings are not permitted in-R-3 zone,on its face„the project must fail as a"high-rise" unless the site is re-zoned, , The 44 foot height meets the definition of high-rise buildings pursuant to section 93.04,00, but as the Planning Staff'admit, "the project does not meet the setback requirements for high rise buildings." According to section 93.04.00.C.1., "[a] high-rise building shall have a minimum setback of three (3) fact of horizontal setback for each.oue (1)foot of vertical rise of the building.'„ Accordingly, this project would require a minimum setback of 132 feet from the street or.property lines. According to the Staff Report, as proposed,the building will have setbacks ranging firm 3.4 feet to approximately 17 feet, far short of the minimum required wader the ordinance. It should be noted that the Staff Report simply fails to quantify the setback requirement mandated by the ordinance. it Unless otherwise noted, all references to Staff Reports are to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 10, 2006. Page 2 of 6 l Sep 20 200S 3: 0SPM Law Offices of Habak Mafi _ (805) SSa-0$46 p. 4 The Staff Report also fails to explain that the proposed project cannot qualify for a height variance under the high-rise definition also because pursuant to 93,04.00.A, "[s] ixty (60) percent of a site area for high-rise building shall be developed as usable landscaped open space and outdoor living and recreation area and shall be so designated'on the site plan." According to the Planning Staff Report(table page 5), only 45.9%of the site is set aside for open space, leaving the project far short of the minimum open space requirement under the ordinance. For these reasons, the project cannot be approved as proposed because to do so would be in violation of the City's clearly defined height restrictions. 4- The City cannot grant reductions in minimum set back requirements unless the Project is consistent with 93.04.011 C)(3) The Planning Commission Staff Report explains that the proposed reduced setbacks do not meet the R-3 zoning requirements. See, Staff Report at Page 4. In the section of the Deport entitled"Required Findings,"the Staff recommends that the City make a finding that"the proposed PD is intended to allow flexibility to provide reduced setbacks ' Page 6. But the text of 93.04A0(C)(3) provides that "[f]ront yard setbacks compatible with the existing or potential development adjacent and/or opposite from existing development shall be required to provide for an orderly and uniform transition along streetscape to preserve, protect and enhance the-propertics adjacent to the proposed PD." The Staff Report does not consider or analyze whether the proposed reduced setbacks' would be compatible with the adjacent or opposite properties. Accordingly,there is no analysis from which the City could decide whether the compatibility requirement of 93.04.00( C)(3) is met The City is therefore precluded from making'a finding that granting the requested reduced setback would be consistent with the mandatory requirements of 93.04.00( C)(3). Without such a finding, the request for reduced setbacks must be denied. S. The transfer of density to this site is not_autharized try an provision of the City Planning Code. According to the General Plan, the site is located in a high density residential zone which allows a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre, Accordingly,the project site can accommodate up to 36 units. See,Planning Commission Staff Report, at 3_'The proposed project would consists of 48 units, The Stag explains this,discrepancy by referring to the OPA, which according to the Staff"allows the applicant a transfer of density bonus from the "Winter"s"property" lbw- As explained by the City Attorney,the OPA is not binding on the City. Therefore the City is not under any mandate to permit the transfer of density credits. Moreover, at the present time,there does not exist within the City a mechanism for orderly regulation of transfer of density from on site to another_ Absent such a mechanism,the proposed transfer of density Page 3 of 6 . 1 1 Sep 20 2006 3: t79PM Law Offices of Babak Nafi t8051 593-OS46 p. 5 1 v for the project is without legal authority and should not be approved. 6. The Prposed Project is not categorically-exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act Planning Staff has concluded that project is categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15332, which exempts in-fill projects (class 32) from environmental review. This project is not subject to a Categorical Exemption because the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations, and due to unusual circumstances, it is likely Lo cause one or more adverse environmental impacts. To qualify for a categorical exemption as an in-fill project within the meaning of Section 15332, the project must be consistent with the applicable general plan and all applicable zoning designations and regulations. 15332(a). The AAC found that the project was inconsistent with the general plan goals and policies designed to protect the character of historic downtown neighborhood and to provide for orderly development of the area. Moreover,the project as proposed,violates the zoning guidelines with respect to setbacks, height restrictions, open space,parking space, etc. Because the prop;ct as proposed is inconsistent with general plan goals and policies and does not comply with all zoning regulations, it is not subject to a categorical exemption pursuant to section 15332. ?Moreover, Guideline 15300.2(c) provides that a categorical exemption shall not be used where there is a reasonable possibility aproject'rlay have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. As several of tile continents on this project have explained, the project is likely to have an adverse aesthetic impact by blocking views'of the hills to the north of the project site. Moreover,as explained by the AAC,the project as proposed is likely adversely affect the character of the historic downtown district. As such, the project is likely to cause one or more adverse envirozLmental impacts within the meaning of CEQA. The circumstances surrounding this project are unusual within the meaning of section 15300.2 because of the project's proximity to undeveloped natural resources to the north of the project, and the historic nature of the neighborhood to the south and east. Moreover, the project is unusual because the City is proposing to exempt the project from the strict application of several zoning regulations including those establishing maximum density and height, as well as minimum parking and set back requirements. Likewise,the project is unusual because the City has proposed to transfer additional density to the site in contravention of the general plan density designation. For all these reasons,the project is not categorically exempt from CEQA, Accordingly, before the project can be considered for approval,the City must undertake adequate Page 4 of 6 Sep 20 2006 3: 1OPM Law Offices of nabak Nafi (8051 593-0946 p. 5 environmental review in the form of an Initial Study to determine whether to prepare an Bnviromnental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration. 7. The PD, as anolied vioLates the iGovernment Code. The City proposes to approve the project as a Planned Development District or PD,pursuant to 94.03.00. Pursuant to this designation,the City proposes to grant the project what amounts to a variance from the strict application of several zoning regulations. The regulations include height restrictions, off-site parking, minimum setbacks, and maximum density requirements. See,Platniing Commission Staff Report at 4. As explained above, even with the"flexibility" of a PD, the City cannot grant a Vaiver with respect to the height restriction because the R-3 zone does not permit high-rise hotels and the project cannot meet the minimum setback and open-space requirement for a high-rise. Likewise, it is not clear that even under the PD designation, the reduction in minimum setback requirements is appropriate. But if the PD ordinance (section 94,03,00) can be read so broadly as to grant the.City the discretion to grant all requested variances Som zoning regulations, the ordinance would nm afoul of the California Government Code. Government Cade § 65906, entitled, Granting variances, provides that Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. Although cloaked in the language of PD District, the•"flexibility" the City believes it is afforded by section 94.03.00 to waive the strict application of the zoning regulations squarely meets the definition of an illegal zoning variance pursuant to §65906. The City has not identified any "special eircumstatices"pursuant to which, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the project applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property in, vicinity and under the same zoning classification. As such, the approving the project as Page 5 of 6 Sep 20 2005 3: 1OPM Law Offices of Babak Mafi LHOS] S93-0946 p. 7 proposed, including the "flexibility"to deviate from the strict application of zoning requirements would be in violation of.§65906. ]Moreover, it would appear that the City's interpretation of section 94.03.00 runs afoul of Gov, Code §65852, entitled Uniformity of regulations, which provides that'[a]ll such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones," In this case, through application of the FD District to the project,the City poised to apply a_ unique set of rules to this project alone,while a more strict set of development rules have been applied to other area residents. This unfair application of zoning regulations is in violation of§65852, which was enacted to avoid Iles kind of abuse. Accordingly, the City's broad interpretation of its discretion to ",flex"the rules for this project puts into serious doubt the continued validity of section 94.03,00. Conclusion_ For all these reasons,I strongly urge you not to approve the project as proposed. Sincerely, Babak Naficy Page 6 of 6 r p PAM sa ti c ca n C' °wuno' P Pop CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE. September 20, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: THE PALMS HOTEL — CASE NO. 5.1089, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 322, AN APPLICCATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY BOUTIQUE HOTEL WITH 51 ROOMS INCLUDING 11 SUITES, ROOF TERRACE AREA WITH CABANAS, A RESTAURANT, A BAR, A WATER FEATURE, AND SWIMMING POOL ON AN APPROXIMATELY 36,217 SQUARE FEET SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CAHUILLA ROAD. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider a proposed four-story boutique hotel with 51 rooms, including 11 suites, roof terrace area with cabanas, a restaurant, a bar, water feature and a swimming pool and off-street parking facility along with the environmental assessment. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony- 2- Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE NUMBER 5.1089, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 322, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A 51-UNIT BOUTIQUE HOTEL, ON APPROXIMATELY 36,217 SQUARE. FEET PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CAHUILLA ROAD, SECTION 15." PRIOR ACTIONS: On January 23, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC), considered the proposed project design, and voted 4-0-1 (abstain), to recommend denial of the project. At the review of the proposed development, the AAC made these observations: Item No. 1 . D . City Council Staff Report September 20,2006--Page 2 5 1069-PD-322 • The overall architecture is good. • The proposed building mass does not have an appropriate relationship to the site or the surroundings, especially the west elevation. • That the applicant could be more creative with the parking solutions. • The density would fit, however additional architectural treatment is needed. The AAC also recommended that should the Planning Commission vote for a recommendation to approve the proposed project, the applicant will be required to bring back the project to the Committee for restudy of the architecture. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 10, 2006, to consider the proposed project, At the meeting, after presentations by staff and the applicant, and public comments, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the hearing to the meeting of May 24, 2006. Furthermore, the Planning Commission asked staff to provide further clarifications on the following questions: • The setback of the Le Vallauris property • The applicant's off-site parking program • Additional parking requirements for the proposed restaurant and employees • The applicability of the Downtown Design Guidelines to this project • The applicability of the "Owner Participation Agreement" (Settlement Agreement) on the Commission's decision making process. The detailed responses to these questions are provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated May 24, 2006. At the meeting of May 24, 2006, the project was again reviewed by the Planning Commission which adopted a favorable recommendation to City Council (by a vote of 5-2). The Planning recommended an additional condition of approval which requires the applicant to provide parking spaces for the restaurant and employees of the future establishment. STAFF ANALYSIS: The project consists of a Planned Development District (PDD) to establish design standards and guidelines for the proposed 51-unit boutique hotel. The proposed four-story hotel building with a swimming pool on 36,217 square feet will be located at the southwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Cahuilla Road. The subject site is made up of two vacant parcels surrounded primarily by existing hotels, restaurant and other commercial uses. As proposed, the project area will include a total building area of 50,331 square feet. The property is generally rectangular and largely flat with the shorter street frontage along Tahquitz Canyon Way. To the north of the site, across Tahquitz Canyon Way is the vacant Desert Fashion Plaza. To the south is the Casa Cody Inn building, to the City Council Staff Report September 20,2006--Page 3 5 1089-PD-322 east across Cahuilla Road is an existing three-story hotel structure and to the west is the Le Vallauris Restaurant. The General Plan designation of the subject site is H43/30 (High density residential.- allowing a maximum of 30 dwelling units per net acre). The zoning designation is R-3, which allows the development of multiple-family residential, hotels, resort housing and certain limited commercial uses under the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code. Restaurants are also permitted uses within the R-3 zoning designation, provided that the use is an integral part of the hotel and located within the same building. The applicant is proposing a density of approximately 42 units per acre, which exceeds the maximum density allowed within the zoning designation. However, the application includes a Planned Development District and a development agreement between the applicant and the City dated June 2, 2004, and titled "Owner Participation Agreement" (Attachment 3), that addresses the scope and use of the proposed hotel site. Also, the development agreement allows the applicant a transfer of density bonus from the "Winter's" property, located adjacent to the proposed hotel site. Table 2: A comparison of requirements for the R-3 zone and the proposed Planned Development Standards is seen on this table. R-3 Zoning Code Requirement Proposed PD Standard Allows multiple-family projects and hotel Same developments Minimum lot size: 20,000 SF 36,217 s.f. and 51,990 s.f. with the addition of the transferred density Minimum lot width: 130 Feet Approximately 178 Feet Minimum lot depth_ 150 Feet __,6pp-roximately 204 Feet Density: Minimum 1,000 sf/du lot area of a hotel or Approximately 710 sf/du lot area per the resort hotel with surface parking. A minimum development agreement of 800 sf/du with underground parking (51 DU this project) Height: Up to 30 feet for hotels 44 Feet, 4 Stories Setbacks at Property Lines North: 25 feet Approximately 3.4 feet South: 25 feet Approximately 13 feet East: 25 feet 17 feet West: 25 feet 15 feet Parking: 1 per room for the first 50 rooms 34 on-site spaces and 17 off-site spaces are being provided Open Space: 45% 145.9% Coverage: 30% 39% City Council Staff Report September 20,2006--Page 4 5.1089-PD-322 Table 2: Exhibit "B" of the Owner Participation Agreement Criteria R-3 Development Proposed Allowed Allowed Standards Project project Yield Project Yield on Wessman's on both project properties combined Minimum Lot 20,000 sq. ft. Meets standard 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. Size minimum lot size (36,900 sq. ft.) minimum lot minimum lot size size Density 1:1,000 sq. ft. 48 units 36 units 51 units Building 30'over no more 4 stories (42- 30' over no 30' over no Height than 50% of 44) more than 50% more than 50% without High ground floor area of ground floor of ground floor Rise area. area. Ordinance Open Space 45% 22,950 s.f. 22,950 s.f. If all of Winter under R-3 before bay before bay were counted Standards parking and parking and (as part of a (not High driveways driveways total of51,900 Rise) (approx. 16,000 (approx. 16,000 s.f.) as open s.f.)- comes s.f.)- comes space would be close to 45% close to 45% about 61% Parking 1 for each room 22 spaces on Would need 48 Would need 51 up to 50 rooms; site, remainder spaces spaces 0.75 for each by covenant room over 50 rooms Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (A) of the Zoning Code, a planned development district (PD) may be approved in lieu of a change of zone as specified in Section 94.07.00. The PD is requested for this project to allow relief from several development criteria. • The project proposes a four-story building with a height of 44 feet; hotel structures within the R-3 zoned areas are limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. The proposed height of 44 feet meets the definition of a high-rise building per Section 93.04.00 of the zoning ordinance. As proposed, the project does not meet the setback requirement for high-rise buildings as envisioned by the Owner Participation Agreement; the PD will provide the flexibility to deviate from the requirements of the Zoning Code. • Flexibility is also needed to allow off-site parking for the project. The parking requirement for hotels requires 1 parking space per room for the first 50 rooms, which will require a total of 51 spaces for this project. The applicant is proposing only 34 spaces on-site and 17 additional off-site spaces across from the City Council Staff Report September 20,2006--Page 5 5.1089-PD-322 proposed site. The Planning Commission conditioned its approval to include a requirement that additional off-site parking be provided to account for restaurant and employee parking. The applicant owns and operates a parking structure across from the subject site which is less than 150 feet from the proposed hotel location. • A minimum of 25 feet setback is required within the R-3 zoning areas. The applicant is proposing approximately 18 feet setback from the property line along Cahuilla Road, 15 feet setback from the property line westerly of the project site, approximately 17 feet setback along the easterly portion and approximately 3.5 feet setback from the property line along Tahquitz Canyon Way. • The PD will provide flexibility for the proposed density of the development. Per the R-3 Zoning standards, a minimum of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit lot area is required of hotels or resort hotels with surface parking. A minimum of 800 square feet per dwelling unit lot area is required for hotels or resort hotels with underground parking. The applicant is proposing approximately 710 square feet dwelling unit lot area per the Owner Participation Agreement, but also consistent with the General Plan policies. A more detailed analysis can be seen in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 25, 2006. Findings in support of approving the proposed subdivision are included in the attached draft resolution of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the project is not subject to any further environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT: Finance Director Review: No fiscal impact. __?!;1 — CQ" I F�ving, AIfP Thomas Wils Assistant City Manager Director of Planni0 Services David H. Ready, ity pa er City Council Staff Report September 20,2006--Page 6 5.1089-PO-322 Attachments! 1. Vicinity Map 2, Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval 3. Reduced Site Plans and Elevations 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 5/10/06 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/10/06 (Excerpts) 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 5/24/06 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/24/06 (Excerpts) S. Copy of the Owner Participation Agreement N Department of Planning Services W E ^; Vicinity Map LU 0 s z TAHQUITt DR ,ni - IE Ilk- 0 0 J Q J � 4 a �mC] ARENAS RD Legend ® site O C7 500'Radius J CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1089 PD-322 DESCRIPTION- Application to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites, roof terrace area with APPLICANT: Wessman Holdings, LLC cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and for The Palm Hotel pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. APN: 513-141-013, 513-141-004. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE NUMBER 5.1089, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 322, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A 51-UNIT BOUTIQUE HOTEL SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 36,217 SQUARE FEET PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CAHUILLA ROAD, ZONED R-3, SECTION 15. WHEREAS, Wessman Holdings, LLC (the "Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, for Planned Development District 322 and site development approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered an infill "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and no further Environmental Assessment is required for this project in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Planned Development District 322 and proposed related development was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2006, a public hearing on the application for project was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider said Case Number 5.1089 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2006, a public hearing on the application for the project was held by City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, this project is not subject to any further environmental review. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (E) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.07.00 (A)(1) and 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The proposed planned development is consistent with the general plan in recognizing that Planned Districts allow departures from strict provisions of zone classifications while providing flexibility for compatible land uses. The proposed project conforms to most development standards provided within the R-3 development standards with the application of a Planned Development District. The proposed PD is intended to allow flexibility to provide reduced setbacks, off-street parking and increased density, up to that allowed by the General Plan. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. The project site is relatively flat, bounded on two sides by streets, and can accommodate the hotel use envisioned by the General Plan and the proposed development. Access is available to the site along the two streets. All the necessary amenities required for the kind of the proposed use are being provided. The required parking spaces could not be provided on-site due to the size of the parcel however, the applicant is proposing additional off-street parking spaces to serve the hotel. The distance between the site and the off-street parking space is less than 150 feet. C. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. A planned development district is necessary to accommodate the proposed type of hotel development incorporating varying building heights, hardscape and landscape features consistent with hotel development in the surrounding. The development is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents because the proposed use is not substantively different than those already envisioned by the General Plan, and existing land uses in the vicinity. Furthermore, the hotel development will be compatible with the existing land uses in the general vicinity. Surrounding uses include hotels, restaurants and other commercial uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the architectural design of the project, and recommends that the City Council approve Case Number 5.1089 and PD-322. ADOPTED this 20" day of September, 2006. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA James Thompson, City Clerk David H. Ready, City Manager EXHIBIT A Case No. 5.1089-PD-322 THE PALM HOTEL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON AND CAHUILLA ROAD September 20, 2006 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Administrative 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case No. 5.1089-PD-322. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parkways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 4. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of $64.00 is required. This project has a de minimus impact on fish and wildlife, and a Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be completed by the City and two copies filed with the County Clerk. This application shall not be final until such fee is paid and the Certificate of Fee Exemption is filed. Fee shall in the form of a money order or cashier's check payable to Riverside County. 6. This project shall be subject to Chapters 224 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial or industrial projects, 1/4% for new residential subdivisions, or 114% for new individual single-family residential units constructed on a lot located in an existing subdivision with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning Services and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 6. The developer shall reimburse the City for the City's costs incurred in monitoring the developer's compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, including, but not limited to inspections and review of developers operations and activities for compliance with all applicable dust and noise operations, and cultural resource mitigation. This condition of approval is supplemental and in addition to normal building permit and public improvement permits that may be required pursuant to the Palm Springs Municipal Code, CC&R's 7. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit three (3) sets of a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning Services for approval in a form to be approved by the City ,Ir �, Attorney, to be recorded prior to certificate of occupancy. The CC&Rs shall be submitted with a list of the adopted conditions of approval and an indication of where applicable conditions are addressed in the CC&Rs. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. 8. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $3500, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney_ A filing fee, in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the City Council, shall also be paid to the City Planning Services Department for administrative review purposes. 9. The CC&R's shall have a disclosure statement regarding the location of the project relative to roadway noise, City special events, roadway closures for special events and other activities which may occur in the Central Business District, Desert Museum and Desert Fashion Plaza. Said disclosure shall inform perspective buyers about traffic, noise and other activities which may occur in this area. Cultural Resources 10. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing and grubbing, installation of utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, shall be employed to survey the area for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on the ground surface. Final Design 11. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning Services, prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. All landscaping located within the public right of way or within community facilities districts must be approved by the Public Works Director and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 12. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. 13. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning Services prior to the issuance of building permits. q F � Pp Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building and in the landscaping shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. No lighting of the hillside is permitted. 14. The applicant shall be required to take the project back to the Architectural Advisory Committee for review, upon a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission, 15. The applicant shall provide a total of 73 parking spaces for the hotel guests, the restaurant and employees of the establishment. (Added by PC on May 24, 2006) Public Safety CFD GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 16- Architectural approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 17. The appeal period for this application is 15 calendar days from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded. 18. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 20. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 21. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 22. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. 23. All awnings shall be maintained and periodically cleaned. y ' 24. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance- The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening- Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. 25. No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas. 26. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D. 27. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 28- Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit. 29. Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. 30- No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 31. Vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed development including company vehicles or employees vehicles shall not be permitted to park off the proposed building site unless a parking management plan has been approved. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. 33- Loading space facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 9307.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Said facilities shall be indicated on the site plan and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 34. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide, compact sized spaces shall be 15 feet deep by 8 feet wide- Handicap parking spaces shall be 13 feet deep by 9 feet wide plus a 5 foot walkway at the right side of the parking space; two (2) handicap spaces can share a common walkway. One in every eight (8) handicap accessible spaces, but not less than one (1), shall be served by an 8 foot walkway on the right side and shall be designated as "van accessible". 35. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property. 36. Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per Section 93.06.00.C.10. 37. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls, fences, buildings, or other structures. Areas that are not part of the maneuvering area shall have curbs placed at a minimum of two (2) feet from the face of walls, fences or buildings adjoining driveways. 38. Parking lot light fixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to three feet from curb face. 39. Islands of not less than 9 feet in width with a minimum of 6 feet of planter shall be provided every 10 parking spaces. Additional islands may be necessary to comply with shading requirements. 40. Shading requirements for parking lot areas as set forth in Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. Details to be provided with final landscape plan. 41. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double stripe - hairpin or elongated "U" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall provide wheel stops. 42. Concrete walks with a minimum width of two (2) feet shall be installed adjacent to end parking spaces or end spaces shall be increased to eleven (11) feet wide. 43. Tree wells shall be provided within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of six feet in diameter/width. r��� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: STREETS 1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 3. Vacation of right-of-way is required to facilitate the proposed development application. An application for the right-of-way vacation of the westerly 5 feet of Cahuilla Road along the project frontage shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for separate processing and approval. Upon a finding by the Planning Commission that there is no significant impact to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the proposed neighborhood, in accordance with General Plan Policy 7.1.6, a reduced right-of-way width of 45 feet may be approved for Cahuilla Road. As required, coordinate final relocation, adjustment or abandonment of all utilities with the respective utility companies, and demolition of all existing improvements, reconstruction of affected intersecting streets, and coordination of improvements with adjacent property owners, as appropriate, with the Engineering Division. All agreements and improvement plans relative to the above mentioned items shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the submittal of the street improvement plans. The right-of-way vacation application shall be submitted and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the Precise Grading and Paving Plan. 4. Removal of decorative enhancements to Tahquitz Canyon Way is required to facilitate the proposed development. The existing raised, landscaped median installed as a requirement of Case 5.0804, Planned Development 254, and Tentative Tract Map 29077 (otherwise known as the "Palm Springs Villas") was required in response to specific City Council direction to provide for an enhanced entryway on Tahquitz Canyon Way to the project and properties in that area, as indicated in Resolution 20393 adopted on July 17, 2002. The proposed service driveway on Tahquitz Canyon Way at Museum Way conflicts with the existing raised, landscaped median. The applicant shall be required to submit a proposal for an alternative aesthetic treatment subject to the review and approval of the Le Vallauris restaurant (located at 385 W. Tahquitz Canyon Way), the Villas Homeowners Association, and the Willows Historic Palm Springs hotel (located at 412 W. Tahquitz Canyon Way). Pending their concurrent approval, which can not be unreasonably withheld upon a determination by the City Engineer and Director of Planning Services, the alternative aesthetic treatment to replace the median shall be subject to the review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council as an element of Planned Development 322. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY 5. Dedicate an additional right-of-way for a property line - corner cut-back at the northeast corner of the subject property in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105_ 6. Remove the existing street improvements as necessary to construct a 15 feet wide driveway approach for service access, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. The centerline of the driveway approach shall be located a minimum of 12 feet east of the west property line. 7. Subject to approval of an alternative aesthetic treatment on Tahquitz Canyon Way, to facilitate access to the proposed service driveway the existing landscaped median located in Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be removed, and street pavers matching the existing pavers in Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be installed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and the Villas Homeowners Association. 8. Remove the existing street improvements as necessary to construct a 26 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. The centerline of the driveway approach shall be located approximately 80 feet west of the centerline of Cahuilla Road. Access to the driveway shall be limited to ingress only. Appropriate signage and striping shall be installed regulating the use of this driveway for ingress only, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. 9. All existing "Heritage Trail' sidewalk, bikepath, and landscaping improvements along the Tahquitz Canyon Way frontage shall remain in place except where removals are required for proposed driveways. 10. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the Tahquitz Canyon Way frontage where removals are required, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 11, All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. CAHUILLA ROAD 12, Remove the existing street improvements as necessary to construct a driveway approach to accommodate bay parking stalls along the Cahullla Road frontage in ., n accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. Bay parking stalls shall be located completely on-site, and not within public right-of-way. Bay parking shall be restricted within 35 feet from the north property line; the two most northerly bay parking stalls shown on the preliminary Site Plan shall be deleted. Paving material for bay parking shall be decorative paving, colored and/or patterned to relate to the overall design, in accordance with Palm Springs Zoning Code 93,06.00 C15e. 13. Remove the existing street improvements as necessary to construct a 27 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. The centerline of the driveway approach shall be located approximately 20 feet from the south property line. The driveway approach shall be a combined access to the proposed trash enclosure and a 14 feet wide egress lane. Access to the driveway shall be limited to egress only. Appropriate signage and striping shall be installed regulating the use of this driveway for egress only, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. 14. Dedicate an easement 4 feet wide along the back of the driveway approach for sidewalk purposes. 15. Construct a varying width (5 feet minimum) sidewalk west of the proposed bay parking stalls (on-site) along the Cahuilla Road frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. The sidewalk shall be constructed with colored Portland Cement concrete. The admixture shall be Palm Springs Tan, Desert Sand, or approved equal color by the Engineering Division. 16. Construct access ramps for the proposed sidewalk, as necessary, meeting applicable City standards. 17. Dedicate an easement for sidewalk purposes, as necessary, for the proposed sidewalk located on-site and west of the proposed bay parking stalls along the entire frontage. 18. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 2'% inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire Cahuilla Road frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval_ 19. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. ON-SITE 20. The on-site layout of parking spaces is subject to further review and approval by the City Engineer. Deletion or relocation of proposed parking spaces may be required during review and approval of construction plans for on-site improvements, as required by the City Engineer. Approval of the preliminary site plan does not constitute approval of the on-site layout of parking spaces as proposed. 21. The minimum pavement section for all on-site pavement shall be 2'/z inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal. If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. SANITARY SEWER 22. Any existing sewer system located on-site shall be removed. Sewer service to adjacent properties (if any) shall be maintained by reconnection to the public sewer system, in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 23. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. The existing sewer service to the property may be used for new sanitary facilities. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. GRADING 24. Submit a Precise Grading and Paving Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The Precise Grading and Paving Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit. 25, A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Precise Grading and Paving plan. 26. The first submittal of the Precise Grading and Paving Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy of current Title Report; a copy of Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report. 27. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 28. A soils report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading Plan. 29. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Precise Grading and Paving Plan. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208). DRAINAGE 30. Provisions for the interception of nuisance water from entering adjacent public streets from the project site shall be provided through the use of a minor storm drain system that collects and conveys nuisance water to drywells, landscape or parkway areas, and in only a stormwater runoff condition, pass runoff directly to the streets through parkway or under sidewalk drains. 31. This project may be required to install measures in accordance with applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's) included as part of the NPDES Permit issued for the Whitewater River Region from the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant is advised that installation of BMP's, including mechanical or other means for pre-treating stormwater runoff, may be required by regulations imposed by the RWQCB. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to design and install appropriate BMP's, in accordance with the NPDES Permit, that effectively intercept and pre-treat stormwater runoff from the project site, prior to release to the City's municipal separate storm sewer system ("MS4"), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the RWQCB. If required, such measures shall be designed and installed on-site; and provisions for perpetual maintenance of the measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including provisions in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for the development (if any). 32. The applicant shall accept and convey stormwater runoff released from the adjacent property (Tract Map 29077 -- "The Villas") at an outlet point located at the southwest corner of the subject property. Conveyance of off-site stormwater runoff may be made by surface drainage through a concrete drainage channel along the south property line appropriately sized to convey the estimated 100 year off-site stormwater runoff volume. The stormwater runoff may be released directly to Cahuilla Road 33. Submit storm drain improvement plans for all on-site storm drainage system facilities for review and approval by the City Engineer. 34. All on-site storm drain systems shall be privately maintained. 35. Unless otherwise demonstrated that drainage implementation fees were previously paid for this property, the project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees pursuant to Resolution 14082. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $9,212.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. GENERAL 36. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc.). Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of'the affected off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development. 37. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 38. In accordance with Chapter 8.04.401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Cade, all existing and proposed electrical lines of thirty-five thousand volts or less and overhead service drop conductors, and all gas, telephone, television cable service, and similar service wires or lines, which are on-site, abutting, and/or transecting, shall be installed underground unless specific restrictions are shown in General Orders 95 and 128 of the California Public Utilities Commission, and service requirements published by the utilities. The existing overhead utilities adjacent to the south property line approximately 80 feet west of the east property line, and running north from the south property line approximately 50 feet and then turning easterly to the east property line, meet the requirement to be installed underground. A detailed plan approved by the owner(s) of the affected utilities depicting all above ground facilities in the area of the project to be undergrounded, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to approval of any grading plan. Undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 39. All existing utilities shall be shown on the Grading Plan required for the project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 40. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD drawing file) and DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file). Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. 41. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer shall be documented with record drawing "as- built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 42. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the comer cut-off area of any intersection or driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. 43. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904. MAP 44, The existing parcels shall be merged. An application for a parcel merger shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A copy of a current title report and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the application for the parcel merger. The application shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, and shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. TRAFFIC 45. Based on the Traffic Study for The Palms Hotel Project (dated May 1, 2006) by George Dunn Engineering , the following mitigation measure(s) will be required: a. Applicant shall pay fair share contribution of 5% (or $7,500) for the future traffic signal at Belardo Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way, as determined in the final Traffic Study as approved by the City Engineer. 46, Recommendations from the Traffic Study for The Palms Hotel Project are subject to change pending the final approval of the Traffic Study by the City Engineer. Additional traffic mitigation measures identified in the final Traffic Study shall be satisfied by the applicant, as may be required by the City Engineer. 47. A minimum of 48 inches of clearance shall be provided on public sidewalks for handicap accessibility. Minimum clearance on public sidewalks shall be provided by either an additional dedication of a sidewalk easement (if necessary) and widening of the sidewalk; or by the relocation of any obstructions within the public sidewalk along the Tahquitz Canyon Way and Cahuilla Road frontages of the subject property. 48. All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends and striping associated with the proposed development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 49. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 50. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Developer shall comply with Article II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE DEPARTMENT Public Safety CFD 1, The Project will bring a significant number of additional residents to the community. The City's existing public safety and recreation services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity. Accordingly, the City may determine to form a Community Services District under the authority of Government Code Section 53311 et seq, or other appropriate statutory or municipal authority. Developer agrees to support the formation of such assessment district and shall waive any right to protest, provided that the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate study and shall not exceed $500 annually with a consumer price index escalator. The district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement shall be recorded against each parceV, permitting incorporation of the parcel in the district. 2. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (901.4.4 CFC) 3. Automatic Fire Sprinklers: An approved, automatic Fire Sprinkler System is required. 4. Standpipe System: An approved standpipe system is required. (CBC 904.5.2) 5, Fire Hydrant & FDC Location: A public commercial fire hydrant is required within 30 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC). Fire Hose must be protected from vehicular traffic and shall not cross roadways, streets, railroad tracks or driveways or areas subject to flooding or hazardous material or liquid releases. 6. Fire Department Connections: Fire Department connections shall be visible and accessible, have two 2.5 inch NST female inlets, and have an approved check valve located as close to the FDC as possible. All FDC's shall have KNOX locking protective caps. Contact the fire prevention secretary at 760-323-8186 for a KNOX application form. 7. Fire Fxtinguisher Requirements: Provide one 2-A:10-B:C portable fire extinguisher for every 75 feet of floor or grade travel distance for normal hazards. Show proposed extinguisher locations on the plans. (1002.1 CFC) Extinguishers shall be mounted in a visible, accessible location 3 to 5 feet above floor level. Preferred location is in the path of exit travel near an exit door. 8. Fire Alarm System: Fire Alarm System required. Installation shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 72. 9. Mid Rise/High Rise: High-rise and mid-rise buildings shall be accessible on a minimum of two sides. Roadways shall not be less than 10 feet (3048 mm) or more than 35 feet (10 668 mm) from the building. Landscaping or other obstructions shall not be placed or maintained around structures in a manner so as to impair or impede accessibility for fire fighting and rescue operations. 10.Plot Plan: Prior to completion of the project, a 8.5"x11" plot plan and an electronic CAD version shall be provided to the fire department. This shall clearly show all access points, fire hydrants, knox box locations, fire department connections, unit identifiers, main electrical panel locations, sprinkler riser and fire alarm locations. Large projects may require more than one page. 11.Residential Smoke Detector Installation: Provide Residential Smoke Detectors. Detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. (310.9.1.3 CBC) In new construction, detectors shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke detector causes the alarm in all smoke detectors within the dwelling to sound. (2- 2.2.1 NFPA 72) Provide a note on the plans showing this requirement. 12.Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902 CFC. (902.1 CFC) • Minimum Access Road Dimensions: 1. Private streets shall have a minimum width of at least 20 feet, pursuant to California Fire Code 902.1 however, a greater width for private streets may be required by the City engineer to address traffic engineering, parking, and other issues. The Palm Springs Fire Department requirements for two-way private streets, is a minimum width of 24 feet, unless otherwise allowed by the City engineer. No parking shall be allowed in either side of the roadway. 13. Vertical Clearance for covered parking on ground level: Palm Springs fire apparatus require an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 9 feet. (902.22.1 CFC) 14. Access Gates: Fire/Police/Ambulance access gates shall be at least 14' in width when in the open position and equipped with a Knox (emergency access) key switch. A Knox key operated switch shall be installed at every automatic gate. Show location of switch on plan. Show requirement in plan notes. 15. Building or Complex Gate Locking Devices: Locked gate(s) shall be equipped with a Knox key switch device or Key box. Boxes shall be mounted at 6 feet above grade. Contact the Fire Department at 760-323-8186 for a Knox application form. (902.4 CFC) 16. Road Design: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather capable and able to support a fire truck weighing 73,000 pounds GVW. (902.2.2.2 CFC) The minimum inside turning radius is 30 feet, with an outside radius of 45 feet. 17. Elevator Stretcher Requirement: At least one elevator shall be designed to accommodate medical emergency service. The elevator(s) so designed shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher 24 inches by 76 inches in the horizontal position. The elevator entrance shall have a clear opening of not less than 42 inches wide or less than 78 inches high. The elevator car shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80 inches by 54 inches, and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42 inch side slide door. (3003.5a CBC) 18, Ventilating Hood & Duct System: A ventilating hood and duct system shall be provided for commercial-type food heat-processing equipment that produces grease-laden vapors. (1005.1 CFC) 19. Fire extinguishing system required: Approved automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be provided for the protection of commercial type cooking equipment. (1005.2.1 CFC) 20. Hood & Duct Fire Protection System Coverage: The automatic fire extinguishing system used to protect ventilating hoods and ducts and cooking appliances shall be installed to include cooking surfaces, deep fat fryers, griddles, upright broilers, char broilers, range tops, and grills. Protection shall also be provided for the enclosed plenum space within the hood above filters and exhaust ducts serving the hood. (1005.2.3.1 CFC) 21. Hood & Duct Fire Protection System plan submittal: The contractor should submit fire extinguishing system plans as soon as possible. Submittal shall include manufacturer's data/cut sheets and listings with expiration dates on all equipment and materials used. 22. Hood & Duct Fire Protection System Plan Review Procedure: Plans must be submitted directly to a Fire Department approved engineer for review and recommendation of approval. A list of approved engineers is attached. Once plans are recommended for approval, they will be forwarded to the Fire Department for final approval. 23. Portable Fire Extinguishers for Food Processing Equipment: In addition to the fixed system, a fire extinguisher listed and labeled for Class K fires shall be installed within 30 feet of commercial food heat processing equipment, as measured along an unobstructed path of travel. (1005.2.7 CFC) The preferred location is near the exit from the cooking equipment area. Show proposed location on the plans. 24. Automatic Power and Fuel Shutoffs: The automatic fire extinguishing system shall be interconnected to the fuel or current supply for cooking equipment. The interconnection shall shut off all cooking equipment and electrical receptacles which are located under the hood when the system is actuated. (1005.2.4.1 CFC) ADA COORDINATOR 1. See Phil Kaplan. �jl0`122 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.1089 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 322 THE PALM HOTEL 327 W. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of September 20, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application by Wessman Holdings, LLC to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites featuring a roof terrace area with cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and pool cabanas located at 327 W. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday- Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner, Department of Planning Services at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porFavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede;aiablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8245. = s Thompson, City Clerk 0 Department of Planning Services WAN E Vicinity Map s q --- r L W TAHQUITZ DR p O 9:1 _� d U N L---7 AS'RD CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5,1089 PD-322 DESCRIPTION: Application to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites, roof terrace area with APPLICANT: Wessman Holdings, LLC cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and' for The Palm Hotel pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. APN: 513-141-013, 513-141-004. FR��'Msa City of Palm Springs u w Oflicc of the City Clerk k ryC�MAOgATCO�9'0 ` 3200 E.Ta6quim Canyon Way • Pahn Springy, Califumia 92262 C` �P Tel. (760) 523-8204 • F;%- (760)322-83 w.32 ' Web' wwci.palm-sprm ci gs. .us q41FORN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, to consider an application by Wessman Holdings, LLC to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites featuring a roof terrace area with cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and pool cabanas located at 327 W. Tahquitz Canyon Way, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 8th day of September, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (63 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 11th day of September, 2006. AMES THOMPSON City Clerk /kdh Affidavit-PalmHotel 09 20 06.doc rill Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 June 16, 2006 TO: The Palm Springs City Council I iJ. 11 67i Y CLL-Imllly FROM: Historic Tennis Club District Small Hotels RE: Proposed Palm Hotel We, the undersigned owners of neighboring Historic Tennis Club boutique hotels, are deeply concerned about the proposed Palm Hotel at Tahquitz and Cahuilla. Though we support a boutique inn at that location, our concern is with the proposed density as well as the height of four stories and a fifth story deck in a neighborhood of one and two story buildings. We fear the potentially destabilizing impact of what currently is a successful small hotel community. We are informed that if that request is granted other applications for such heights may be forthcoming producing a domino effect. This would create further adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Our client base which is very much dependent upon the area's low-rise character, low density and the consequent relaxed ambience would be negatively affected. We feel that this project does not qualify for an infil exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act because it is not consistent with the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance and all zoning regulations, the General Plan designation and all General Plan policies including exceeding applicable density and height limits, inadequate open space requirements as well as major departures from setback requirements such as a 142' setback reduced to 15' and a 53' setback reduced to 3'. Additionally the proposed high percentage of off site parking suggests that from a sound planning perspective the property would be substantially overbuilt. Moreover, the CEQA exemption is not applicable because there is a reasonable probability of significant ezzvironrtiental effects due to unusual circumstances including density bonus transfer. The significant density being shifted to this site results in severe land use and esthetic impacts and a project that is entirely incompatible with its surroundings and setting. We also question whether the city has proper density transfer procedures and if, so whether they were properly followed. What is the basis trader the General Plan and the zoning regulations for such an increase in density? If such density transfers are permitted we question whether the density transfer has been properly calculated. Also the proposed project exceeds the scope of development discussed in the Owners Participation Agreement. What is the basis for the divergence? The changes affect rooftop use, greater height, lack of below grade parking and restaurant size. Palm Spring City Council .Tune 16, 2006 Page 2 Furthermore we contend that the Palm Springs Planning Commission on May 24, 2006 did not properly scrutinize the Palm Trlotel application since they erroneously believed that they did not have the discretion to exercise their proper planning authority and duties. Because of all this we contend than the necessary findings for approval cannot be met. Therefore we recommend no infill exemption, denial of the project, or at least to return the matter to the planning commission for a proper restudy including the use of story poles and flags outlining the proposed building silhouette or adequate computer simulation. The Andalusian Court Old Ranch Inn Yuka Akimoto Larry Pilcher and Edward Fine Arenas Gardens orbit in and Hideaway Roger Malone and Eugene Milligan Christy Eugenis and Stan Amy Calla Lily Inn San Giuliano Inn Rod and Charlotte Callahan Eugene Rossi ICorakia Pension Chase Hotel Craig and Kathleen Blau Doug and Josie Smith Coyote Inn The Willows Gary and Mary Nold Tracy Conrad and Paul Mamt i i 1 1 July 12, 2006 To: Palm Springs City Council From: Historic Tennis Club District Small Hotels RE: Proposed Palm Hotel Pursuant to our memo dated June 16, 2006, we wish to submit the following legal opinions regarding land use and environmental violations relating to the proposed Palm Hotel. 1. Before the PUD can be approved, the City must make a consistency finding with the General Plan and "sound community development." Such a finding cannot be made here because, as the Architectural Review Committee noted, the project is out of character with the neighborhood. 2. Even with the PDD, the City cannot simply waive all minimum set backs. It must ensure that they are compatible with adjoining uses. Without a finding that the reduced set back would be consistent with the surrounding sites, there would be a violation here. 3. Because of the project's inconsistencies with the zoning ordinance, with respect to height, scale, set backs, etc, it is not subject to categorical exclusion as in-fill development. CEQA Guidelines 15332(a). The city has not proposed to make any of the findings lam ` required by 15332, including the consistency finding. - -_ - IMENIMIN '-c `� _ .• '.�c,>' �.� � �I R �'4'i: ' 1'-lysF `9}'r,Iti: 7�-�31.NX Wi 171 ��.* - is �� 4 -3'�',� -x.`,'4 y:. 5` I•_ 'k��� 4 fi. �0.�-i..1''• -�•• •.`-:O�4�a�i.��ii111'a�3�Ll�i���@Y����`113V�a���1Si\1\"Ul���51���4�\`�\�1\�l\\O�ii`t�\� �� p.`.'n -�lt em Big 3' yx y r i�., ss. r'�"'.}�]k ar;,. �'.:x%'':,;-. �"7'y... �, �' '.�,_1,r°''_ ,. �''3'•�i'I'f rR� _ 4^ssi'a�l`"j �'a..�c�L.E` ��..s _.il• �•;i-E�yw�.�r�- ;'.uF _ .3' ,�'�,,� n f.. ass _• E_-r - :f.r - "! "i� :F�; M' ?. • • �pALMSA City of Palm Springs ti c • Office of the City Clerk ry .a 3200 E.Tahquicz Canyon Way • palm Springs, California 92262 Cq 11Fa� �P Tel: (760) 323.8204 • Fax, (760) 322-8332 • Web: www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us N NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the adjourned regular meeting of July 12, 2006, Public Hearing Item No. 1A. THE PALMS HOTEL— CASE NO. 5.1089, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 322, AN APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY BOUTIQUE HOTEL WITH 51 ROOMS INCLUDING 11 SUITES, ROOF TERRACE AREA WITH CABANAS, A RESTAURANT, A BAR, A WATER FEATURE, AND SWIMMING POOL ON APPROXIMATELY 36,217 SQUARE FEET SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON AND CAHUILLA ROAD: By a unanimous vote the of City Council the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at City Hall in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., July 13, 2006, as required by established policies and procedures. James Thompson City Clerk I H:IUSERS\C-CLKN,genda Preparaton�2 0 06107-1 91NOTICE OF CONT- ThePalmsHotcl-i.doc rT� h ,]] Posr Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS V4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 10, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Present: Cohen, Hutcheson, Ringlein, Roath, Shoenberger, Vice Chair Hochanadel, and Chair Marantz. Absent: None. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The May 10, 2006, agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning Services counter by 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 2006. f. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. An application by Wessman Holdings, LLC, to construct a Wutique hotel building with a swimming pool on approximately 36, 217 square feet site located at the southwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Cahuilla Road, Zone R-3, Section 16, APN'513-141-013 and 004. Principal Planner, Edward Robertson gave background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 10, 2006- Director of Community and Economic Development, John Raymond, provided background information and clarification relating to the Winter's property and the Owner Participation Agreement. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing. John Wessman, applicant, gave further clarification relating to the Winters property, the Owner Participation Agreement, and the Proposed project including parking and landscaping. Gene Dippal, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Bob Helbling, Palm Springs, read a letter written by Lauri Aylaian, in opposition to the project. Steve Hubbard, Operations Director, Palm Springs Art Museum, indicated that the museum was not opposed to the project. Michael Bruskis, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition to the project: Roxanne Ploss, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Charles Sacs, Palm Springs, spoke opposition of the project- John Williams, Palm Springs, spoke opposition of the project. City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 2006 Pam Price, Palm Springs, spoke opposition of the project. Johanna Schenke, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Bob Holbling, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Andrew Cardenas, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Jay Nelson, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Frank Tyson, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. There being no further comments, Chair Marantz closed the public hearing. A recess was taken at 3:06 p.m. The meeting resumed at 3.16 p.m. Commissioner Roath,commented an the architecture and found it appealing; but he does not support the project because it does not meet the requirements for the Downtown Guidelines, heights, setbacks, lot coverage or on-site parking. Commissioner Shoenberger stated his concerns with the Downtown Guidelines, height and parking requirements not being met. Chair Marantz suggested the continuance of this project so that staff could provide further clarification on setbacks, heights and the Downtown Guidelines. She requested the applicant to erect story poles on the site- Commissioner Hochanadel suggested to the applicant to consider/underground parking by reducing the proposed building partially by one floor. Commissioner Hutcheson concurred and suggested that-the applicant submit a 3 dimensional r model; he felt the project is out of scale for the neighborhood and parking has not been , appropriately addressed- He is in favor of a re-study- Commissioner Ringlein is also in favor of the applicant submitting a 3-dimensional model; and i requested consideration of the development of the downtown corridor in relation to the final, ' product. John Wessman, applicant, stated he prefers for the Commission to make a decision today; and he feels that he has designed a building that has a footprint of what was submitted to City i g g P y Council. M/S/C (Roath/Cohen, 7-0) To continue, to Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2006; planning staff to restudy setbacks, parking, the Downtown Guidelines and further clarification on the Owners Participation Agreement from the City Attomey. ppp,LMgA� iy G1 V N W w °'burt W Planning Commission Staff Report Date: May 24, 2006 Case No.: 5.1089— PD-322 Application Type: Preliminary Planned Development District and Architectural Approval Location: SW Corner, Tahquitz Canyon Way & Cahuilla Road Applicant: Wessman Holdings, LLC Zone: R-3, Section 15 General Plan: RC (Resort Commercial) with NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Center) designation for corner APN: 513-141-013, 513-141-004 From: Craig Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Edward 0. Robertson, Principal Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 10, 2006, to consider an application by Wessman Holdings, LLC to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites featuring a roof terrace area with cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. At the meeting, the Planning Commission asked for further clarifications on the following issues: i • The setback of the Le Vallauris property • The applicant's offsite parkin g program • Additional parking requirements for the proposed restaurant and employees • The applicability of the Downtown Design Guidelines to this project i Planning Commission staff Report 5110/06 Case:5.1089-P0322 Page 2 of 5 The applicability of the "Owner Participation Agreement" (Settlement Agreement) on the Commission's decision making process. The project is fully described on the attached staff report (dated May 10, 2006) previously presented to the Planning Commission. The Le Vallauris Restaurant Setbacks The Le Vallauris restaurant is located adjacent to and west of the proposed Palm Hotel. The front setback of the existing restaurant is approximately twenty-eight (28) feet from the property line and forty-four (44) feet from the edge of pavement along West Tahquitz Canyon Way. By way of comparison the proposed hotel's setback on Tahquitz is 3.5 feet to property line and 19.5 feet to edge of payment. Staff also notes that the Palm Mountain Hotel, which is located east of the proposed hotel site (across Cahuilla Road) has a front setback of approximately sixteen (16) feet to the property line (32 feet to the edge of pavement). Le Vallauris' east side yard setback (facing the proposed hotel) is approximately forty (40) feet to the property line. The proposed hotel's west side setback — facing Le Vallauris— is seventeen (17) feet The applicant's off--site parking program The parking requirement for hotels is 1 parking space per room for the first 50 rooms, which will require a total of 51 spaces for this project. The applicant is proposing only 34 spaces on-site and 17 additional off-site spaces across from the proposed site. The applicant owns and operates a parking structure across from the subject site which is less than 150 feet from the proposed hotel location. Staff has reviewed the zoning code and believes the following sections are important to the use of off-site parking, as proposed for the hotel: Section 93.06.00.A.2 — "Off-street parking" means an area together with the required number of parking spaces and improvements thereon, as required by this section, for vehicle parking and maneuvering necessary to serve particular land uses, irrespective of the zone in which they occur Section 93.06.00.B.2.a -- Provisions of Off-street Parking. "Off-street parking in connection with any existing building or use shall be provided so long as such building or use remains. Any off-street parking which is permitted but not required by this Zoning Code shall comply with all regulations herein" Section 93.06.00.B.5.c — Other uses. "Parking facilities shall be located not more than three hundred (300) feet from the building or use they are required to serve..." Staff notes that "other uses" includes hotels, restaurants and other non-residential activities. Under these provisions, staff believes that the use of off-site parking is clearly permissible, but must be established through the use of binding agreements so that the p-)rC p Planning Commission Staff Report 5110106 Case:5.1089-PD322 Page 3 of 5 parking is available as long as the use is active. The recommended conditions of approval for the project require such an agreement be executed prior to issuance of building permits. Additional Parking requirements for the proposed restaurant and employees: As previously noted, hotel parking is set based on the number of hotel rooms. However, the Commission may consider the additional requirements for "resort hotels". pursuant to Section 93.06.00.D.16.c: "One parking space shall be provided for every 60 square feet of gross floor area of dining room, bar and dancing areas, and places where the public is served_ As an alternative where seating can be determined, one parking space for every 5 seats shall be provided. An additional 20 percent of the above required parking spaces shall be provided for the use of the employees" Against this standard, the proposed project would be required to provide additional 18 parking spaces for the restaurant use, and 4 additional parking spaces for the employees. A total of 73 parking spaces will be required for the proposed project. Staff supports the requirement for this increased total, which could be provided off-site, as noted in the discussion above. The applicability of the Downtown Design Guidelines to this project The location of the proposed Palm Hotel is outside of the Interim Downtown Urban Design Plan area, therefore the development standards contained in the design guideline do not apply to this project. The applicability of the "Owner Participation Agreement"(Settlement Agreement) on the Commission's decision making process The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA), contains specific development standards applicable to the proposed project; however, a provision contained in the OPA states the following: Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, it is expressly acknowledged that the project will require land-use approval by the city and nothing herein, including the description of the project in exhibit b and the approval of the agreement by the agency, shall limit the discretion of the city by its planning commission and city council to approve, t conditionally approve or disapprove the project" In reviewing the Owner Participation Agreement with the City Attorney, staff believes that the Agreement specifically allows the transfer of development potential from the Winters property to the Wessman property. However, it does not obligate the t Commission to approve any particular development plan, nor limit its evaluation to the project's conformity with the description contained in Exhibit "b" of the Agreement. The t Commission may consider the Agreement's project description as it decides .if the proposed design is the appropriate way to organize a 51-unit hotel on the site_ In any ' case, the Commission must identify the facts by which it determines if the project meets or fails to meet the required PD findings. - -.. I Planning Commission Staff Report 5110106 Case'5.1089-PEW2 Page 4 of 5 In reviewing the case, staff remains persuaded that the proposed hotel places the bulk of the building close to the mdre intensely developed part of the neighborhood — opposite Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert Art Museum. We believe that alternative designs would require adding building bulk to the south and westerly portions of the site, and thereby have greater secondary impacts on the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed application according to Planned Development District standards subject to conditions of approval by: 1. Adopting Planned Development District 307; and 2. Approving the site layout and conceptual architectural design for Case 5.1089. REQUIRED FINDINGS As a development project, findings are required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Findings can be made in support of establishing the proposed Planned Development District as follows: a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.07.00 (A)(1) and 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The proposed planned development is consistent with the general plan in recognizing that Planned Districts allow departures from strict provisions of zone classifications while providing flexibility for compatible land uses. The proposed project conforms to most development standards provided within the R-3 development standards with the application of a Planned Development District. The proposed PD is intended to allow flexibility to provide reduced setbacks, off- site parking and increased density, up to that allowed by the General Plan. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. i The project site is relatively flat, bounded on two sides by streets, and can i accommodate the hotel use envisioned by the General Plan and the proposed development. Access is available to the site along the two streets. All' the necessary amenities required for the kind of the proposed use are being provided. The required parking spaces could not be provided on-site due to the size of the parcel however, the applicant is proposing additional off-site parking 0[)fi2, Planning Commission Staff Report 5110/06 Case:6.1089-PD322 Page 5 of 5 spaces to serve the hotel_ The distance between the site and the off-site parking space is less than 150 feet. C. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. A planned development district is necessary to accommodate the proposed type of hotel development incorporating varying building heights, hardscape and landscape features consistent with hotel development in the surrounding. The development is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents because the proposed use is not substantively different than those already envisioned by the General Plan, and existing land uses in the vicinity. Furthermore, the hotel development will be compatible with the existing land uses in the general vicinity_ Surrounding uses include hotels, restaurants and other commercial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project is not subject to any further environmental review. NOTIFICATION A public hearing notice was advertised and was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property/adjacent property owners. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment. Cq--1 . Edw rd 0. Robe s n rai A. ing Prin ipal Plann hire of P nni Services ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission staff report dated May 10, 2006 3. Reduced Site Plans and Elevations 4. Draft Resolution / Conditions of Approval 5. Owner Participation Agreement ' 6. Letters from concerned citizens I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 24, 2006 DRAFT Council Chambers, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Present: Cohen, Hutcheson, Ringlein, Roath, Shoenberger, Vice Chair Hochanadel, and Chair Marantz. Absent: None. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The May 24, 2006 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin;board and the Department of Planning Services counter by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2006, 5. Case 5.1089 PD 322 - An application by Wessman Holdings, LLC, for the Palm Hotel, to construct a four-story boutique hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites, a restaurant, bar arrd pool cabanas on approximately 36,217 square feet site located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, gone R-3, Section 15, APN 513-141.011and 004. Principal Planner, Edward Robertson, gave background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 24, 2006. Discussion was made relating to the boundaries of the Downtown Design Guidelines and clarification,was made that this site is outside this area. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing. John Wessman, Wessman Development, addressed concerns from the Commission and gave further details relating to the site plans and the Winters' property. Jay Gustafson, Palm Springs, encouraged this project but not on this site. i)OAAr City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes ] DRAFT of May 24, 2006 Ed Torres, president of PSEDC, read a statement in support of the OPA signed on June 2, 2004, by the City of Palm Springs Community Redevelopment Agency. Bob Helbling, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Aftab Dada, manager of the Hilton, voiced his support for the project. Sheryl Hamlin, Palm Springs, spoke in apposition of the project. Doug Smith, Palm Springs, hotel owner, spoke in opposition of the project. Jono Hilder, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project. Frank Tysen, Palm Springs, gave clarification relating to the OPA and spoke in .opposition of the project. John Stiles, Palm Springs, spoke in support of the project. John Wessman, applicant rebuttal, read a portion of the OPA and gave additional information. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Roath stated his opposition to the proposed project. Commissioner Shoenberger stated his views relating to the OPA agreement and the role of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hochanadel stated hisconcurrence with Commissioner Shoenberger. Commissioner Hutcheson voiced his concerns relating to set-backs and felt the project is out-of-scale with the neighborhood; is opposed to the project. 'Commissioner Ringlein stated she is 90% in agreement with Commissioner Shoenberger's statement. Chair Marantz stated her only concern was. the minimal amount of parking spaces; she is in favor of the project with the 73 parking spaces required. Assistant Director of Public Works, Marcus Fuller, reported the following revision to the resolution to include a reference to Genera{ Plan Policy 7.1.6 "To allow a reduction of Right-of-Way width to 45' on Cahuilla "Y' I City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT of May 24, zoos Ed fyoad and include a finding of consistency with the,Circulation Element of the -General Plan for a Vacation of the westerly 5 foot of Right-of-Way on Cahuilla Road". M/S/C (Shoenberger/Ring[ein, 5-2/Hutcheson, and Roath) To recommend approval to the City Council; subject to the requirement of providing 73 parking spaces. I DOC st 7-004-040045S; d6/16/2094 O !Seg Fee:NC . •- Page 1 of 21 ReoorBiRt-1'n-q flclal Records County of Rlvernide MCORD90 REQMSM HY- Gary y lark MYO)=k�1SPMO IJilllI llilIRIIINillIIIIIII AND WklENR5WRMDMAA,TD. 7,0-Bo 2743 s M s 2 Y.O-Sox 27d3 Palm Aft; SprCity gs, C9 92263 Aim: City Cleric Owner Participation Agreement Title of7]ocument THIS AREA►. FOR , xj e:JD ' USE ONLY TMS PAM ADIAD TO PY-11ME AUBQT LkM SPACE}Y7TLMORDWO WORMAMN ' {Sl.00 Add!lionei RFcp+liny Rce Applies) ' Wessman Development Corp. ' Owner Participation Agreement AE711t#fTCr AGREEMENT40478C WY CLERK Ras 1253, 6-2-04 - f�YNFPM:Mt3t�INGt1 ?xUVfWQ%Ctt=% OWNERPARTIC)PA110NAGREEMENT THIS OWNER PARTICIPATION AGRE1;I ENT ("Agreeazent'q is entered into this 2nd day of June 2004,by and between the CONffvffYNfI'YRIMEVELOPMENT A4E4CY OF THE CITY OF PALM SP,MGS, CALIFORNIA, a public body, corporate and politic, whose offices are located at 3200 East Tahgaim Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CaWonria 92262("Agency")and John Weaearnarr dba Wessman Holdings LLC, a California limited liability corporation, whose offices are locafcd at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, G-106,Palm Springs, California, 92264("Participant"). The Agency and the Participant hereby agree as follows: WHEREAS, this Agreement pertains to the development of certain property at the sou hwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon and Cahuilla Road (the "Site") which is owned by Participant;and WHEREAS, the parcel adjacent to the site to the south is brown as the Winters Parcel, and the parcel to the south of the 91hiters Parcel is owned by Frank Tysen and Tlrerese Hayes, and is occupied by a 23-zoom hote-I known as Casa Cody;and WHEREAS,Participant has proposed the development of a hotel oa the Site but believes the project could be enhanced by incorporating the Winters Parcel in the Project. Participant projects transient occupancy tax revenue to the City of $300,000 annually, as well as tax increment revenue to the Agency of$50,000 per year;and WHEREAS, Tysen would also like to incorporate the Winters Parcel in Casa Cody, and made an offer to acquire the Winters Parcel; and on December 12,2003,entered into an escrow, #1123 at Liberty Escrow,to purchase the same;and WHEREAS, Agency has a fast right of refusal to acquire the Winters Parcel pursuant to that certain agneenimt dated May 4, 1988, which Agency attempted to exercise after being informed of the Tyson offer;and WHEREAS, the parties believe that a compromise can be reached satisfnntozy to objectives of all parties by(i)the Agency entering this Agreement for the development of a hotel by Participant, (ii) assuring a more intense development by Participant by transferring development rights from the Winters Parcel (which has restricted development opportunity due to the mnristence of a historic structure), (iii) Tyson cznsenting to the hatel•ptoject, and (iv) the Agency withdrawing its effort to acquire the Winters Parcel so that Tysen can proceed with its acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. DF'YMITTONS. I.I. Cy. The term "City' shall mean the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a chartered municipal corporation, having its offices at 3200 Bast Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm ' Springs,California 92262. 9W2@9�EBB4 • 0 1.2. Consent to Project The term "Consent to Project" shall mean that certain Consent attached hereto as Exhibit E and.incorporated herein by this.reference. 1.3. Excatmve Director. The term "Executive Director" shall mean the Executive Director of Agency. 1.4. Proieet. The term "Project" shall mean the hotel project to be constructed by the Participant upon the Site more particularly described on Exhibit "S" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1.5. Redevelopment Plan. The term "Redevelopment Plan" shall meaa the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for Merged ADdevelopment Project Area No. l ("Project Area")as adopted by Ordinance,No. 1584 of the City Council of City on May 31,2000, as amended from time to time. A copy of the Redevelopment Plan is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City, The Redevelopment Plan is incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. 1.6. Schedule of Performance. The term "Schedule of Performance" shall mean that certain Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit"C"and incorporated herein by reference. 1.7. Site or Property, The term "Site" or Troperty" shall mean that certain real property owned by Participant located on North Palm Canyon Drive in the City of Palm. Spriggs, State of California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by e'er • 2_ PT_i$POSI;Olt AGREEMENT. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan for the Project a Area by developing the Site as a hotel within the Project Area. The development of the Site which is located within the Project Area, and the fulfilment geuernlly of this Agreement are in gt 8G the best interests of the City and the welfiue of its residents and am in accordance with the public purposeg and provisions of applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, under which a the Project has been undertaken,and is being assisted. m The Patin Springs economy is based ion tourism. It is therefore a fruther purpose of this Agreement to add a unique, high class hotel to the City's hotel inventory to compliment and further expand the tourism industry. This will also assist the City's economics. With a projected 48 rooms and 70 percent occupancy and rates averaging $250 per night projected transient occupancy tax revenues exceed$300,000 and tax increment to the Agency exceeding $50,000 lerye- -�^ Finally, it is a purpose of this Agreement to create a meehanism :For the transfer of Z development Tights liom the Winters parcel to the site. With Mr. Tysces support for this concept, the Agency is willing to forego the exercise of-its right of first refusal to acquire the Winters Parcel. Said support shall be evidenced by the Consent to Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit R. _2_ Iaovorz�aam.az �"lf� '�'� 3. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROM C T. 3_1. . Plans and Specifications. The Participant shall construct the Project upon the Site in accordance with construction drawings, working specifications and related documents that have been submitted to and approved by the Agency in advance and in writing according to the description in Exhibit nE". 3.2. Perndts. Before commencement of construction of the Project' Participant shall obtain any and all permits and approvals which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency with jurisdiction. 3.3. Governmental Apurovals. Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, it is expressly understood by the parties hereto that the Agency makes no representations or warranties with respect to the approvals required by any other governmental entity or with respect to approvals bereivafter required from the City or the Agency, NOTWITHSTANDING THE GFNERALI'I'Y OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS E3IPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE LAND-USE APPROVAL BY THE CTTY AND NOTHING HEREIN, INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IN EDIT B AND THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCTt SHALL LMM THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY BY ITS PLANNING COMAMSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO .APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PROJECT. . The Agency reserves frill police power authority over the Project and the Participant acknowledges that the City retains such full police power as well. Nothing in this Agreement sball be deemed to be a prejudgment or commitmew with respect to such items nor to guarantee pw that such approvals or permits will. be issued within any particular time or with or without any particular conditions. `t 3.4. Costs of Construction. The cost of constructing the Project shall be w borne by the Participant 3.5. Construction Schedule. Participant shall submit the construction drawings,working specificatons and related documents£or approval by flan Agency on or before the date set forth in the Schedule of Performance. Construction of the Project shall commence 4 on or before the date set forth in the Schedule of Performance and shall be completed within the time set forth in the Schedule of Performance except as mutually agreed in writing by Participant and Agency. The Project shall. be deemed complete apon the issuance of a Certificate of Completion as provided in Section 3.5, or upon notification to the Participant by the Agency's Director of Community Development that rehabilitation of the Project-is complete, whichever c` occurs first i i .3- I uaaarouvaoa�r.ox 3.6. Might of Access. Representatives of Agency and City shall have the reasonable right of access to the Site during the period of construction for the purposes of this Agreement,including,but not lirmted to,the inspection of the work being performed. 3.7. Nondiscrimination During Construction. Pardeipart, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the rehabilitation of the Project, Participant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion,sex,marital status,ancestry or national orig4 3X. Certificate of Completion. Upon written request by Participant, and Upon satisfactory completion of the Project, Agency shall issue to Participant a Certificate of Completion. Time Certificate of Completion shall be, and shall so state, a conclusive deterrumation of satisfactory completion of the Project required by this .A.greement, and a full compliance with the terms of this Agreement reladug to commencement and completion of the Project. After the date Participant is entitled to issuance of the Certificate of Completion, and notwifttan ling any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, aqy patty then owning or thereafiar pumbasing, leasing or otherwise acquiring any hoterest in the Site shall not(because of any such ownership, purchase, lease or acquisition) incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement, except that such party shall be bound by the covenants that survive the issuance of the Certificate of Completion,as set forth in the CC&R.S. The Certificate of Completion is not a notice of completion as reforred to in California Civil Code Section 3093. •3.9. Insurance and Indemnification. (a) hourawe. Prior to the commencement of any construction by Participant of time Project,Participant or its contractor for the work herermder,shall procure and maintain in a form and content satisfactory to Agency,during the entire term of construotion,the following fit policies of insurance: � pw (i) Comprehensive General Liability lusuramce. A policy of n comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per occurrence basis in an.amount not Iess lit than either (r) a combined single limit of ONE MULLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) or (1i) $ bodily miury limits of FrVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) per person, P- ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per ocemarenee and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) products and completed operutions and property damage limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) per occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000,00)in the aggregate. ; - -. (ii) Worker's Compensation Insurance. A policy of worker's compensation insurance in such amount as will fully,comply with the laws of the State of u r Cahifamia and which shall indemnify, insure and provide legal defuarse for both the Participant, t Agency and the City against any loss, claim or damage arising from any injuries or occupational c diseases occurring to any worker employed by or any persons retained by the Participant in the course of carrying out the work or services contemplated in this Agreement. (iii) Automotive Insurance. A policy of comprehensive automobile i ^ Iiability i mmince written on a per oocurmace basis in an amount not less than either (i) bodily . �. injury liability limits of$250,000.00 per person and $500,000.00 per ocamTeucc and property damage liability limits of$100,000.00 per occurrence and $250,000.00 in the aggregate or (ii) combined single limit liability of$500,000.00. Said policy shall include coverage for owned, non-owned,leased and hired cats. (iv) Buildcr's Risk Insurance, A policy of "builder's risk" insurance covering the full replacement value of all of the itmprovements to be conslnteted by Participant pursuant to this Agreement. All of the above policies of insurance shall be primary insurance and shall name Agency, City,and their ojffieers,employees and agents as additional insureds. The insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against Agency, City, and their officers, employees and agents add their respective insurers. All of said policies of insurance shall provide that said insurance may not be amended or cancelled without providing thirty(30)days prior written notice by registered mail to Agency and City. In the event any of said policies of insammec are cancelled, the Participant or its contractor shall, prior to the cancellation date, submit new evidence of insurance in conformance with this Section to the Executive Director. No work or services under this Agreement shall commence until the Participant has provided Agency with Certificates of Insurance or appropriate insurance binders evidencing the above insurance coveragea and said Certificates of hnsurance or binders are approved by Agency. The policies of insurance required by this Agreement shall be satisfactory only if issued by companies qualified to do business in California,rated "A"or better in the most recent edition of Best Racing Guide, The Key Rating Guide ox in the Federal Register, and only if they arc of a financial category Class VII or better,unless such requirements art waived by the Risk Wnager of the City("Risk Manager")due to unique circumstances. Participant shall provide in all contracts with contractors, subcontractors, architects and engineers that said contractor, subcontractor or engineer shall maintain the policies of insurance required to be maintained pursuant to this Section. �mu Yp� ti The Participant agrees that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to wiijah the Participant may be held responsible for the payment W of damages to any persons or property resulting from the Participant's activities or the activities of any person or persons for which the Participant is otherwise responsible. �,. (b) Indemnification. During thr? period of conshociion of any of the improvements pursuant to this Agreement and until such time as is issued a Certificate of Completion for the Project Participant agrees to and shall mde=*and hold the Agency and the City harmless from; and against all liability, loss, damage, cost or expenses (including reasonable attorneys'ftes and'court costs) arising from or as a result of the drath of any person or any accident, injury, loss, or damage wbaiseever caused to any person or to the property of any person which shall occur on the Site and which shall be directly or indirectly caused by the :. acts done thereon or any errors or omissions of the Participant or its agents,servants, employees or contractors. I � , i 1�03/Oi2I30E97.p2 4. USE OF TBE SnE. Participant covenants and agrees that it shall devote the Site to hotel use which is consistent with the Redevelopment Platy the applicable zoning restrictions,and this Agreement 5. FIViP'ORCEWNT. 5.1. Events of Default. In the event c ither party defaults in the performance or observance of any covenant agreement or obligation set forth in this Agreement and if such default remains nncu[ed for a padod of thirty(:30) days after written notice thereof shall have been given by the non-defaulting party, or, in the event said default cannot be cured within said time period, the defaulting party has failed to commence to cure such default within said thirty (30) days and diligently prosecute said core to completion, them the nor defaulting patty shall declare an event of&Fault to have occurred hereunder. 5.2, Remedies. Ibe Ageney's sole remedy for Participant's violation of this Agreement shall be lamination,in which case participant shall have no further rights hemmder. Participant specifically ackaowledges that Agency is entering into this Agreement far the Purpose of assisting in the redevelopment of the Site and not for the purpose of enabling Participant to speculate with laod- 1 _ � J 5.3. No Waiver. Waiver by either party of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise shall trot invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considcxed a waiver of any other covenant,condition or pruunise. Waiver by either party of the time for perlbnming any g� act shall not constitute a waiver of time for performing any other ad or an identical act required $N to be,perforated at a later lime. The delay or forbearance by either party in exercising any - remedy or tight as to any default shall nqt operate as a waiver of any other default or of any p� ruts or remedies or to deprive such, patty of its right to iustirirte and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, mssert or enforce any such. rights or ' xemedies. !* 5.4. Rights and Remedies are Cumulative. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement; the rights and remedies of the parties are cupn_nlative, and the exercise by any patty of one or more of its rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it a the i same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same defaixlt or ary other dehiult i .:.+. byanotherparty. 5.5_ Attorneys'Fees. In the event;of litigation between the parties arsiw ont offh{s Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys!fees MOM and other costs and expenses incurred in addition to whatever other mlief to which it may be. .� entitled. t -6- ieu3/0larrorlr.V� , 6. MISCELLANEOUS. 6.1. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern the integxetation and enforcement of this Agreement. 6.2. Notices. Formal actices, demands, and communications between Agency, City and Participant shall be sufficiently given if personally delivered or dispatched by registered or certiffed mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth above. All notices shall be decreed to be received as of the earlier of actnal receipt by the addressee thereof or the expiration of forty-eight(48)hours alter depositing in the United States Postal System in the manner described in this Section. 6.3. Conflicts of Interest. No member,official, or employee of Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, m this Agreement nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he is, directly or indirectly,interested. 6.4. Nonllability of Agency Officials and Employces. No member, official, employee, or consultant of Agency or City shall be personally liable to Participant, or any successor in interest of Participant, in the event of any default or breach by Agency or for any amount which may become due to Participant:or to its successor,or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement 6.5- Modifications. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made by written instrument or endorsement thereon and in each such instance executed on behalf of each party hereto. 6.6. Asstuauces to Act in Good Faith. Agency and Participant agree to execute all documents and instruments and to twice all action and shall use their best efforts to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement Agency and Participant shall each diligently and in good faith pursue the satisfaction of any conditions or contingencies sabject to their approval. W s� 6.7. Severability. Wherever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law- It however, any provision of this Agreement shall be probibited by or invalid under applicable law, such Provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 6.8. Force Wieure. The time within which Participant or the Agency shall be required to perform any act under this Owner Participation Agreement sbali be extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which perfbw=ze.Qf such act is delayed due to war, insnn?ztion, strikes, lock-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, natural .h�j disasters, Acts of God, acts of the public enemy,I epidemics, quarantine•restrictions, freight I embargoes, governmental restnetious on priority, initiative or referendum,moratoria,Processing with overnmental eucies other than City or Agency, unusually severe weather or an other I � g ag Y � �', , Y�. similar causes beyond.the control or without the fault of the party claiming•an extension of time " — to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced-delay I ..7_ C ra e -- 1,1 I I W3/a12'30E97A2 and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause,if written notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty 00)days of knowledge of the commeacement of the cause. Any act or f4ure to act on the part of a party shall not excuse performwee by that party. �N Q�0o tom m mow.. 1 rr• I r C i I nrr� wa�,virreoam.oz IN WITNESS WHWEOF the Agency aad Participant lave executed this Agreement as of the data fast written ahova. "AGUNCY" COMMUN=REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TIDE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,a public body,cozporata andpolitic AITES : sy: - ssistant Sect-etary Patricia A. Sanders APit KMW BY THE C0NjMLtMv T r E%V, l� b•� APPROVED AS TO FORM: AY pY RM no. Anfltc- ALESIIIRE&WYNDER,TLLP M2� B Agency Counsel 1 N `,'•,,11�h1y Ln�Jd` 1 ��� II nlT.FtlA4AL Al\111 Wessman blot rags, L'LC i Ems, Its: John essman Br Its: � r 100101230M.02 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSR ACKNOWLiE'DOMENT SUM of Wifomia Cm,nty of 'q e rs'4 4 e � On UYte 2s.aooy _beforema,clVdt {'tcl . l`�1C• o1S- T1o*0.rY luL{IC h�y IIQ IM.wWiaadOlAcwha.'.w� xdMl'u%c1 r� personally appeared B6 V' V e r', C%Ct w nq Ct n and 1�J r i r-1 q H,S4hd c wm.IN•sn,.rt.) A$5 7 sTa llf ratC rel•d'''y Oporsonatly known to me / ❑ proved to me on the basis at sa"cfory evidence to he the parsono whose n - a&d auoliNANIClt015 y subscribed to the within Instrum nt and s ` ' tarKt k*o#1407tr2.7 [ admowledged to me what l' executed HoftyhAft-CaMorr11N the same In M Afe(A authorized O makloCDO W capa - tes and that by ei J] N1yC+ttnm•P+gAles61WZ1• slgnatu�r�on the Instrument flxa pe s,or - - - - - - `" ` - - the entity upon behalf of which the pen roe acted,executed the instrument WfiNFSS my hand and official seal., ..rGt` `s OPrTlOIYAL - •'��..;. i 5�O Yr+dlgh(he rnl�mwdm ba.brramtroquaadhy law,dmsypmvd Ya!lrayVeropN9ons rclyvey on Ma c�i+mrmnin�wuidp�s(+�c�•c;- rk ... fi=eW 1re=vaIfindr�SmeM of Nis 1w rawn had=mcY Y ;.• _-' y` ;' Description of Attached Document 'DWorTSVsofDocument: Ow �^r �Gtr-tiClpA'tovt Ragrf�i►1C +PC ;5•:�kv oocumentVale: 36, t a oCf ar Q �'� _ NumberofPages:1- Signer(s)Other Than tJamedAbove: Mes` is 'eNcy cot1me'1, ' c�ahM L.J,�Sswian � �2nct�tkq "�irThNrr Capaoity(ies)Claimed by Signer �� �^]� a signer'sName:Pt1K QUcy��_Qnj triCiA A �rnjer.,I 0 UxfMdual&Corporate Officer—Title(s): Ctt74t -vpanurolwr Y'mo u a h j RsA Secrety ❑ Partner-❑Limited 0General / 0 Attomey-In-Fact 13 Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other, Signer is Rspresanting: The C0Wr&Llnll{y -�Ve{a??rYle 0IM WY ISAWA Xs n'a OW ti .P4 v M%% •GCu1idN2.suWrtmm�wu Pnd NuW nwdr OaltNiw fippnGY1Z! 1 I�INIIINI���INI�N�l�I11111�II�INNl�1(NI am4-9489455 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State ofGe�o, nJti9 Courdyof On JaA& /Qy b 0`7` before me, MA-le T14A J,1/GG/.CIS personally appeared c101�'!-3 5*11t� Ham.t.)or�ty Qpersonally known to me—OR—O proved to me on the basis of satlsfactory evidence to be the personW whose name64 is($9subsenbed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that WVVAWexecuted the same in hIqmAMTr authorized capacity(b!4 and that by A~- IWARTffA R NIGGINS hi r signature(*on the instrument the person(4, coMAq ifl2aic4z rrn or the entity upon behalf of which the persan(!Fj acted, ^ HotaryPuprio-Calirvmia oo executed the instrument itnrEg5ldE(�LM7y =+ YConuaExp_om 27,2�14 WITNESS my hand and official seal. r r sq,ulmdNWry o r OPTIONAL. 1 Through dw inrermat m below rs not"tffYed bylaw,k may prow valaabin to pemsom relyft on Ala do�and coWPreverrt i /raudulm[remova(andrrritlnchmont o/q,is Ywm to nrptlerdxLment. Vesonptlon of Attached Uoctiment Title or Type of Document: OarC/t;'Z /Z,7a r* OVO r mw Document Date: 4 I�� 2 ZpD4I Number of pages: 4! pp _ � a Signer(s)Other Than Named AboveC�iJ4,017 As&Ajeq r` rr t.)Se a Gepacity(ies�--Claimedyigo� ,\Ulgf enayc) .�,tf� c � , Signer's Name: U OHA) OX55AA Signer's Name: D Individual ❑ Individual ❑ corporate Officer ❑ Corporate officer Tdle(s):_ rrtfa(s): IJ Partner--❑limited ❑General Q Partner—11 Limited ❑General ❑ Attcmey-In-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact D Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Gonsen(ator ❑ Guardian or Conservator l 9Other. rw,of thumb here ❑ Other: Top or lh=b dare 2W kt"JAYA,LLerMAAl•AIW46- t�- Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: •O IBM rthbO rN=rr AUMMn•92M nanmotM.,PO,Bw 71"-mops PaW,CA 91ppP W Rotl.MON mxod Ca97011-Raa 14NO9794M (err")r— � U11..4aYAi "A" LEGAL IIESCRI PTION OF T'11E SXT'!s THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TBE CITY OF PAI24 SPRINGS, CODh1T"Y OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRffiED AS FOLLOWS: B3MIT A PARCEL 1: LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 JN BLOCK 8 OF PALM SPRINGS, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON j FEW IN BOOK 9 PAGE 432 OF MAPS, RI3CORDS OF PMRSIDF COUNTY, CALMORNIA ALSO ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY 8 FEET OF ORANGE AVENUE, AS SHOWN BY SAID MAP AND NOW KNOWN AS C',AHUIL A ROAD WHICH LIES SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTTIERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, EXT13NDED EASTERLY AND NORTTZERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LJNE OF SAID LOT 4, EAME DED EASTERLYAS ABANDONED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF R[VERSIDE COUNTY, ON MARCH 1, 1926, A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF ABANDONMENT RECORDED MARCH 10, M6 IN BOOK 667 PAGE 29 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- PARCEL 2: T IM EAST HALF OF LOT 24 AND TJM EAST 24.2 FEET OF-LOT 21 OF ALL IN BLOCK 8 OF PALM SPRINGS, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 9 PAGE 432 OF MAPS,RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA III Jilil1l��l�lll111111f111111111�i111111 EXH XtIT"B" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Project consists of a three and four-story, 48-unit, high-cad boutique hotel project. The Site PIan is attached to this Exhibit as BI. The fast floor includes administrative and recreational areas, four hotel suite units, and.parking. The second and third floors include 37 hotel rooms(17 and 20). The fourth floor would include 7-large hotel units, one exoeediagS00_._.. sq.R,and the others 1000 sq.ft The hotel will be of the caliber of a W hotel but on a smaller scale, such as the Howl Iiealdsdburg in the Valley of the Moon adjacent to.the Sonoma Valley region of the Northern California or The Inn at the Market in Seattle or the Camcelback Gardens Hotel in Telluride. The projected daily rate per room is in the$2004300 range. The anticipated construction cost of the Project will exceed Seven Million Dollars($7,000,000.00). i i The architecture will be contemporary, urban style with the use of bloclS steel and other natural materials. The hotel will be positioned on the site with 20 feet clearance firm the northerly boundary of the Winters Parcel, with extensive landscaping between the properties. Amenities would be those typical of a boutique hotel: outstanding rooms with W hotel quality fivaiishings and beds,a pool with spa,a workout/gym room,and if space permits,a small rrmtanrant The entrance will be a sweeping arch with file or stamped concrete off of Tahqaitz Canyon Way. Parking will be below grade in so far as possible with 22 spaces provided. The oremainder of the required spaces will be provided by recorded covenant at the Fashion Plaza. �0w across the street. mW� Nm (The Project contemplates a unique transfer of development rights, as it is proposed that the historic residential structure on the Winters Parcel will m main� ) Tire table below shows the R-3 development standards, the development proposed in the Project, and the development which would be allowed on the Site single or on both properties together. � Me. , !� EXMIT TO OWNER PARITCIPATION AGRMYIENT iooamasraosvt.as Criteria R-3 Development Proposed Project Allowed Project Allowed Project Standard Yield on Wessman'c Yield on Both Project Properties Combined Mlaimum Lot 20,000 s.£ Meets stmdard 20,000 s.£mini ntrm 20,000 sl miuimum Size minimum lot size (36,900 s.f) lot size lot size _ Density l;1,000 a£ 48 units 36 units 51 units Bail ftHeight 30'over no more 4 stories(42-04') 30'overno more dM 30'overuo more without1fgb then 50%ofground 50•0Aofgramtdfloor d=50%ofground Mso Ordiusuce flooram area. floor free I Open Space 45% 22,950 9.11 before bay 22,950 s.£before bay Vail of Winter were under R 3 pm mg and driveways pa&W&and driveways counted(as put of a i Standard(not (approx_ (6,000 s.f)0 (approx, 16,000 sf)— total ofSlyoO s.£)as High kiss) comes close to 45% comes close to 45% "open space"then open apace would be ubaU61% i Pates 1 for each room up 22 spaces on site, Would need 48 spaces Would need 51 to 50 rooms;0.75 remaiodef by covenant spaces far each room over i 50 moms The constnzdon of the Project will require vwnstruction of walls and installation of landscaping aloxt6 the southenu boundary of the Sits and partially an the Winters Parcel. Participant shall enter into an agreement with the property owner concerning walls, fencing and t landscaping in such arcs, and specifying the method of construction. Intetfetemc with business 4 operation an,the Winters Parcel shall be minimized. NOTWITHSTANDING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, IT JSS EXPRESSLY ACI{NOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE LAND USEAPPROVAL BY THE CITY AND NOTHING 1iT.12M, INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF TIM PROJECT IN EXIT B AND THE APPROVAL OF TEE AGREEMENT BY THE..AGENCY, SHALL LET THE DYSCRETION OF TIIE CITY BY ITS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY'' APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PROJECT. (oil ` EXl MIT TO OWNED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 1003104W0897_02 ' LO 4R iRMR R WM � �ni.oc _.. yr, Tfi•`1tO tkeet-v � �. .ww.w•I+w.c rA1 F1 wrR/N�d f1 aT'FL �.p�lKfii I�AY S K >1z�oarr«c„ SCBEDULE OFPERFOPMANCE beaeriniioa Date 1. Conceptual Nanning with Architect 3 months from the execution date of this agreement 2. Preliminary Arohiisotur d Drawings 3 months[6 mouths firm the [Rudy for City Submittal) execution date of this agreement] 3. Architectural and PDD Approvals 6 months[12 months from the execution date of this agreement] 4. Final Architectural Construction Drawings 6 months[18 months from the ' execution&W of this agreement] S. Building Department Review 3 months [21 months from the execution date of this agreement] 6. Financing 3 months [24 months froze the execution date of this agreement] i 7. Constaxtion 12 month[36 months from the execution date of this agreement] i The above time requirements may be lengthened by up to 180 days (cumulatively) at the i discretion of the FxecWive Director where Participant is proceeding in good faith to perform i under this Agreement i i i c az - ! 0109,131 1 ��IIIIIIINIIIIIIIIUlll111111��hl�llll�llllh 09, 17� al � CERTIFICATE OF COMPLITION FREERECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: THE PALM SPRINGS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Atta Executive Director (Space Above This Tine For Recorder's Office Use Only) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WR EREAS, by an Owner Participation Agreement (hete*+After referred to as the "Agreement") dated - 20M, by and betty-een TI-M REI)MLOPMEN'P AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS (hereinafter referred to as "Agency"),and Wilco Development, (hereinafter referred to as "Participant'),Participant has redeveloped the real property(the "Site"), legally described on Exhibit 1 attached koreto and incorporated herein by i reference,according to the terms and conditions of said Agreement; and i WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Agreement, promptly afkT completion of all i construction work to be completed by Participant upon the Site,and upon request by Participant, j Agency shall firo ish Participant with a Certificate of Completion in such form as to permit it to a be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Riverside;and �Tn� WHEREAS the issuance b„ Y Agency of the Certificate of Completion shall be conclusive i evidence that Participant has complied with the terms of the Agreement pertaining to the bodevelopment ofthe Site; anal WI-MRF 4S, Participant has requested that Agency furnish Participant with the Certificate of Completion;and WHEREAS, Agency has conclusively determined that the redevelopment of the Site has 2M been satisfactorily completed as required by the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provided for cerrnin covenants to run with the land, which covenants were incorporated in a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the r` "Declaration"); EMIT"D" TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT _ Page l of 3 �' b • Iaa311117I)aL97A2 NOW,THEREFORE: 1. As provided in the Agreement, Agency does hereby cer*that redevelopment of the Site has been.Cully and satisfactorily performed and completed, and that such redevelopment is in,fuU.compliance with said Agreement 2. This Certificate shall not constitute evidence of Participant's compliance with the Declaration,the provisions of which shall contimie to rum with the]and. 3. This Certificate of Completion shall not constitute evidence of compliance with or satisfaalion of any obligation of participant to any holder of a mortgage, or any insurer of a Mortgage, securing money loaned to finanee construction work on the Site, or any part thereof. Nothing contained herein shall modify in any way any other provision of said Agreement 4.. This Certificate is not a Notice of Completion as referred to in California Civil Code Section 3093. 5. Except as stated herein, nothing ocatained in this instrument shall modify in any way any other provisions of the Agreement or any other provisions of the documents incorporated therein IN W rMSS WHEREOF, Agency has executed this Certificate as of this_ day of ,200 THE CC)Nfl UNITY REDEVEWPNIENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS �r a By m gw Executive Director Still N �r cu 1 m m 1 TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT i Page 2 of 3 � zommtveoa7i.ax LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SM [TO BE INSERTED] d �eoa �d0 6 �w �1p 0 r� RIB �y ER MIT"D" TO OWMM PARTICIPATION AGR1 EMMi i' Page 3 of 3 �aosrorarioavr.az . AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT THIS Amendment No. 1 to an OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this day of 2005 by and between the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF. PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, a public body, corporate and politic, whose offices are located at 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262 ("Agency") and John Wessman d/b/a Wessman Development Company, whose offices are located at 300 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California, 92262 ('Participant"). The Agency and the Participant hereby agree as follows: EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Description Time Period Date 1. Participant submits Already completed. October 28, 2005 plans and drawings for the project to the City for application review 2. City issues a Within 30 days of formal On or before "completeness" letter to application. November 27, 2005 Participant 3. Participant cures any Within 30 days of receipt of On or before deficiencies in the Completeness Letter. December 27, 2005 application. 4. Project is reviewed by Within sixty (60) days of On or before January Architectural Advisory application being deemed 30, 2006 if there are Commission complete by the Director of no deficiencies in the Planning Services- application. 5. Developer revises and Within 30 days after The dates in this schedule resubmits plans, disapproval will be adjusted by the drawings, and additional time necessary to specifications, If resubmit and review P disapproved plans. necessary 6. City reviews and Within 15 days after The dates in this schedule approves or disapproves resubmittal will be adjusted by the resubmitted plans, additional time necessary to drawings, and resubmit and review g disapproved-plans- specifications, if necessary 5. Project receives its Within sixty (60) days of On or before January environmental application being deemed 30, 2006 if there are determination from the complete by the Director of no deficiencies in the Planning department Planning Services. application. (Environmental Assessment) 6. Environmental review of Within one hundred twenty On or before Mav 30. the project is complete. (120) days of completion of 2006 the Environmental Assessment. 7. Project is reviewed by Within forty-five (45) days of On or before Jul 95 Planning Commission. completion of draft 2006 environmental document. 8. Project is reviewed and Within 60 days of approval On or before environmental document by the Planning Commission. September 15, 2006 certified by City Council_ 9. City files Notice of Notice period is 30 days. On or before October Determination of CEQA 15, 2006 action. 10. Participant submits Within 180 days of approval On or before construction documents by City Council. December 15, 2006 for Building Department review. - 11. City reviews building Within 90 days of submittal On or before March plans and prepares to to the Building Department. 15, 2007 issue permit. 12. Developer obtains all On or before the date that is On or before March necessary, permits and ten (10) days after the date •15, 2007 approvals City notifies Developer that City is prepared to issue building permits for the Project 12. Participant submits Within 90 days after approval On or before evidence of financing of Project by the City December 15, 2006 commitment for the Council. Project to Agency. 13. Agency approves or Within 30 days of receipt by On or before January disapproves financial Agency 15, 2007 commitment and lender 14. Participant commences Within 45 days of receiving On or before April 30 construction of the Notice from the City that it is 2007 Project, ready to issue building permits. 15. Participant completes Within 540 days of issuing On or before October construction on the building permits. 80, 2008 Project. 16. Participant requests final Within 15 days of completing On or before inspection of the Project construction of the Project. November 15, 2008 by the City 17. Agency issues certificate Within ten (10) days of On or before of Completion for the written request by Developer, November 25, 2008 Site and Developers satisfactory completion of all improvements It is understood that the foregoing Schedule of Performance is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the text of the Agreement. The summary of the items of performance in this Schedule of Performance is not intended to supersede or modify the more complete description in the text. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between this Schedule of Performance and the text of the Agreement, the text shall govern. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day first above written. "AGENCY" COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public ' body, corporate and politic Chairman ATTEST: Agency Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Counsel "DEVELOPER" John Wessman dba Wessman Development Company (Check One: individual, _partnership, _corporation). [NOTARfz Signature Print Nam .-- D 44-r i V.�i✓SS 1v1 A Print Title: Mailing Address: ::PAW 6 pk-W 5, . U�- qZzIO2- (Corporations require two signatures; one from each of the following: (A) Chairman of Board, President, any Vice President; AND (B) Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, or Chief Financial Officer_) [END OF SIGNATURES / NOTARY JURAT(S) FOLLOW] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) ON before me, Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me (or 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. Witness my hand and official seal. [SEAL] Signature STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF (�.�ViD� ON DC-CC-MSE-P, 13/2p05 before me, >0 tom- ^� Notary Public, personally �� ,I . i �SS�� h` appeared personally known to me (t`l v ) to be the person(`) whose nameW Wpm subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that heJ§h6/tl ,-,y executed the same in his/ft4/ti a authorized capacity(W), and that by 'his1hiV7tWr signature( on the instrument the person(g), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument. Wit s y han d offlci ea . [SEAL] iSigna ure ti,........W.,.... ...u.c ...„_ a od L@SAM BMM COm #1547737 Z x N01-y Put*-� jRanro.,b z lftwl- .�� �x u..:....' Q?ALMsa City of Palm Springs .� ti V N + * Office of the Cary Clerk * ��"•oxn.ce'"� � 3200 E. 'lahquirz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 C �P Tel:(760)323-8204 • Pax:(760)322-8332 • Web:www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us gtiFOR� AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, to consider an application by Wessman Holdings, LLC to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites featuring a roof terrace area with cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, on June 21, 2006. A copy of said notice was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 6'h day of June, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (65 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 61h day of June, 2006. ?JA:MESTHOMPSON rk /kdh HAUSERSk"WHeadng Nodces�Afiidavit-Wessman 062106doc Post Office Box 2743 6 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Public Hearing Notice MS APRIL HILDNER MR TIM HOHMEIER 5.1089 PD-322 (TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES) (DEEPWELL ESTATES) The Palm Hotel 241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE 1387 CALLE DE MARIA CC Meeting-09.20.06 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MS ROXANN PLOSS MR JOHN HANSEN MS MALLIKAALBERT (BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD ) (WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD) (CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION) 930 CHIA ROAD PO BOX 252 2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS DIANE AHLSTROM MR BOB MAHLOWITZ MS PAULA AUBURN (MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD) (SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP) (SUNRISEIVISTA CHINO AREA) 475 VALMONTE SUR 246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD 1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BOB DICKINSON MR BILL SCOTT MR. SEIMA MOLO1 VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS (OLD LAS PALMAS NEGIBORHOOD) (DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY) 755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE 540 VIA LOLA 359 W. SUNVIEW AVENUE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-1459 MS LAURI AYLAIAN MODCOM AND MR PETE MORU721 HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB ORG HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE 377 WEST BARISTO ROAD PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO 5,1089 PD-322 PLANNING&ZONING DEPT MRS JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 I I ATTN SECRETARY 506 W SANTA CATALINA ROAD - - - PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS I I I I I I INDIANS 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 ---------- -- --- ----- - WESSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC ALLEN &PHILIP, ARCHITECT 300 S. PALM CANYON DRIVE 7030 E. FIFTH AVENUE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251 MR JOHN SANBORN STEVE MARTINO, LANDSCAPE SANBORN AIE 7030 E, FIFTH AVENUE 1224 S. GENE AUTRY TRAIL,#C SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 'Gd INTERESTED PARTIES I 1 1 : �7 p n Pa - 2Q� %/l._. ! A.-LF. /7y-, � 7, -?o'04� 513-110-039 513-11 -aru n 513-120-058 Palm Springs Desert Museum T Paul CO t I`-M Palm Springs Modern Homes V PO Box 2310 PD x 3340 74140 El Paseo 4 Palm Springs, CA 92263 P m Springs, CA 92263 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-120-077 513-120-078 513-120-079 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Harry W Dobrowolsky Leonel Medeiros 74140 El Paseo 4 413 N Villaggic 2189 Market St 3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Francisco, CA 94114 513-120-060 513-120-081 513-120-086 Terrill L & Marian Phillippi Eric S Wohlschlegel Palm Springs Modern Homes V PO Box 8596 611 Massachusetts Ave Ne 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Washington, DC 20002 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-120-088 513-120-090 513-120-091 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 El Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-120-092 513-120-093 513-120-094 Palm Springs Modern [-Tomes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 El Paseo 4 71140 El Paseo 4 74140 El Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-120-095 513-120-097 513-120-098 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-001 573-141-004 513-141-005 Paul C Bruggemans WesSma❑ Holdings • Frank Tysen 385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 300 S Palm Canyon ❑r 175 S Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-011 513-141-012 513-141-013 Wahoo Cal Palm Springs Modern Hanes V Wessman Holdings 4109 NE 19Th Ave B 74140 E1 Paseo 4 300 S Palm Canyon Or Portland, DR 97211 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-015 513-141-016 513-141-017 Casa Cody B & B Country Inn Casa Cody A & B Country Inn Palm Springs Modern Homes V 175 S Cahuilla Rd 175 S Cahuilla Rd 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-018 513-141-019 513-141-020 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 El Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-021 513-141-022 513-141-023 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 El Paseo 4 74140 E1 Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-024 513-141-025 513-141-026 Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 El Paseo 4 74140 El Paseo 4 74140 El Paseo 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-027 513-141-028 513-142-00 M Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Mc Main Resort 74140 E1 Paseo 4 74140 El Paseo 4 1185 Sorrento Valley Rd C Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 S Diego, CA 92121 513-142-003 513-470-004 513-470-005 Chase Hotel Of Palm Springs Marc L Herbert Donald K Mckinley 200 W Arenas Rd 2864 Tice Creek Dr 4 4242 Corte De La Siena Palm Springs, CA 92262 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 San Diego, CA 92130 513-470-006 513-560-008 513-560-009 Carol C Holmes Sohn Wessman John Wessman 89 Tilden Way 300 S Palm Canyon Dr 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Belmont, ME 04952 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 *** 45 Printed *** NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.1089 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 322 THE PALM HOTEL 327 WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 21, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application by Wessman Holdings, LLC to construct a four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites featuring a roof terrace area with cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant, bar and pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at the City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday_ Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter(mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][21). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8245. es Thompson, City Clerk ' Department of Planning Services w NLE Y " Vicinity Map s a 0 W TAHQUITZ DR ❑ d � Wp 05 ARENAS RD Legend a ©SW'Radius � I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5,1089 PD-322 DESCRIPTION: Application to construct a,four-story hotel with 51 rooms including 11 suites, roof terrace area with APPLICANT: Wessman Holdings, LLC cabanas, bar and a water feature, a restaurant; bar and for The Palm Hotel pool cabanas located at 327 West Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zoned R-3, Section 15. APN: 513-141-013, 513-141-004. PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerl.'s Filing stamp (20I5.5.C.C.P) 20K SC? 15 14:'i e_ 20 CITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA No 291a County of Riverside I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY CITY OF SPRINGS PIANNEDSpEYELOP089 MENT 32 TE 327 W_TANOIAIITZ CANYON WAY am a citizen of the United States and a resident of NOTICE OTI Cltg oEpelBi�GIVEN it Ng.tnattlllihoCit eCouncil the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen heannppydt Ira meeting of gaptembar 20 2006 Thu CR Council meeting begins at 6-00 .m, In years,and not a party t6 or interested In the quill Cen"' ra oar of CIry Hap, 2g� Toll- printer matter. I am the principal cleric of a quill, Y y Palm Springs. printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING plhe F,.rpby.e t is he., Is to consider an ap- COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, a four-story holulnw Holdings, LLC to Construct suites featurin9 a rpwith 51 repine Including i printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, bar and a water restore a0 area with tetanus, Count of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ppp01 t;ibanas It r ed at a '0'ta4ranr bar and yWeY, Zoned lot tectlan 1$W."fahquita Canyon adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case Number 1912367 that the notice,of which the • annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller j than non pariel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: I •- - "" , f September 9'a 2006 -------------- All in the year 2006 I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the IectvlsCete oNeallLy nETEFIMINATION-This pro- In-fill Devolapr, Projects)Older Section j5332 foregoing i5 true and cOrreCL the lim liry qct tlon o"the CalrtOrnlaOEndeloremonr Dated at Palm Springs,California this---- 12"i,---day REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION;The staff -%.ont and orhor support documents regarding City H,1 between theeho'esbloftgrpP a Im reap�•q of--------$e -------------------,2dU0 Monday thropah Frida , Please contact the Would eF the CIt Clerk at �60) 323.8204 II you would like IO schedule an appointment to review these documents. j00 this n ceOmay 7vsmudetvo 6a4y0 al tl espu6`e -------- ^^---- ----------- ---�- ......-^---- heann and/or in Wntl ❑❑P tic ten fterments may no m dfartotth, My 3o nett Signature b letter Y (mall or hand delivery) it. It James Thorgpean City Clerk 3200 C. Tahqully Lvanyon Way Palm Springs CA 92282 T ` Any be 1) one of thU propo,ad project in court \ lN! may nv IIMi}ed to raising only those issues\ at fife public haermy ayscrlbed m this ,I,adr in written correspondence .or' to the City Clerk at, or prior, to tha ppubht hearing (Govern. man r Code Section 650pg(bj(2j). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all Intere;.ted persons to be heard.Oueatlpns rcc�ard- orpp this rise may be directed it Edward O. Igob- ert,:an, Princpipal Planner, Oep�rtment of Planning Sarvlcps at (/60) 323-6245. .31 la Cludaa ayyda conpBatag cane,pprtavor(lame a Nadine Fieger(7e0)ff r I puode hablar con James Tnompsen, Cit)�onc Published:3/9/200e NJ11, 41 LL It +40 W iZ 41 ON Frn 4 OT I osc -I }�. I ' ?.^� a�T, ,,,r . . TP"e!:t•.,::^,,,..n: Yn-m�ar.-�•'.r- r vr�a• 1....,.. ., a �'n.'`�p' 41�r y`S:W Ca•�'`�iz.r'ti'?s. ?rs', � 1'.J/a .4�.0 .gy.illir;, . 7,, i, —.qlviu 4A, - "4 i 1 Vk C ti: i P .•., ,pr_.....r r, _ - -rM a••"tr ;,L4: 'n: ;I._ I,,r� �:`�'w 5 .d�ii?' _ _,+^a, , ` I.•n°F 4:� f..i+~.k. ,mq r1111 " ,s[,f¢i.�f 71t ���i 1'.p• i ,t_C. 1'^t:i'1.rr,Y^A{,..'.i^ '�p�: .q..P', �rb'"`,.ki.F 4'�,.^ p+hN'. "�• .0`}J ,rS ' `r/ r,. �'IrxrY 'rl• , .'sL"r �i,.Y". /, .i . y!'{,' I'vr,,;M1+...,_{.n rul`: _;�i:� . �'{:✓ ,.f;�s,W,',h,;��R�1a 51,.n ��,,,:,y,�. rrr .1.,y , 4�{_v�^i.="�'•� - .f�1. ��i _ r.it 4,r�rr'�I�I .�r-i^�:d� '�.. •!-y."r',�., �r•,r (: .-f.�.,. ;"q y, Ys+: f• '•.{ •:e,:jye;',E"r:....t,^x:'rl' F'.�4't:w. i;4;yi;+Ffl"'":"L'd,',�y' 3.4,)}'rz,,�9"ra,i{i+;S1` 'P'7, r",',L�.':.:C ",:.�, rR r {,i �:;• ...r'i'....,.r'T!_•._ _ tt'' � f ,y/fr y ng• � ' } '�' :!r Yr ,�l':�v:fl' M1' +F '�K µ.4 l���A,."[e�"�'�F }'�`t•' ��C �• ,.�r r{ � 'H ' a t �.w",>;.•i3;�.r�'KSyr, ��+ e, i Aey,i N'li'�J„rr'-)1� ' s{;'i'"Y'r ,7 ,.�}.�"--'C;Mi q 1+.":' ' 'f'; '!Y;i IY ,,„p.. `'•'#4�,y ;e„r'4',r ^��, t ', $ .•:d . yL, V �r' G h} •C{d9 "nr� °� 1..-'�" 4 S � A,iJ fy..�.r:✓ f' �.L'Yw kl•�y✓ y',. ,bi. i,f q.r'�.I'dti`.�..�tlF�+ qr}'^f'L2rv'; '` , t;,tikA'., 1 . T� ,y4r"va.r,A >M';,w y, .b_Tl,}a .d,.5`I�,. ^�^�,"Yi�h(:'�:_.r✓.7:d r[f.�µ vI ��I.-;•1 {1' 'k" 8,.ryr. .,4 T I� - ,'� I `,i'o•1•:;11' i'�7 7'"i y r.Lh 4". L, ae „4'�1�. 1 !�p'`}Fx Y ,A.,n:, '}'rL$ r S �"p'Lty�•�"1...� '� ��,,11 ����''�i .^.S.• fy.�c ' �d 1✓,I. x�., ;�, lln ,&' �.,{'j 1}'.S:r�Y:;�:,..JfC � t5�," � r,{'• '�Y' � ' ';� { ! :it•.r ir�;r e N�j�1�' r � M �,� ��1'�xzgw ',Ip,..+.�::y1J"; Tl'�u "�.Vi j.!a .:n,r .l' C .�� ..i. ,);Fr�,l.+. '�^�1-I .•('� i JJ!+•1{;�:✓ .1f�`!i `- '15ikr ' ,r�r���t,:•�I.: '•i :�I•��." rr"_,Y,irR,i'. � '�.yw, C.i `r1'yr�� 1' .rt _r�r •':yr.,: rr_ _y. ,1. �,� 'f•! ,zs;+ dii;''."?,j r'•° ; F •_ - .rr ^.�. .. .,ur II� �`.� y,Y Y:. - '11 - e^.v..L� .n,a.Y..•�4e ym f,f I . .,y�p;�'r•,'.F:.,ri �airti)ir`y;q„;aVv,.' --_,` r � �`. r [ 7 i � j . --..n✓• ,���s"-:`�.�.J"M d.�' .v, ¢Ir ;4r. A' � .�• `�,• ,�.r,,Jr, ;�I,+,'�•,•n I _ .,;"�"k,,, .C'�'^,f! - �.6.r-t+; -y�. �p`�'' rrr•T`y. 1'.f Y.�,� a. .. � - I. . • � et�` . - ,:�,F�+N w��.�h `��^;�,4nr.:+�/:}'f�5� t�� ^i Hl:r„,.'�'%1'' �� r r. •"". . . ... ,:J..r.G - " r":'• ^i'nd- ��1Mrurt"•r,�A.,+ DSC ,'r e FJN\F __ :-r�`-- :-�n�,;�µ- �T-=y_ '•,•¢ "ii:c pm.. .AI w,: '^m r�r•xrr:.i,::^•"",1�-R m: a r�,T"•�,./,.rrn,,'��v�_ f IT r_ ,E11"4`";�, te�rr,, ^"�1''', ' 1Y- `1,Rr'�fi"�f,• fl' . Iw. + `t`¢�P '� ll'r. _ isJ�rl}'i��aM•°'t��.) _� FM.r 1i ".a'": ' 'I�yJa�_ -.r,"_ ' n ,n' u, r^R{.,n• _ ^r 7,,.art°M1rGed;'1,;:.,/ i':A' ,.f. A 11 �I 1+ /.r'Y. .f. 'rr .fir ' �9 1"vr:%"7%•i,., ,'M1P,.._ ?: . ,%V;�'�';r;"-t1•, `.;'4 i,. ,r•. � 4n,?f"4fn. r'0.A�°I^fr��:Wl dY,\� ;hz a: 'r•,iJ •ih?f `. ,;Y !;}' .r,tin rv� !y v ..N^"Yy'y �,• .,{ '-� h+::''^;:.." 'i�?'• '.,�'.Y:.� �' � sire°fr nr�� i'`•lv`r; !�Y �,.i.� .ICJ•�;",N ��§ i�j+r ii{rF � '.��''\i����a�".�'� � .r.`ra� �.!rrr .-:yl:.� < +li.'.gei11!•A�,��, _i .,'.,"C�:�'. .d,C. `� r�l., ' `.y�1,�✓ r. : .�a,i,�: '' ' L�^Tq;n :p .��ee,�•". �i,�Yr ':�'.• ar .f.:,i n-fo-r, fig •,d?01 P m S'x ,rir,,: I'�.„ ^x ;,t r'rr ° , I '�' ,7`%�,"�,'. y3Y. . ��Yy+F:,, :., .7 .. •.z,:, r,�; � � ,:. ;t . .� _ _::r;vb '•h;,%.,�sr`.ljr�+.wv �1ie��S;f;9."A�'+v���' 9 ,,s,.:pn f " , ,,'��'"frt`. '� �'^ .ti:?''r� rr„Y;:S-�'.^"f(M\,I''.l';�TW,.�F A'trf��7�'Y,I I'I-'•:<h"_�y:r. ::."i t5Y!:•0, ' �V�„?'.�J�;I;�� ''_ ,a '° � dl w?, y'.:-�• �z �r•.'r:,�ja ;,Y':,3„ � �ir'a' kr �; �, .;y �`,~•r %?`Y,,'�,';r;b�N,,�`br"•",��,�,r,l ' _•:a." . ,.r" `�'S'e�,�� �:.b'�'�r r°A.e_. :'Jti,.♦ ,�, v( 1Sw'" 7N `i }' `,,,r, rF my: �i_ :i i• Y1+`. ��pyr �[[� yy �,yy�j�,�a,r `�' I .: ,, v-•"%. 4:},J y•.il+l ii,� Ih I .R ' r4^I.r x"7�i-'_ ,�� "� ' �,' 'S�;•y,x % �f"l c:5l�rnAe ,)A ','y'.ir "- �:{' r"� `.N�.Y "v �� .* : .'i:L' . �; � .'r }:�. r `,•. .,=^'P; i"` ..•5;a ir!.Y 4r' - t.,l.-,'_rr.. `r nFil v. � •..1'r rvq,': i � �,',•'.:T ,i ..:Yol::d J r': r .�iy�:�Vv^n:.s:' /�,c�hW'`_.'4, •:a.::SL.::+. .".�ti F,�yJ�"'L��N':r _Yrl " ~"!r.�%ram- `�1.,,pp ■ ��rF - „Yr 1T�$' "; �. -P� �t ! ., 'fir. .:.;' ; 'i,,rk •icy':r'_ e ":"=M.::`S`,'pr'::"^'>'' 7 '1 �:.,•':9 �,}.a k` ,'y'. s _,`�:" fir• - �.a.,.'f. -»°`v>�a iF -"-,.'r,:it�'_ :k:1•N t„y�,.ie'4:,:; ,S}d'p,L ''iV'.j r'»I•[�: �::ISti".naw, ".`r.r ^i'^+�"�d ,-ti���qw�w � >�wl. �,'S .•3•l�a .y+'/_,'.N'�[[`i -ys1,' •.'r'rf-n Ya'i'. {.; .�rY%�'.;�r~„a:�^��'k:''r✓.':."•,h:p.4r.!Rap,,�.tldi7'eayY : �GG"PTR..° � - r `�.}i r ",`�_'ri':`,"r1�:r _•.r10 .i. ��R\L';'s"ir':C�,1�":.e�2,,-i.,i„� � , - - �f�'y _ •i l.^ - 'SL.•1 fit.:, .. r�l'„:'•r' yp.., _ - I .M� �I'r War'..- - _ •f i'Y•'y'f -/`ilS�r��"�y... tl..- `rY ,:v i �-. .. �' Z~r :.Y,'''�"�.•,I YxI/ay '�1v'`]�'•\I y'Lri - 1 _ .F'ay Lr� - � ��FR.•�~ { 1 :�r� bi iaq r•4i'/,. n�V I) � f „• ,{ptAM.' � } '_���aw'^,?ra !1.'e:'- � b�.Y4 Y. ' ..�L,by `' :FY'F+l. h _ T _ - _ {' ,rrv�.�i�ti„�:�fi'.��^�y,r%a� �. �'�'�`; .� .-i„ ,r�x`�...F\4�.-a._,.r:: •- . ' r : �.�'yrr�r..�:,::" .1�'n�1f ',�.�, `d' .^.� `�*�,.q°•' ','rff�`xn rxF;t�,:-.:�in11{;i'`,-rx�`';i-c:Y1. �', ~X.":'i..�. S_tn !&�' ,7+ /I%•r""'!r° N',�'} r Fr(�r+' �„q .' ..p�-yyY�r,N r+:�.iv= ,•r: "�7hr",� - ,. �„ r Nor � 'Iw�C.n' ��..i;. .My d,.•M_{„ Sir'r+liv.,�',�•yiJ;laew,�y✓�.;,•:• P. -.v;=;.,::;-- �.:'�„ "''•;�.N 'I`�i'kr�,A. �" er .�:F'_ +.r.w'r.-,ate .,��d,-`.t elx iry t�. "1Yti'iYw'7' ` �✓r.:r: �• - -- !'�.'r_�<'`"` �,I. � - '.nrl." 1 , „�p ,.a�b' ':a' vl .,,. v ,v..F a Ar. 1 ' �`- �pp.vfr'"..En.�.4�'!4.. (• v n :'e�., :'.:'w,,, _ �,k Y, "h. `•,, ..r.: .:iz*lA�;.r:, ;:;.,' �5�.cw,u���^.,Mwlr �f Fr�.tib�1,L tj r.•'-y n"`b''- -r,; _ ' 1''.� �'�Yrr,•-� -``5�.:�;- - `�' n.^•�r}i"�,,,.".,z�•+!;r..a r_? ,„5 ¢:=�_:+r`r.zRtrr,_a�..,.._.'1��'..:.1N.ip::i�r`"_b':�°.,i." �.I' - •Y"•11 �, r1_'.Y Y:�.'n�r:.ip r•.r "Aanl".'n::' � ":RI„ 3{ 1 �� hr ..�y.l:' M."lru•.�.un.N r- lmlr�l�"i'9.iin.x.r"ul 1 "�q: Ir'; 'F+r r.,m•y.'�1� r1" ,�,,,• - � r. Y.. :i'r"^,�;yr`.a+=^"'°'.k:?� '�;q���(IJi'p,�fip„'S'µMa.:i:, ly,�/•^in"'•-n.,,:�:: ',P}r'q' .���f.:,.��r:�..'."•�,' r - ' .. . - �r' -S.AN.. F�OQALMSp�' N City- of Palm Springs * * Office of the City Clerk 3200 E.1akiquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Cq �P Tel: (760)323-8204 • Fax: (760)322-8332 • Wcb:www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us ��FORN NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of June 21, 2006, Public Hearing Item No. 1C. THE PALMS HOTEL— CASE NO. 5.1089, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 322, AN APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY BOUTIQUE HOTEL WITH 51 ROOMS INCLUDING 11 SUITES, ROOF TERRACE AREA WITH CABANAS, A RESTAURANT, A BAR, A WATER FEATURE, AND SWIMMING POOL ON APPROXIMATELY 36,217 SQUARE FEET SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON AND CAHUILLA ROAD: By a unanimous vote the of City Council the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at City Hall in the Council Chamber, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., June 22, 2006, as required by established policies and procedures. Thompson james ity Clerk H:\U8FRSSC-CLKIHeadn9 Notices%NOTICr OF CONT- ThePalmsHotel.doc Posy Office Box 2743 6 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Jay Thompson From: Andy Linsky [drewz@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:42 AM To: Craig Ewing Cc: Rick Hutcheson;jgustafson@windermere.com, Steve Pougnet; Ron Oden; Michael McCulloch; Martha Edgmon; Jay Thompson; Ginny Foat; David Ready; Chris Mills; David Ready; Lee A. Husfeldt; John Goodrich Subject: RE: Wessman's Cranes at Tahquitz& Cahuilla, July 10 Craig: Thank you For responding. The issue still remains that there is only a FIVE HOUR period for people to see this, not the usual week, 10 days or month that most municipalities require to gain adequate public input. The fact that the demonstration is taking place in the middle of the summer, when a large percentage of our residents are away from the desert, simply expands the problem. I will definitely be there. Andy Linsky -----Original Message----- From: Craig Ewing [mailto:Craig E@ci.palm-springs.ca.us] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:42 PM To: andy@linsky.com Cc: Lee A, Husfeldt; David Ready; Chris Mills; David Ready; Ginny Foat; Jay Thompson; Martha Edgmon; Michael McCulloch; Ron Oden; Steve Pougnet Subject: RE: Wessman's Cranes atTahquitz &Cahuilla, July 10 Mr. Linsky, Lee Husfeldt forwarded your e-mail to me and I wanted to provide a brief response. The cranes were selected because the height proposed would be difficult to adequately and safely represent with story poles, especially in a windy environment like Palm Springs. I have worked with story poles in several instances in other communities and they are most useful when representing one or two-story heights. (At one project I was involved with, the applicant used story poles for a three-story structure and the poles were blown down the same day they were erected with a breeze of less strength than we regularly experience here.) Since any temporary installation (pales or cranes) is inherently impermanent, we must also be mindful of the liability issues that are raised by such structures. Consequently, a short-term, but well- publicized event as proposed for Monday, July 1 Oth makes the most sense, all things considered. We recommended to Wessman Company that the cranes be left up during the afternoon and evening so that as many people could see them as possible, including those who may not be home until after 5 or 6 p.m. I hope you will be able to view the cranes when they are set up. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs From: Andy Linsky [mailto:andy@linsky.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:22 PM To: leeh@ci.paIM-Spr1ngs.ca.us Cc. Stephen Pougnet&Christopher Green; John Goodrich 0 7[1212oa(o 7i5i')nnF Subject: Wessman's Cranes at Tahquitz &Cahuilla, July 10 Lee: I was forwarded your email re the above from John Goodrich. Please add my email address to your distribution: andy_ linsk .tom I am absolutely flabergasted that the City would accept a 5 hour demonstration on a single day by CRANES, in lieu of proper story poles erected for a specified period of time for all to have adequate viewing time. This is exactly what is wrong with Palm Springs. Decades behind in protecting their precious views, allowing developers to sidestep ordinates through Planned Development Districts and land-swap deals at the drop of a threat, taking advantage of ill-defined codes and making a mockery of the process by this half-assed demonstration. But what should I expect after a "rock crushing folly" at the South end of town intended to emulate the Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon neighborhoods? I have been harping on these matters for over two years now, with only lip service being paid, and I've about had it. Thank God we have an election every two years. Andy Linsky i i i I I i I i i i 7/5/?0(16 F ECEIVED Michael G Briski r,ITY OF P:+L!1 SF 3417 Andreas Hills Drive YQ06 JUN 2$ PH 3: 25 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Tel 760-864 7145 J k K L S Fax: 760-327 2775 CITY C L E;u Email: mbriski@dc.rr.com June 29, 2006 Hon. Mayor Ron Oden and City Council Members City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA Re: The Palms Hotel-Case 5.1089 PD 322 Application of Wessman Holdings, LLC Hon. Mayor and Council Members: INTRODUCTION: The above captioned matter came on for hearing before the City Council on June 21, 2006 with a recommendation by Staff for approval. At that time the matter was continued for three weeks to allow the installation of story poles or a facsimile to allow an adequate depiction of the height of the project_ This matter had previously been presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on May 10,2006. At that time the matter was continued to May 24th with a request for story poles, and a request for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the binding effect of an Ownership Participation Agreement entered into on June 2, 2004 between Wessman Development Corp, and the City_ The issue was whether the agreement had a binding effect limiting the consideration of the Commission considering the propriety of the project. At that time commission members also had some concern about the project in that it appeared to be too tall, too dense,blocks the mountains, isn't set back far enough from the street and surrounding structures,and does not appear to have adequate parking. At the May 10"'hearing the majority of those appearing before the commission expressed opposition to the proposed construction of a four story hotel with a cabana which in essence constitutes a five story structure Unfortunately neither the story poles nor an opinion of the City Attorney was furnished by the time of continued hearing of May 24. At that time the majority of the Planning Commission felt that the agreement was binding upon the City and the comment"A deal 1 is a deal" dictated approval of the project, overriding all the other concerns about this project .Fortunately the City Council recognized the necessity of having a clear picture of the height of the development and requested story poles or an equivalent be installed and the public given notice to view the proposed height. In the deliberations preceding the vote a disturbing comment was presented by Councilman Mike McCulloch. He expressed the opinion that the matter had already received due consideration in the negotiation of the Ownership Participation .Agreement. Mayor pro tern Ginny Foat correctly replied that action of Redevelopment was not binding upon the City when the matter comes before the Council for their consideration- This is a correct statement of the law of the State of California- The memorandum of the City Attorney presented at the meeting, concerning the legal right and responsibility of the City in relation to the Ownership Agreement, correctly stated that the agreement did not limit the City's consideration of the propriety of the project. Unfortunately the Planning Commission did not understand this to be a controlling principle, and the matter was not given the in- depth consideration it should have received. I now present an argument in opposition to the project based, not on emotion but upon the law controlling the issues presented. The argument singles out the most objectionable aspect of the project: its height. FACTS: The proposed development is a four story boutique hotel with a cabana located on top of the hotel,thus in essence a five story structure comprised of 51 rooms. It is located on the corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Cahuilla Road. It is across the street;Froze the parking lot serving the Desert Fashion Plaza and its related stores located in what is considered the Historic Village Center,more particularly depicted in the Economic Development Districts& Corridors map contained in the Palm Springs General plan. The proposed design of the project was reviewed unfavorably by the Architectural Advisory Committee. The matter first came before the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006. At that meeting there was wnsider-able public opposition by residents of the Tennis Club area, owners of small inns in the shadow of the proposed development,and Planning Commission members who objected to the height of the development as it impacted the Historic Town Center_ t 2 Commission members were also concerned that the project did not meet the requirement for the Downtown Guidelines, heigbts, setback,lot coverage or on-site parking and that it was out of scale for the neighborhood. There was also a request for consideration of the development of the downtown corridor in relation to the final product_ The matter was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2006 with a request of the planning staff to restudy setbacks,parking,the Downtown Guidelines, and further clarification on the Owner Participation Agreement from the City Attorney. There also was a request for story poles_ The matter again came on for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 24,2006. The staff again reported: In reviewing the case, staff remains persuaded that the proposed hotel places the bulk of the building close to the more intensely developed part of the neighborhood opposite Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert Art (sic)Museum. We believe that alternative designs would require adding building bulk to the south and westerly portions of the site, and thereby have greater secondary impacts on the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood. The staff,under Findings, stated: "The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general Plan pursuant to Sections 94.07 (A) (1) and 94.02.00 (A) (40) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code." Story Poles were not constructed,nor was there a report from the City Attorney clari fying the effect of the Owner Participation Agreement Although there was opposition among the Commission to the plan,the majority ruled in favor of the project on the belief that"A deal is a deal"referring to the Owner Participation Agreement of 2004_ THE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE GENERAL PLAN OF PALM SPRINGS CONCERNING THE HEIGHT ISSUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT: 1. The California Government Code: California recognizes and permits cities to undertake Planned Development. However, in so doing the State requires: "A development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan..." (Government code section 65867(b)Emphasis added). 3 2. The General Plan of Palm Springs: a. Village Scale "The basic objective is to maintain the overall texture of the historic village center of Downtown, or essentially two-story building heights above grade,with occasional three-story themed towers/landmarks as desired features. Exceptions to this general height limit should not be allowed within the Historic Village Center NEIGHBORHOOD and should only be considered in other Downtown neighborhoods where transitions in height and bulk can be set back from the Center." (General plan I-53 Emphasis added) b.Policies 1.2.3 "Proposals for development, either developer-or City initiated,must be analyzed and tested for consistency with the goals,policies and programs of the General Plan. Inconsistency of a project with the General Plan shall preclude development approval." (General Plan I-11 Emphasis added) CONEWENT AND DISCUSSION: In reviewing the economic development districts &corridors map contained in the general plan it is difficult to determine whether the proposed project lies within the area considered the Historic Village Center. However,there is little doubt that it is adjacent to and within the neighborhood of the historic Village Center. The Planning Staff recognizes this fact stating; "In reviewing the case, staff remains persuaded that the proposed hotel places the bulk of the building close to the more intensely developed part of the neighborhood opposite Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert(sic)Art Museum-" Iu the Economic Development map Plaza and Museum are within the historic Center. Therefore, it is clear that the development, located directly across the street, is in the neighborhood of the Historic Village Center. The staff in its report to the Planning Commission also stated. "We believe that alternative designs would require adding building bulk to the south and westerly portions of the site, and thereby have greater secondary impacts on the historic Tennis Club Neighborhood. In focusing on the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood, rather than the Historic Village Center Neighborhood,the staff erred in its consideration of whether the development met the height restrictions of the General Plan. The height restriction of the General Plan or"essentially two-story building heights above grade,with occasional three-story themed towers/landmarks as desired features,"applies not just to the"Historic Center," but applies to the Village Center Neighborhood. "Exceptions to this general height limit should not be allowed within the Historic Village Center NEIGIIBORHOOD and should only be considered in 4 other Downtown neighborhoods where transitions in height and bulk can be set back from the Center." (General plan 1-53 Emphasis added) It is the Historic Village Center Neighborhood not the historic Tennis Club Neighborhood that the General Plan speaks to. The plain language of the general plan speaks not only to the Historic Center, but to the Historic Center Neighborhood. The Plauuing Staff, in recommending approval to the City Council, is repeating the error. The staff errs in its interpretation of the village scale requirement of the General Plan_ It limits the height to the Center itself and not to "the Historic Village Center Neighborhood.' Such an interpretation would make the language"Historic Village Neighborhood" superfluous. The edicts of the General Plan protect against high rise encroachment not only of the Center itself and the Historic Village Neighborhood, but also other downtown neighborhoods which impact the Village Center stating: "exception to the height restriction should only be considered"...in other Downtown neighborhoods where transitions in height and bulk can be set back from the Center." (General plan 1-53, Emphasis added) For the purpose of discussion only, if one accepts the staff s interpretation concluding that the development is beyond the Village Center, and beyond the Village Center Neighborhood,the project still must fail. The clear language dealing with"other downtown neighborhoods"specifically requires transitions in height and bulk to be set back from the Center. Such language is designed "to maintain the overall texture of the historic village center". A five or four story structure directly across fxom the Historic Village Center does not maintain the overall texture. The height and bulk of this four- five story development directly impacts the Center,providing no transitional protection. Reasonable minds could not conclude otherwise, and a contrary conclusion would surely be arbitrary. The action by the Planning Commission, in accepting the recommendation of the planning staff,approving the Planned Development, altered the zoning requirements as established by the City as they apply to this particular development. In so doing the issue is whether this modification is in accord with law of the State if California and the general plan, or is it inconsistent. The conclusion is that the height permitted,4 or 5 stories, is in violation of the General Plan limitation of 2 and occasional 3 story heights. The Supreme Court, in considering attempts to modify zoning or a zoning ordinance in conflict with, or modification of a general plan,has stated: The Planning and Zoning Law itself precludes consideraLion of a zoning ordinance which conflicts with a general plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the general plan. The general plan stands. A zoning [action] that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when passed and one that was originally consistent but has become Inconsistent must be brought into conformity with the general plan. The Planning and Zoning Law does not contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is tit 0'86 5 the charter to which the ordinance must conform. Lesher Communication, Inc.et al. v City of Walnut Creek(1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 541 277 Cal. Rptr. 1, 6, (bracket inserted) In conducting a due diligence inquiry into the zoning law of Palm Spring and the General Plan, I have been repeatedly advised that the "Interim Downtown Urban Design Plan" establishes height limitation Downtown,however when pressed on the issue it has been admitted that the referred to Interim guide lines have not been adopted as the general plan of the City of Palm Springs and that the existing General Plan is the governing document. There is presently serious concern by the public whether the "interim Downtown Urban Design Plan" should be accepted as it relates to allowing 5 story structures in Downtown, and approved as the general plan. Thought exists that the attempt to obtain approval of what is in essence a 5 story structure would serves as a justification for the rest of the Downtown area to have similar structures. Based upon the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs and the law relating to development plans,the proposed development is in violation of the General Plan and its approval would be in violation of the Government Code of the State of California. Approval by the Commission or City Council would be in violation of the Code. The statutory edict of the Government Code states: "A development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body dads that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan..." (Gov. Code see. 65867 (b) Emphasis added). Although Cities may have a great deal of leeway in approving Planned Developments, it is also clear that they must adhere to the law conferring their authority to act. Failure to do so is subject to judicial review and correction. Given the edicts of the law of the State of California, and the violative nature of the proposed project, I respectfully urge the Council deny approval of this proposed project rather than send the matter back for further consideration by the Planning Commission. There may be other areas that may be suitable for such a development, but not the location in question. Res pe ctfully submitted, Iv G. riski 6 Office of the City Attorney City of Palm Springs DIRECT DIAL: (714)564-2642 (7eO)323-8211) I)IRCCT FAX: (714)565-2542 E-MAIL: S[p4aQ NSSzLAW.COM douolash(5,ci palm-sor1no5.c9.u^ TO: Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Attorney DATE: June 20, 2006 RE: Legal Rights and Responsibilities of the City Owner Participation Agreement Between Wessman Development Company and the Community Redevelopment Agency Summary The City Council has requested this Office review the Owner Participation Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency of Palm Springs and the Wessman Development Company regarding the development of a "boutique hotel" at the southwest corner of Tahquitz and Cahuilla Road and evaluate whether the City Council has any legal obligations pursuant to this agreement in the Council's consideration of Agenda Item 1.0 on the Council's Agenda of June 21, 2006. It is the opinion of this Office that the OPA does not restrict or limit the City's ability to review the Wessman Company's application for a planned development for the "boutique hotel" and the City Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application as provided in the City's Planning Code. Discussion In 2004, the City's Community Redevelopment Agency was in initial discussions with the Wessman Company regarding the potential redevelopment of Wessman's property at the southwest corner of Tahquitz and Cauhilla. One of the options that the Agency and Wessman were considering was Agency acquisition of an adjacent parcel, the "Winter Parcel," and sale of the Winter Parcel to Wessman for inclusion in Wessman's proposed boutique hotel project. The Agency and Wessman, however, were not the only suitors for the Winter Parcel, Frank Tysen and Therese Hayes, the owners of the Casa Cody Hotel, also desired to acquire the property to satisfy their own hotel services needs. Tysen made an offer to acquire the Winter Parcel and had actually entered into escrow to purchase the property when the Agency'attempted to exercise its rights of first refusal to purchase the Winter Parcel under an earlier agreement between the owners of the Winter Parcel and the Agency. 005 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 6, 2005 Page 2 It is our understanding that a creative compromise was achieved under the auspices of the office of Councilmember McCulloch. Under the compromise, the Winter Parcel and the development rights associated with the Winter Property would be divided so that Wessman and Tysen could each achieve their respective goals. Tysen would get the Winter Parcel, the house on the Winter Parcel, the ability to pursue the remodel of the interior of the house into hotel rooms, and the ability to incorporate the Winter Parcel into the Casa Cody. Wessman would get what was described at the time as the "transfer" of development rights from the Winter Property to the Wessman project. As an added bonus, ostensibly for the benefit of the public, the Winter Parcel and the exterior of the historic structure would be preserved. The vehicles to achieve this compromise consisted of two critical documents: An Owner Participation Agreement between the Agency and Wessman, and a Consent to Project executed by Frank Tysen and Therese Hayes. There are a few additional considerations that must be kept in mind. First of all, the Owner Participation Agreement is between Wessman and the Agency— the City is not a party to the OPA. Second, the OPA, due to the exigent circumstances of the time and the need to document the proposed compromise, preceded City review and approval of land use entitlement applications. These considerations were clearly understood under the terms of the OPA and the OPA recognized that subsequent approvals by the City would be required. Section 3.3 of the OPA expressly provides: "Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, it is expressly understood by the parties hereto that the Agency makes no representations or warranties with respect to the approvals required by ' any other governmental entity or with respect to approvals hereinafter required from the City or the Agency. NOTWITHSTANDING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE LAND-USE APPROVAL BY THE CITY AND NOTHING HEREIN, INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IN EXHIBIT B AND THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY, SHALL LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY BY ITS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PROJECT." The portion of the OPA quoted above, consisting of the all capital letters and bold print, is as it appears in the approved OPA. Please note that the OPA is included with the Council's Agenda materials for Item 1.C; see pages 0052 through 0071. In addition, the above sentence in its emphatic form as quoted above is actually repeated at the end of the Description of the Project, Exhibit "B" to the OPA; see page 0066 of the Agenda materials.) 0'0 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 6, 2005 Page 3 i Thus, it is evident that the OPA did not attempt to limit and should not be construed as limiting the ability of the City to exercise its governmental oversight and authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for development i entitlements related to the boutique hotel project pursuant to the City's Zoning Code. The City Council has full discretion to review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the planned development application for the boutique hotel on the Council Agenda for June 21. There are a few additional notes of interest. Tysen and Hayes are not parties to the OPA; however, they are the parties to the other essential component of the compromise: the Consent to Project. (The Consent to Project is attached to this memorandum for your reference.) In this document, Tysen and Hayes agreed to consent to Wessman's boutique hotel project so long as the project remained consistent with the Scope of Development as provided in the OPA. Although the OPA was amended last year to extend the time for Wessman's performance, the Scope of Development has not been amended. Thus, so long as the boutique hotel project is consistent with the Scope of Development in the OPA, this Office would consider the Consent to Project to be in full force and effect- The Consent to Project is important for other reasons. It includes a commitment by Tysen to preserve the exterior of the historic structure. The Consent to Project also formally acknowledges the "transfer" of development rights contemplated in the compromise and requires Tysen's recording a covenant "surrendering development rights beyond those necessary" for Tysen's remodel of the historic structure on the Winter Parcel. Conclusion The compromise over the Winter Parcel and the development of the Wessman boutique hotel did not affect the City's governmental obligation and right to review any land use applications for the project- Indeed, by its very terms, the OPA between the Agency and Wessman expressly acknowledged that the City's review authority was not affected or limited in any way by the OPA. Thus, the City Council has full authority to review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application for a planned development permit for the Wessman boutique hotel. DOUGLAS C LAND CITY ATT Sy- Dou s olland City Attorney 00/15/2006 09:51 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP lgq0o1 ZG qr20, 2006 j ta'I -:, GASH C ODY0 CI I To Palm Springs Mayor and City Council RR; Proposed Palms Hotel In view of the massive confusion about the Wessman OPA re the Palms Hotel, I have attached a previous memo dated Dec. 13, 2006, which I believe correctly explains the agreement. Already the Planning Commission abdicated its duties being under the false impression of what the OPA is really all about. Story poles were originally asked for by Commission members as a proper aspect of the planning process but were not provided. I must emphatically state that I only agreed to a density transfer because I was assured that due process would ensure some reasonable compromise that everyone could live with. If it were a done deal I would not have agreed. The Redevelopment Building Proposal was based on what could be the highest possible yield provided that all other community considerations could be satisfied which is why proper land use review was stipulated. Finally, the presently proposed transfer amounting to a total of 15 right of zone units from the Winters property added to 36 right of zone units from the Wessman property totaling 51 units differs from earlier agreements (see Exhibit B of OPA). 51 units would not leave any units at all for the Winters property which has 6 rentable units. Frank Tysen 175 S. Cahuilla Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262 Casa Cody Country Inn ns South Cahuiva Road Palm S1pnng5 California gaa6z 09/13/2006 09:51 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP IM002 i i December 13, 2005 TO: Palm Springs Mayor and City Council FROM: Frank Tysen and Therese Hayes i i I RE: An important correction and several clarifications regarding the Wessman request to i approve a new time frame for his proposed 4 story project on the southwest corner of Tahquitz and Cahuilla located in the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood. i INCORRECT DESERT SUN STATEMENT i First of all,we wish to correct a statement made in a Desert Sun article of December 9, 2005 which reports on the council decision regarding Mr. Wessman's extension request. The statement reads as follows: "Tysen approved the agreement with Wessman in 2004 because residents of the nearby Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood did not object to having a four story building close the their homes." The reporter might have taken his cue from a statement that Councilperson Mike McCullough made from the podium, being under the impression that the neighborhood had participated in the process. We must make it emphatically clear that not one single member of the neighborhood had anything to do with the original agreement that was negotiated by Mr.Wessman,the Redevelopment Agency, and Frank Tysen and Therese Hayes acting of behalf of Casa Cody. The Agreement, a creative suggestion by Councilperson McCullough,basically allowed Mr. Wessman to transfer some of the zoning density of the Winter house to his adjoining i property where he plans his hotel. However,it did not guarantee him in any way that the i proposed project would be approved during the normal entitlement process involving Architectural Review,Planning and the Council sitting as a Council not as a Redevelopment Agency, ENTITLEMENT NOT GUARANTEED TO DEVELOPER I We obviously could not commit the neighborhood and under no circumstances would we even have been a willing party to this Owner Participation Agreement if it had not contained the i following clause: i "NOTWFfHSTANDING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, I IT IS EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE LAND-USE APPROVAL.BY THE CITY AND NOTHING HEREIN,INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROTECT IN ! EXHIBIT B AND THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE AGENCY,SHALL LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY BY ITS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PROJECT." i I I 09/15/2006 09:52 FAX 8189067867 130ITLEVAlZD POSTAL STOP IM 003 This clause is not only in bold print but was clearly stated both at the beginning of the Agreement and at the end so as not to leave any doubt whatsoever. We certainly want to be sure that none of the city agencies which are to participate in this process can, in any way,be subject to intimidation by the developer and be made to feel that they have no choice in the matter. SOME CLARIFICATION OF H'YSRID ROLE OF COUNCIL We can understand how the whole process is rather confusing to the reporter as it is to us and others. It stems from the hybrid nature of the City Council wearing different bats sometimes as Redevelopment Agency members and other times as Council members. As Redevelopment members they are more apt to be sympathetic to growth and development. As Council members they have to take into consideration environmental issues and other community values such as historic preservation, maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods and preventing their destabilization, adherence to zoning codes and height limits and so on. Just because a parcel is allowed a certain density does not mean that a developer is able to use all of it since zoning considerations may limit it. We also must point out that even if the City had bought the property and sold it to Mr. Wessman,he would have been in a very similar situation since the property came with an encumbrance that the Winter House had to be preserved. 'Thus the Winter property was essentially unbuildable. The major difference that the Agreement made for Mr.Wessman is that he did not have to pay for the Winter House property and got the opportunity to use the Winter house zoning density for free so to speak. Yet it will only work for him if he can fit his project in with environmental, community and neighborhood values which are to be determined during the entitlement process. We are also concerned about his tactic of mentioning how much money he has spent so far on architectural fees which, of course, is the risk any developer takes. We would suggest that it be made perfectly clear to him again that,regardless of what he chooses to spend,the city cannot guarantee him in any way that his project may not be modified, altered substantially, or even turned down altogether just like any other project by any other developer. NO PARTICIPATION OF CASA COAX IN NEW ACMEEMLN'T' Finally for the record we must state that though Frank Tysen and Ther6se Hayes, representing Casa Cody,were involved in the original Owner's Participation Agreement executed by the city and Mr.Wessman on June 2, 2004,we did not have any part in the renegotiations between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Wessman regarding various changes, specifically an entire new time schedule. Not only were we not consulted,but the city even failed to notify us that it was on the agenda on November 17, 2005. An eleventh hour telephone call by a concerned citizen alerted us and, being out of town,we asked for the item to be postponed to December 7 which request the council granted us. However still no attempt was made after November 17,2005 to involve us in the new agreement.We were only told what it was going to be. The new agreement has changed the scope of the development including providing an extension beyond what was permitted by the original agreement. Our original agreement is no longer in effect and we withdraw our consent. Therefore we feel free to participate without restriction in the oncoming entitlement process. Re Wessman extension application carrecttan and clai fication 12-13-05 2 09/15/2006 09:53 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP Z004 cc: City Manager's Office Wessman Development Planning Commission Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization Planning Director Historic Tennis Club District Hotel Association Redevelopment Director Desert Sun Architectural Review Commission Michael Berk,Esq. of Greenberg and Glusker RC Wessmau e:rla don application correction and clarification 12-13-05 3 09/15/2006 09:53 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP 10005 June 18, 2006 TO: Palm Springs City Council RE: Proposed Palm Hotel As Mrs. Frances Winter's cousin I would like to volunteer the following information and opirnions regarding the proposed Palm Hotel ne7d to her former home at 141 South Cahuilla. Fortunately Frances Winter is still alive and well but at 96 years of age I felt she deserves her privacy. Anyway, it was I who approached Casa Cody to inform them that Frances was ready to sell. For many years my wife and I accompanied Frances on her lengthy annual sprang and fall Palm Springs stays going back to the time when the now vacant lot to be used for the Palm Hotel still had homes on it with people living there. Having thus been very close to Frances, as I still am,I knew how much the house meant to her and how concerned she was that future adjacent developments would be done sensitively. She talked about it frequently, That's why I felt that Casa Cody would be the logical buyer as I knew that they would respect the house and its surroundings. The historic preservation clause in the escrow was intended to preserve the property in its original state. Unfortunately the Palm Hotel as proposed would completely overwhelm the Winter House and severely compromise its historic integrity—something Frances dreaded. I would strongly urge you to reduce both the height and density of the Palm Hotel to make this new development compatible both with the Winter House and this wonderful historic neighborhood. Cornelis Van Vliet 7640 Pomelo Drive West Hills, CA 91307 (818)346-1547 I 09/15/2006 09:54 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP N06 n A Mlay 22,2006 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 RE; Casa Cody v/Wessman Development Dear Planning Commission; As a hotel owner,I am writing to oppose the development of a 50 room hotel near the Palm Springs Casa Cody Inn The proposed building by Wessmau Development exceeds the current zoning restrictions,blocks mountain views and is not in keeping with the historical"sense of place", since it will be structured much like a generic box type hotel. I am the past owner of The Pahns at Palm Springs Fitness Spa,which was located at 572 N.Indian Canyon Drive in Palm Springs. I owned and operated that property for over 25 years,so I am aware of how important it is to keep the historical value of a property and what the results can be due to over-development in an area that should keep it's authenticity. Therefore,I strongly oppose the building of this hotel and support the negative impact it would have on die current property of Casa Cody Inn located at 175 S. Cahuilla,Palm.Springs,CA 92262. Sincerely, ,46& �,7 � Sheila T. Cluff Founder/Owner The Oaks at Ojai Cc: F.Tyson,P.Price 122 E Dlai Avenue njai,Cslifornla J3023 Phone:805 646.557.3 Fax•MS440,1504 wwvd.bnksf,pa.Com 09/15/2006 09:54 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP 0 007 15 June 2006 City of Calm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: REa PROPOSER PALMS HOTEL PROJECT The Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Association (HTCNO)strongly objects to the Palms Hotel project as currently proposed due to the extraordinary concessions required to "shoehorn"the building into the site. A Planned Development Is Intended"to allow certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zone classifications,'in keeping with the General Plan and good planning practices. This could be reduced setbacks or Increased density or height Increases for specific building components. The Planned Development proposed here reduces setback requirements by up to 85%and Increases the building height 50%and increases the density by 30% and reduces on-site parking 33%and increases lot coverage by 30%. These are not variances;this Is not fleldbility. This Is wholesale capitulation. The HTCNO apposes these concessions because they would force onto the site a building that Is out-of-proportion with the neighborhood, and that will overwhelm its surroundings. The proposed project would redefine the experience of the area for pedestrians, bicyclists,and motorisls. What is now"charming"and "quaint,"with beautiful mountain views, would become a built environment dominated by a monolithic structure. The site is on a bicycle trail traveled by visitors and residents, and Is on the route of the Inn Walk that is held every December to celebrate the holidays and spotlight the character of historic Palm Springs. Redefining the neighborhood to be"urban"obviates one of the main draws of our community. The Owner Participation Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and Wessman Holdings appears to be the culmination of negotiations between two private property owners and the Community Redevelopment Agency. It did not involve, or even give consideration to,the neighborhood or the community at large. We take this opportunity to speak to the issue, because the proposed project des effect more than the two adjoining property owners. It significantly impacts our neighborhood and the historic section of palm Springs. 09/15/2006 09:55 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP 2008 City of Palm Springs Mayor and Council Members Palms Hotel -Proposed planned Development District 16 June 2006 A developers financial goals for a project do not constitute a compelling reason for granting variances. We respectfully urge you to represent the interests of the community at large and to deny the project as currently proposed. A similar project that complies with zoning setbacks, height restrictions, and parking requirements would be enthusiastically supported by our neighborhood organization. Sincerely, Lauri Aylaian HTCNO Hoard of Directors Copy: David Ready Craig Ewing HTCNO Board Members 09/15/2006 00:56 FAY, 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP 16009 MSN Hotmail - Page 1 of 2 lt'1S1'fy6 Hotmall® 111C7oy7@ho"Ri1.coin Printed;Tuesday,Septeriber 5,2006 2:23 AM r..Lr__=.- 11.1I r,rr.r i r 1,y.gnl...M1.M_f.__u,. .r: .-.-..u... -_!,-rR -,i._..r i.�.., ,,.. �� .,t.uu=tr'c9^A.,, From: Sheryl Hamlin<sherylhamlin@earthlink.net> Reply-To: [sherylhamiln@earthllrk.net> sort, Monday,Septanber 4,200610:20 PM "Chris Mills- [ChrisM@[i.pahn-sprlrg.ra.us>,'Onny FoaC sgimyf@Ci.palm-sprngs.ca.us>,"Mike McCullough" To, <mkhaeln@d.paln-3pdngs.ra.us>,"Ron Oden"[ronoC G.palm-Wr",ca.us�,"Steve Pougnee <stever C d.palm-springs.ed-us> "Craig Ewing"[daige@d.palm-spr*KT ca.raa,'David Ready'<navidR@d.palm-spring&ca us>,"Douglas C, Holland"<dro0ard@wss-law-mn> subject: Palms NoW OPA ,v.Ad nl V, .W ¢_..J ml+�twa nutr,m::_ryrt.eeina"wiI.-.mY�GSx;:ri:=1k1N:n«vi ,::�.C'�� .max ..r 1...M m ':'vT"_Y_wunu n� x�_,.r r, nrlw.d-.rw..rnIenrxA: f Iq Attadent: CRAStaffReport200406-02.pdf(0,85 Ma),CRAMInutes2004-06-02.pdf(0,09 MB) r rx_„-.wr •r-fn:a --T-m. o 1.r 11, x .1,1 r.r, _�. 11-11.1.11. ,._. ,,...1. ,7-r11aw, Dear Mayor and Council Members: The June 2,2004 CRA Staff Report lays the groundwork for the OPA between the city and Wessman Development regarding the density transfer between the Francis Winters'property to Mr. Wessman's property. The staff report states: The"transfer of development rights'concept would allow Wessmen to propose additional units on his site (36,900 s.f.)that he would have built on the KWar property,giving him the right to propose up to 51 rooms total(the hotel plan in the OPA contains 48 rooms). Some reef on the rear setback, along the Whiter property line,is also contemplated as well as the abildy to count the Writer property towel cf the open space calculation. There remain issues of overbufl&ig,he04 parking requirements andotheriegmred setbacks, which will be addressed through the development process. The above paragraph dearly indicates that the writer intended for zoning issues(setbacks,height and parking)to be addressed during the'development process'- The staff report notes too in a previous paragraph the following statement ....The OPA would require that the project would stiff need to go through the normal oily development process.,... Unfortunately the Planning Commission clearly abrogated its responsibility in this regard by refusing to study the project and metal/passed it on without serious study saying we deal is a deal'. The Architectural Advisory Committee did have reservations about the suitability of the design for the lot. On the very same day the staff report was released,June 2,2004,the OPA agreement was approved at the Redevelopment Agency.If the agenda for this June 2,2004 CRA meeting were poster)on May 28, 2004,as the min Wes reflect,the staff report dated June 2,2004 would not have been available for community review until the day of the meeting,so there was no possibility of community review of the staff report and/or the OPA. There was NO community vetting of this agreement or the staff report nor were community members invited to attend the RedevelopmeotAgency Meeting an June 2,2004,contrary to what Counciln'ian McCullough repeatedly asserts,to be apprised of the terms and conditions of the OPA. In five years of representing the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood,we have NEVER received notice of Redevelopment Agency meefings_ The June 2,2004 staff report mentions that Viesshran Development had produced a"conceptual plan". That plan was never shown to the naighbomocd or vetted against the city'S planning process before or during the completion of the Owner Participation Agreement- There were no public meetings where this http-.//byl Olfd.bayl Ol,botmail.msn,com/4-bin/getinsg?c urmboar00ooOOW/o2dOo(i0%2d... 9/4/2006 09/15/2006 09:56 PAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP 1@ 010 rune 16, 2006 TO: The Palm Springs City Council FROM: Historic Tennis Club District Small hotels RE. Proposed Palm Hotel We,the undersigned owners of neighboring Historic Tennis Club boutique hotels, are deeply concerned about the proposed Palm Hotel at Tahquitz and Cahuilla. Though we support a boutique inn at that location, our concern is with the proposed density as well as the height of four stories and a fifth story deck in a neighborhood of one and two story buildings. We fear the potentially destabilizing impact of what currently is a successful small hotel community. We are informed that if that request is granted other applications for such heights may be forthcoming producing a domino eft'ect. This would create further adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Our client base which is very much dependent upon the area's low-rise character,low density and the consequent relaxed ambience would be negatively affected. We feel that this project does not qualify for an infill exemption under the California Environmenral Quality Act because it is not consistent with the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance and all zoning regulations, the General Plan designation and all General Plan policies including exceeding applicable density and height limits, inadequate open space requirements as well as major departures from setback requirements such as a 142' setback reduced to 15' and a 53' setback reduced to 3'. Additionally the proposed high percentage of off site parking suggests that from a sound planning perspective the property would be substantially overbuilt. Moreover,the CEQA exemption is not applicable because there is a reasonable probability of significant environmental effects due to unusual circumstances including density bonus transfer. The significant density being shifted to this site results in severe land use and esthetic impacts and a project that is entirely incompatible with its surroundings and setting_ We also question whether the city has proper density transfer procedures and if so whether they were properly followed_ What is the basis under the General Plan and the zoning regulations for such an increase in density? If such density transfers are permitted we question whether the density transfer has been properly calculated. Also the proposed project exceeds the scope of development discussed in the Owners Participation Agreement. What is the basis for the divergence? The changes affect rooftop use, greater height, lack of below grade parking and restaurant size. 09/15/2006 09:57 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP l�J 011 Palm Spring City Council June 16, 2006 Page 2 Furthermore we contend that the Palm Springs Planning Commission on May 24, 2006 did not properly scrutinize the Palm Hotel application since they erroneously believed that they did not have the discretion to exercise their proper planning authority and duties. Because of all this we contend that the necessary findings for approval cannot be met. Therefore we recommend no infill exemption, denial of the project, or at least to return the matter to the planning commission for a proper restudy including the use of story poles and flags outlining the proposed building silhouette or adequate computer simulation. The Andalusian Court Old Ranch Tan Yuka Akimoto Larry Pilcher and Edward Fine Arenas Gardens Orbit In and Hideaway Roger Malone and Eugene Milligan Christy Eugems and Stan Amy I Calla Lily Inn San Giuliano Inn Rod and Charlotte Callahan Eugene Rossi Chase Hotel Korakia Pension Craig and Kathleen Blau Doug and Josie Smith Coyote Inn The Willows Gary and Mary Nold Tracy Conrad and Paul Marut I 09/15/2006 09:58 FAX 8189067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP U012 July 12, 2006 To: Palm Springs City Council From: Historic Tennis Club District Small Hotels RE: Proposed Palm Hotel Pursuant to our memo dated rune 16, 2006, we wish to submit the following legal opinions regarding land use and environmental violations relating to the proposed Palm Hotel. 1. Before the PUD can be approved, the City must make a consistency finding with the General Plan and "sound community development." Such a finding cannot be made here because, as the Architectural Review Committee noted, the project is out of character with the neighborhood. 2. Even with the PDD, the City cannot simply waive all minimum set backs. It must ensure that they are compatible with adjoining uses. Without a finding that the reduced set back would be consistent with the surrounding sites, there would be a violation here. 3. Because of the project's inconsistencies with the zoning ordinance, with respect to height, scale, set backs, etc, it is not subject to i categorical exclusion as in-fill development. CEQA Guidelines 15332(a). The city has not proposed to make any of the findings required by 15332, including the consistency finding. i 09/15/2006 09:68 FAX 8180067867 BOULEVARD POSTAL STOP IM013 MSN Hotmail - Page 2 of 2 "conceptual plan'was presented or discussed. It is clear from the June 2,2004 staff report that it was Mr.Wessman's insistence during the three year period that prompted the city to act.The attached)staff report indicates that Mr.Wessman had been interested in this property for several years. Clearly the case could be made in an investigation that the OPA was a result of Mr_Wessman's insistence on purchasing the property, not a result of the exercise the agency's right of first refusal,as stipulated by the suit. The city is also remiss in not instructing the Historic Site Preservation Board to designate the Winters'property immediately as a class 1 Historic Ste,as it is in its powers to do,and which was a condition of the Francis Winters'successful suit against the city. According to the agreement with Mrs.Winters,the city had 30 days to purchase the property for itself It did NOT have agreement to purchase and immediately resell the property to a third party. The OPA violates the spirit of the conditions of Mrs_Winters'suit in allowing an oversized project to compromise the historical integrity of her property. I believe this OPA would be found null and void by an investigative body due to egregious lack of process and that, if the council approves this project,the CRy Council,in acting simultaneously as the Community Redevelopment Agency,clearly violates the separation of agencies as stipulated by the Brown Act cc: HTCNO board, Small Hotels Association httn://bv 101fd.bav 101.hotmaii,msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?eurmbox=;00000000°/a2d0000%2d. . 9/4/2006 14 September 2006 Mr.Jay Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way ,palm Springs,CA 92262 Tear Mr, Thompson: RE: 20 SEPTEMBEk 2006 CITE'COUNCIL AGENDA PACKAGE The attached letter to the Mayor and city council members addresses a public hearing item on the agenda for the subject city council meeting_ Please distribute a copy of the letter to Mayor Oden and Council Members Pougnet,Foat,Mills,and McCulloch,and provide a copy to the Director of Planning and the City Manager. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. sincerely, Lauri Aylaian HTCNO Board of Directors I i i Z9/Ta :JEJtld 1=71c[ W-1va dQa Z'EOTbE0a� 6F:9T ` 7/rT/" 14 September 2006 Dear Mayor Oden and Pahn Springs City Council Mcmbcrs; RE: THE PROPOSED PALMS RoTEL This letter renews the objection of Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Association (HTCNO)to the Palms Hotel project as currently proposed due to the extraordinary concessions required to"shoehorn"the building into the site,and due to the fact that it does not comply with the new Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for develppmeat. A Planned Development(PD)generally allows flexibility to provide reduced setbacks or increased density or specific building components of increased height. The proposed PD here reduces setback requirements by up to 85%and increases to building height by 50% and increases the density by 30%and reduces ou-site parking by 33%and increases lot coverage by 30%. This proposed project violates the letter and the spirit of the zoning ordinance,and dismisses the new Downtown Urban Design Guidelines that city representatives and residents worked so hard to develop. The HTCNO opposes these concessions because it would cram onto the site a building that is out-of-proportion with The neighborhood,and that will overwhelm its snaouudi ngs. The proposed project would redefine the experience of the area for pedestrians,bicyclists, and motorists. The quaint area with beautiful mountain views would become a built environment dominated by a monolithic structure. The site is on a bicycle trail traveled by visitors and residents,and is on the route of the Inn Walk held every December to celebrate the character of historic Palm Springs. Redefining the neighborhood to be ` ban"obviates one of the main draws of our community. The Owner Participation Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and Wessman Holdings appears to be the culmination of negotiations between two private property owners and the Community Redevelopment Agency, It did not involve the neighborhood,or even give consideration to,the interests of the neighbors or the community at large. A similar project that complied with setbacks,height restrictions,and parking requirements of the zone(or that was located in the downtown area defined by the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines)would be enthusiastically supported by the Board of Directors of the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization. Respectfully, l;auri Aylaian HTCNO Board of Directors i i ZB/z0 39tld 1d253(T W-1tld dQa ZLf91bE09t 6E:0T 90n/4t/60