The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21533 - RESOLUTIONS - 3/1/2006 RESOLUTION NO. 21533 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TIME. EXTENSION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 (PD-260) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691 (TTM 29691) LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES C-1 AND R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23, REQUESTED BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC. WHEREAS, Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts (the "Applicant") requests approval of a two-year time extension for Case No. 5.0830- Planned Development District 260 (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691) for property located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W R-3, Sections 22 and 23; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a time extension to January 30, 2008, to allow additional time to complete the approval process for the final subdivision map and final development plans; and WHEREAS, there is an extensive history of city actions on the project, as follows: ' 1. On April 26, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve Case No 5.0830-PD-260 for a Planned Development District (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29691). 2. On May 17, 2000, the City Council voted to approve Case No 5.0830-PD-260 for a Planned Development District (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29691). 3. On April 24, 2002, a public meeting on the request for a time extension from May 17, 2002 to May 17, 2003, for PD-260 and TTM 29691 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law. 4. On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to the City Council of the one year time extension subject to the original conditions of approval. 5. On April 24, 2002, the City Council voted to approve a one year time extension from May 17, 2002 to May 17, 2003, subject to the original conditions of approval. 6. On July 10, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an amendment to Case No. 5.0830-PD-260 and TTM 29691, to change the land use from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare with 198 hotel rooms becoming 79 time share units and other miscellaneous amendments including the elimination of the ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting rooms and spa to former ballroom location, the addition of nine timeshare units in the former spa location, and the conversion of 198 hotel rooms into 70 timeshare units. Resolution No. 21533 Page 2 7. On July 17, 2002, The City Council approved an amendment to Case No. 5.0830-PD- 260 and TTM 29691, to change the land use from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare with 198 hotel rooms becoming 79 time share units and other miscellaneous amendments including the elimination of the ballroom and large kitchen, relocation of the recreation facilities, meeting rooms and spa to former ballroom location, the addition of nine timeshare units in the former spa location, and the conversion of 198 hotel rooms into 70 timeshare units., 8. On November 6, 2002, the Community Redevelopment Agency and City Council approved an amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Agency and SCHLPS, LLC to reflect changes in the project and several of the deal points. 9. On January 29, 2003, a time extension from May 17, 2003, to January 30, 2005, for PD-260 and TTM 29691 was approved by the City Council in accordance with applicable law. 10.On January 21, 2004, the City Council voted to approve a Development Agreement for the Star Canyon Resort. 11.On June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to approve the site plan for the Star Canyon Resort. 12.On November 24, 2004, after several continuances, the Planning Commission voted to ' find that the final development plans were not in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans. 13.On December 6, 2004, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 14.On February 16, 2005, the City Council voted to approve the third time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691 to January 30, 2006. 15.On March 16, 2005, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and found that because the plans presented to the Planning Commission had been altered, the Council declined to take action on the matter and directed that the final development plans be remanded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. 16.On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised final plans and found that they were not in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans_ 17.On May 25, 2005, Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.. , Resolution No. 21533 Page 3 ' 18.On July 13, 2006, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission decision and upheld the Planning Commission's decision that the final development plans were not in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans. and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the present time extension request and adopted Resolution No. 5060 to recommend denial of said request; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact was previously approved by City Council on May 17, 2000, in conjunction with the approval of the Star Canyon Resort; 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 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the preparation of a Subsequent Negative Declaration, Addendum Negative Declaration, or further documentation is not necessary because the changed circumstances of the project will not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. These changes could not result in any new environmental impacts beyond those already assessed in the adopted mitigated negative declaration. SECTION 2: The applicant requires additional time to submit revised final plans, propose an alternative for City review, or sell the project- SECTION 3. The time extension for Planned Development District 260 (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691) is granted for one additional year. The development approvals shall expire on January 30, 2007, if not exercised prior to expiration. ADOPTED this 15t day of March, 2006. David H. Ready anager Resolution No. 21533 Page 4 ATTEST: ;;Ies Thompson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 21533 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on March 1, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember McCulloch, Councilmember Mills, Councilmember Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tern Foat and Mayor Oden NOES: None ABSENT: None ' ABSTAIN: None mes Thompson, City Clerk ity of Palm Springs, California