HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-01 STAFF REPORTS 4A PALM
-
' City of Palm Springs
I fi l f ry
Office of the City Clerk
�4 ORarto 3200 Tuhgma C Wa anyon y • Palm Spsmgs,CuLFom,a 92262
'.tV P TEL (760)323-8204 • FAX (760)322-8332 ' TDD:(760)864-9527
February 15, 2006
Via Facsimile and US Mail
Noel Tapia
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404
RE: Fairfield Resort PDD 260 TTM 29691
Dear Mr. Tapia:
I am returning your check 5814 in the amount of $494 as submitted for the
referenced appeal by Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
An appeal is not necessary, as the hearing for an extension of a TTM is a matter
of course.
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, will be contacting you directly to
schedule the extension request before the City Council.
I apologize for any inconvenience. Please contact me if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
James Thompson
lt� City Clerk
cc: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
GREENBERGTRAURIG`LLP 00584
2456COLORADO AVENUE,STE 400E
SANTA MONICA,CA 90404 16-1506n220
NOT NEGOTIABLE AFTER 00 DAYS FROM ISSUE
�j"JIt �I P I {I 1 .. DATE - CHECK NO. _ AMOUNT
_ . PAY I " . IyM L., -, iU Im(I�1I�e_ _
02168/06- _—
"" TO THE City,_of, Palm Springs -
ORDER TVVCISIGNATOR'ES REQUIRED FOR AMOUNTS OVER$10,00000
-: .oF 32b0.E.-TaJlgtitjz Canyon --
Palfn Springs, CA 92262 "^ - - -GREENBERG TRAURIG LIP
--_ FIRM ACCOUNT "
CITYNATIONALBAIVK -
Bev, ly Hif,C my 910 (310)553-6282.
Beverly Hills,GA 902f0 - -
"00SS i411' 1: 1 2 20 i60661: 101--17496061I'
02/15/2006 10:47 FAX 760 322 8332 Palm Springs City Clerk IM001
a<x : TX REPORT a::am<
9<N4::&:BF
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 3080
CONNECTION TEL 913105867800
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 02/15 10:47
USAGE T 00'14
PCS. SENT 1
RESULT OK
1�_ PALM S
City of Palm Springs
v h
i
* Office of dle City Clerk
9
41 9200'G:hquia CAnyon Wny • P11m Springs.Cxliknnn 93262
'PF:L;(760)323-9704 •rAX!(760)322-8332 •TDD:(760)864-9527
(`q<!Fe?,t'
February '15, 2006
Via Facsimile and US Mail
Noel Tapia
Greenberg Traudg, LLP
2450 Colorado;Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404
RE: F";airfield Resort PDD 260 TTM 29691
Dear Mr. Tapia':
I am returning- your check 5814 in the amount of $494 as submitted for the
referenced appeal by Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
An appeal is not necessary, as the hearing for an extension of a -I-TM is a matter
of course.
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, will be contacting you directly to
schedule the extension request before the City Council.
I apologize for any inconvenience. Please contact me if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
JAN-30F 2006 MON 11 :67 AM A0901 PLANNING FAX NO, 11 P. 01
CALJ TRIBAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
E 660 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
(760) 325 3400
F
RECEIVED JAM 3021306 FAX(760) 325-6952
OAHU1��\
TO: Mayor Ron Oden and City Council, FROM: Torn Davis, Chief Planning &
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Officer
FAX: „ 760-323-8207 PAGES: 4 (including cover sheet)
PHONE: DATr=: January 30, 2006
RE: Case 5,0830, PD --260 TTM 29691, CC:
Star Canyon Resort, Time Extension of
Planned Development District and
Tentative Tract Map -„
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle
RE
JAR 3 0 299E
Planning&LOnlnC
JAN-30-2000 MON 11 :57 AM ACBCI PLANNING FAX NO, 11 P, 02
1 4
AQUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIAN5
TRIUAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
January 30, 2006 Via Facsimile and Regular Mail
Mayor Ron Oden and City Council
City of Palm Springs
PO Box 2874
Palm Springs, California 92263
RE- Case 5.0830, PD — 260 TTM 29691, Star Canyon Resort, Time Extension of
Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map
Dear Mayor Oden and City Council,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) respectfully requests the City
Council to reconsider the approval of the above time extension in light of the duration of
time since the original entitlement and the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was
approved on May 17, 2000. it would appear that a variety of environmental constraints
might require reconsideration now: cultural, biological, and traffic concerns. An
extension of more time to build upon a faulty foundation may not be in the best interest
of the City or the Tribe,
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Tribe to the City Council at the time of the last
review of final development plans for the proposed project. The Tribe would like to
emphasize that significant changes to the final development plans appear to be
necessary in order to be in substantial conformance with the original Preliminary
Planned Development District entitlement,
Thank you for your consideration.
�Ar--,fru--f, yours,
T omas J. Davis, AIGP
C lef Planning and Development Officer
AQUA CALIENTE SAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
TD/jb
Attachment
C: Tribal Council
650 F=A'GT TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
Y 760/328/3400 F 760132516952 AGUACALIENTE.ORG
r
JAN-30-2006 MON 11 :5B AM AGBOI PLANNING FAX NO. 11 P. 03
' AGUA CFI,. CENL, DAND OF CAHUILLA( MDIAN�
'r'r IBAL PLANNING, (. UIL01 `
NG & I;NGIIV C.CkING
July 12, 2005 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivered
Mayor Ron Oden and City Council
City of palm Springs
3200 F. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Rt: Case 6.0830, PD-260, Star Canyon Resort by Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
Dear Mayor Oden and City Council,
The Indian Planning commission met Monday, July 11, 2005, and reviewed the
revisions to the above project scheduled for the City Council Final Planned
Development District appeal hearing July 13, 2005. Upon recommendation of the
Indian Planning Commission, the Tribal Council reiterates that the project does not
appear to be in substantial conformance with the original Preliminary Planned
Development District entitlement with regards to the following:
Y The Tribe's original request to lower the height of the buildings on the western
portion of the property, redistributing them to the northern side of the property,
has not occurred. The majority of the buildings adjacent to the western property
line have increased in height.
A Setbacks relative to the City's high-rise ordinance do not appear to have been
met.
Y The villa buildings lack the level of detail expressed in Building 10 thereby
creating undistinguished facades at the western, southern and northern
elevations.
Additionally it is recommended, if the project is approved, that highest quality standards
for materials and buildings standards be strictly adhered to,
Lastly, the Project Approval Chronology portion of the staff report prepared for the
Council's review, Page 2, indicates that on October 11, 2004, the Indian Planning
BSO FAST YAHQUITZ. CANYON WAY, I-ALM SPRINGS, CA 9226p
'I 7E:0/3$5/8A 00 F 7G0/S25/t;0Z2 AGUAGALIENTE.ORC3
5
JAM-30-2008 MON 11 :58 AM A0B01 PLANNING FAX N0, 11 P. 04 '
Commission reviewed and approved the subject project. That statement is incorrect.
The Indian Planning Commission did review the project on October 11, 2004. No
actioh was taken on the project.
V truly ours,
�1Th mas J. Davis, AICP
6hi f Planning & development Officer
AG A CALIIwNTE BAND
OF CANUILS,A INDIANS
TJD/KMlcm
C; William 1, Kesterson, Cendant Timeshare Resort Group (facsimile and regular
U.S. mail)
Norm Canchola, City of Palm Springs Planning Director
P:1Privntclhtr•TJP11171205-star canyon(km).doa
AQUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAMUILLA IIVDIANS
A 0 U A CA L, IY_ NTE.. . 0 RC
CppLM S,4
AI
.y
c
V N
• t
e
* O1O RAI EO EAA` A
Cg41FOTL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 1, 2006 Unfinished Business
SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC., FOR A TIME
EXTENSION FROM JANUARY 30, 2006 TO JANUARY 30, 2007 FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 29691 FOR 254 TIMESHARE UNITS LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH
PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES C-1 AND R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Planning Services
SUMMARY
On June 25, 2006, the Planning Commission (by a vote of 5 to 1, 1 absent)
recommended denial of a request by Fairfield Resorts, Inc., for a two-year extension to
their Planned Development Permit (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29691).
The Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map would allow a 254-unit timeshare
including associated uses and facilities. The Planning Commission resolution, staff
report, meeting minutes and a letter from the applicant are attached to this
memorandum.
Staff has reviewed the request and believes that the project proponent should be
allowed some additional time to pursue the project including:
- Submit a Final Development Plan conforming to the approved PDD.
- Submit an alternative design for review and action by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
- Sell the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 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"
Item No. `'1' A.
City Council Staff Report
March 1, 2006--Page 2
Fairfield Resorts—Time Extension
FISCAL IMPACT: Finance Director Review:
No fiscal impact.
000,
�i
� L
ai ;,swing I P, Thomas J. Wil n
Direr of Pla n' g Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Svcs.
David H. Ready, City Mgnzg
Attachments:
Draft City Council Resolution
Planning Commission Resolution (2-8-06)
Planning Commission Staff Meeting Minutes (1-25-06)
Planning Commission Staff Report (1-25-06)
Letters of Request from Applicant (2-8-06)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 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
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.
Resolution No.
Page 2
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.
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
Resolution No.
Page 3
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..
18.On July 13, 2005, 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, 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.
Resolution No.
Page 4
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 1st day of March, 2006.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
Resolution No.
Page 5
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. 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
, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
l f
Y,
l� y
RESOLUTION NO. 5060
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DENY 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.
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.
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..
18.On July 13, 2005, 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 held a public meeting to
consider the request for a time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691; 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 Planning Commission 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, all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS 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 has had ample time to submit revised final plans since the
City Council found that the final development plans were not in substantial
conformance with the preliminary plans on July 13, 2005. The previous
responses of the applicant to the City's requests and comments show that
while the applicant has been diligent in submitting final development plans
for review, the plans have not incorporated the comments and concerns of
the Planning Commission and City Council. Given the record of the
applicant's responses, the Commission finds there is no good cause to
grant a time extension for PD-260 and TTM 29691.
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..
18.On July 13, 2005, 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 held a public meeting to
consider the request for a time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691; 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 Planning Commission 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, all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS 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 has had ample time to submit revised final plans since the
City Council found that the final development plans were not in substantial
conformance with the preliminary plans on July 13, 2005. The previous
responses of the applicant to the City's requests and comments show that
while the applicant has been diligent in submitting final development plans
for review, the plans have not incorporated the comments and concerns of
the Planning Commission and City Council. Given the record of the
applicant's responses, the Commission finds there is no good cause. to
grant a time extension for PD-260 and TTM 29691.
Section 3: While the overall plan and lot configuration has not changed, the uses and
development of the surrounding community have changed such that this
project is no longer desirable for the development of the community. New
single-family residences have been constructed north of the project and an
application is under review for a mixed-use project east of the subject
property. The General Plan policies and zoning regulations have remained
the same from when the project was initially approved in May 2000 and
subsequently amended in June 2002; however, based on the record of
approval of the preliminary plans, there is cause to reconsider the
approval of PD-260 and TTM 29691 due to concerns regarding the mass,
treatment, and orientation of the buildings. The concerns that were
expressed at the time of approval of the preliminary plans still exist and
the applicant has not made a successful attempt to address some of those
concerns. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is no good cause to
grant a time extension for PD-260 and TTM 29691.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs, California, does hereby recommend that the City Council deny a time
extension for PD-260 and TTM 29691.
ADOPTED this 8th day of February, 2006.
AYES: 5 / Hutcheson/Roath/Ringlein/Cohen/Hochanadel
NOES:
ABSENT: 2 / Marantz/Shoenberger
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
frran25p6mm' 'on Secretary
r�
9. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: None.
MISCELLANEOUS:
10. Case 5.0830 PD-260 /TTM 29691 -An application by Fairfield Resorts,
Inc., for a time extension from January 30, 2006 to January 30, 2007
for Planned Development District 260 and Tentative Tract Map 29691
for 254 timeshare units located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive,
Zones C-1 and R-3, Sections 22 and 23.
Chair Marantz stated she has a business related conflict of interest and
would not participate in the discussion or vote and left the Council Chamber
at 4:01 p.m.
Principal Planner, Jing Yeo, gave background information as outlined in the
staff report dated January 25, 2006.
The following people commented on the proposed project:
Jono Hildner, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of this project.
Paul Crippan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of this project.
Dana Stewart, Palm Springs, voiced her concern about developers
integrating solar products and maximum height limits.
Florence Klaasen, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the proposed
project.
Joan Martin, spoke in opposition of the project.
Noel Tapia, attorney representing applicant, requested approval of the one
year time extension.
Commissioner Ringlein stated she felt the vision of the community has
changed and the applicant has had ample time to bring a quality project to
fruition.
M/S/C (Ring lei n/Roath, 5-1/Shoenberger, 1 absent/Chair Marantz) To deny,
without prejudice.
Prinicipal Planner, Jing Yeo, stated that the applicant may appeal the
Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
11. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM:
* *General Plan Update - Jing Yeo gave an update of the January 26th
General Plan Steering Committee meeting.
* *Work Program Priorities and Subcommittee Assignments
o�pALM Sp?
V In
h ryFn `F�
allllED
°q<,FORN�P Planning Commission Staff Report
Date: January 25, 2006
Case No.: 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
Application Type: Time Extension of Planned Development District and Tentative
Tract Map
Location: 961 South Palm Canyon Drive
Applicant: Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
Zone: C-1 and R-3
General Plan: RC and H43/21
APN: 508-171-006, 513-250-003, 513-250-031
From: Director of Planning Services
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Fairfield Resorts, Inc. has submitted a request for a two-year time extension for Planned
Development District 260 (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691), as
amended on July 17, 2002, for 254 timeshare units located at 961 South Palm Canyon
Drive, Zones C-1 and R-3, Sections 22 and 23.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a time extension
from January 30, 2006 to January 30, 2007 for PD-260 and TTM 29691, as amended on
July 17, 2002 and subject to the conditions of original approval adopted on May 17, 2000,
located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones C-1 and R-3, Sections 22 and 23.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Case 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
January 25, 2006
PRIOR ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE PROJECT
On May 17, 2000, the City Council approved the original project for a mixed-use resort
including a 198-room hotel, 176 vacation ownership units (i.e. timeshares), banquet and
meeting facilities, restaurant and lounge facilities, pool, space, and other recreational
amenities. The original project had a significant financing gap that could not be feasibly
closed with private sector financing. Therefore, on September 19, 2001, the
Redevelopment Agency agreed to provide financial assistance to the project in order to
assist the development through approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement
("DDA").
On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council
approve a one-year time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691. On May 15, 2002, the
City Council voted to approve a one-year time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691.
On July 17, 2002 the City Council approved an amendment to the PD-260 to change
the land use for the subject site from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare resulting in a
total of 255 timeshare units (over 19,000 intervals) to be developed on the site. This
request was due to the developer's inability to secure financing for a conventional hotel
project at the site. Included in the PD amendment was the elimination of the ballroom
and large kitchen, relocation of recreation facilities, meeting rooms, and spa to the
former ballroom location, and addition of nine timeshare units in the former spa location.
On November 6, 2002 the DDA between the Agency and developer was amended to
reflect the operational changes in the project and several of the deal points.
On January 29, 2003, the City Council voted to approve the second time extension of
PD-260 and TTM 29691 to January 30, 2005. The additional time was needed in order
for the applicant to continue negotiations regarding financing and construction of the
project.
Relatively low hotel occupancy rates and average daily room rates over the past several
years made the financing of the hotel portion of the project increasingly difficult. This
condition was exacerbated by the global effects on tourism due to the terrorist acts of
September 11, 2001. Prior to the DDA amendment, the Developer had proposed a
revision to the phasing of the plan that would have allowed the development of the
common area and timeshare buildings but held off on the hotel building until hotel
financing was available. The Agency was concerned that a delay of more than a year
or two in the hotel financing would leave a permanent hole in the project and rob it of its
most significant architectural element — the five-story hotel building on South Palm
Canyon Drive.
In the end, the Developer was able to secure a commitment from a timeshare company,
Fairfield Resorts, for project financing, but only if the entire project was converted to
timeshares. That change necessitated the revision to the Planned Development District
Page 2 ��
Planning Commission Staff Report
Case 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
January 25, 2006
approval, as well as a change to the DDA. Subsequently, Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
acquired the property.
As the change in land use would reduce the amount of transient occupancy tax
generated by the project, the Developer agreed to place an additional fee on the time
share intervals, equal to $28.50 per full interval per year. That fee would be paid to the
City to reimburse the City for the public improvements and other investments in the area
that benefit the project. Since the DDA was between the Developer (SCALPS, LLC,
since assigned to Fairfield Resorts, Inc.) and the Agency, the City determined that the
fee would be imposed and collected through a Development Agreement between the
Developer and the City.
On December 10, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City
Council approve the development agreement memorializing the collection of the
financial impact mitigation fee for the amended project. On January 21, 2004, the City
Council approved the development agreement.
On June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission approved the deletion of the out-parcel
restaurant and approved surface parking and landscaping in its place.
In the subsequent months, the architecture of the project was reviewed by the Design
Review Committee and the Planning Commission. On November 24, 2004, the
Planning Commission reviewed the final plans and found that they were not in
substantial conformance with the preliminary plans.
On December 6, 2004, Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, representatives from Fairfield Resorts
met with staff to review the Planning Commission's findings. During that meeting, staff
made suggestions on how the plans could be improved and brought more into
substantial conformance with the preliminary plans.
On February 16, 2005, the City Council voted to approve the third time extension of PD-
260 and TTM 29691 to January 30, 2006. The time extension was granted because
Fairfield Resorts had been diligently working with staff and needed additional time to
continue working through the process.
On March 16, 2005, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision but found that because the plans presented to the Planning Commission had
been altered, the appropriate action was to have the revised plans reviewed by the
Planning Commission again.
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. On May 25,
2005, Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
Page 3
Planning Commission Staff Report
Case 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
January 25, 2006
On July 13, 2005, 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 preliminary plans.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The project is located west of South Palm Canyon Drive between the Rock Garden
restaurant and the Tahquitz Creek Channel to the north, unimproved Belardo Road to
the west, and Mac McGruder Chevrolet to the south.
The applicant is requesting a fourth time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691, as amended
on July 17, 2002. At this time, the 2-year time extension is being requested in order for
Fairfield Resorts to continue working through the process for approval of the final
development plans and final subdivision map. The reasons for the time extension are
further detailed in the request for time extension, submitted by Greenberg Traurig on behalf
of Fairfield Resorts, attached to this report.
Table 1: Surrounding land uses, General Plan, Zoning
Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Restaurant, Flood Control Channel RC, W C-1, W
South Car dealership RC C-2
East Vacant RC C-1
West Vacant H 43/21 R-3
REQUIRED FINDINGS
Although the applicant is requesting two-year time extension, Section 9.63.110(c) of the
Palm Springs Municipal Code states that, "any extension(s) of tentative map approval or
conditional approval shall not exceed a total of twelve months". Therefore, the maximum
that the Planning Commission could recommend for approval of this time extension would
be to January 30, 2007.
There are no specific findings for extension of the PD and TTM. In reviewing the
request, staff considered if the following circumstances have changed such that the PD
and TTM approval might need reconsideration:
1. The project's overall plan and lot configuration,
2. The uses and development of the surrounding area, and
3. The applicable policies of the General Plan, zoning ordinance and other
regulations.
No significant changes have occurred in these factors to warrant reconsideration of the
approval of PD-260 and TTM 29691. In addition, the record of prior actions taken on the
project, detailed above, shows Fairfield Resorts' diligence in attempting to prepare final
development plans that are in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans. If the
Page 4
Planning Commission Staff Report
Case 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
January 25, 2006
time extension is granted, final development plans are still required to be submitted for
approval by the Planning Commission.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the extension request for one year or January
30, 2007. Further, no new conditions are recommended to be added and no existing
conditions are recommended for revision or amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
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 adequately addresses all known environmental impacts.
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.
NOTIFICATION
Requests for time extension do not require public notice.
Jing Yeo
Principal Planner
Craig A. Ewing, AICP
Director of Planning Services
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Request for time extension by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts
4. Draft Resolution
Page 5
Planning Commission Staff Report
Case 5.0830 PD-260 TTM 29691
January 25. 2006
VICINITY MAP
Department of Planning Services "
Vicinity Map w E
�'
s
0
0
m
SUNNY DUNES RD ; o
C �
A
v
N R
�ORi
l
MESQUITE E
m
m o
z
� o
r
o
%U U
Legend
PALO VERDE AVE
Site
500 Feet Radius
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 5.0830 PD-260 DESCRIPTION:
Appeal by Fairfield Resorts, Inc. of Planning Commission's
APPLICANT: Fairfield Resorts, Inc. decision that the final development plans for the Star Canyon
Resort are not in substantial conformance with PD-260 located
at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3,
Sections 22 and 23.
Page 6
Greenberg
Traurig
Noel Tapia
Tel 310.586 7700
Fax 310.586.7800
tapian@gtlaw com
February 8, 2006
'VIA FACSIMILE (760)323-8332
AND FEDEX
Mr. James Thompson
City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Re: Notice of Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission
decision regarding Application By Fairfield Resorts for
Extension of Planned Development District# 260 and
Tentative Tract Map#29691
Dear Mr. Thompson:
We represent Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield") in connection with the above referenced
matter, and we submit this letter as a notice of appeal to the City Council from the Planning
Commission ("Commission") hearing on January 25, 2006, in which the Commission voted to
recommend that the City Council deny Fairfield's request for an extension of Planned
Development District#260 ("PD") and Tentative Tract Map#29691 ("TTM").
On January 30, 2006, I received an email from Ms. Jing Yeo, Principal Planner, advising
me that the fifteen day appeal period for Fairfield to appeal the Commission's recommendation
to deny Fairfield's request for an extension of its PD and TTM will begin to run from the day
that the Commission adopts its resolution recommending denial of Fairfield's request. Ms. Yeo
advised that she is preparing the resolution to appear on the Commission's consent calendar for
its February 8, 2006 meeting.
The extension of time process outlined above is not consistent with our understanding of
the process. The City of Palm Springs own Municipal Code requires procedurally that an
applicant seeking an extension of time for a tentative map file its request to the Commission for
it to make a recommendation to the City Council. The Municipal Code provides that the
Commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for it to take final action
on the applicant's request'. Accordingly, in the instant case pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal
Pahn Springs Municipal Code Section 9.63.110(e)entitled"Time Extensions"provides that"[tlhe planning
commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council for final action."
LA•FS1vtapian085753v01\4657501050 � 1� r� . JIIIIF
Greenberg Trourig, LIP I Atforneys at Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tel 310.586.7700 1 Fax 310.586.7800 1 www.gtlaw.com 1,.,, . �,,,
Mr. James Thompson
February 3, 2006
Page 2
Code Section 9.63.110(e), the City Council is required to consider Fairfield's request for an
extension of its PD and TTM as a matter of course. An appeal by Fairfield to the City Council is
not necessary.
However, in light of the fact that Planning Commission staff interprets the Municipal
Code to require Fairfield to file a formal appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation
to the City Council, which Fairfield does not agree with this interpretation,please consider this a
formal request from Fairfield to the City Council to hold a hearing to consider the Commission's
decision to recommend denial of Fairfield's application for an extension of its PD and TTM.
Fairfield requests that the City Council grant Fairfield's request for an extension of its PD and
TTM for all of the reasons set forth in Fairfield's application dated December 29, 2005, attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, please find a check in the
amount of$494 for the appeal fee. However, if our reading of Palm Springs Municipal Code
Section 9.63.110(e) is correct and an appeal to the City Council is not necessary for it to consider
Fairfield's application for an extension of its PD and TTM, kindly return the enclosed check to
my office.
Your prompt attention and review of this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Noel Tapia
Cc: Mr. Douglas Holland, Esq.
Mr. Craig Ewing
Ms. Jing Yeo
Jay Wiser, Esq.
Fernando Villa, Esq.
LA-FS1\tapian\385753v01\46575.010500
Greenberg iraung,LLP
EXHIBIT A
Greenberg
Traurig
December 29, 2005
Fernando Villa
(310)586-7848
vlltaf@gtlaw corn
VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Attention: Chairwoman Marantz ALBANY
AMSTERDAM
Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") ATLANTA
Planned Development District#260
Tentative Tract Map#29691 BDCA BATON
BOSTON
Dear Chairwoman Marantz: CHICAGO
On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"), we hereby request a two (2) year DALws
time extension of Planned Development District # 260 (the "PDD") and Tentative Tract Map DENVER
# 29691 (the "Tentative Map"). As detailed, below, good cause exists for granting this FORT LAUDERDALE
extension, in view of Fairfield's diligent, extensive efforts to prepare its final development LOS ANGELES
plans, including the final development plan, (collectively, the "Final Plan") and to seek
approval of the Final Plan for the Project from the City of Palm Springs (the "City"). MIAMI
Accordingly, please place the consideration of this request on the City' Planning NEW JERSEY
Commission's January 11,2006 agenda for the Commission's consideration. NEW YORR
For nearly three years, Fairfield has worked diligently with the City's engineering and ORANGE COUNTY,CA
planning staff, with the Design Review Committee (the "DRC") and with the Commission, in ORLANDO
preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan for the Star Canyon Resort. Despite PHILADELPHIA
Fairfield's diligent, good faith efforts, the Final Plan has not yet been approved by the
PHOENIX
Commission. The PDD and Tentative Map have an expiration date of January 30, 2006,
which is quickly approaching. This expiration date, however, is superseded by the City's own SILICON VALLEY
Zoning Code, which provides that the PDD must remain in effect coextensively with the TALLAHASSEE
Disposition and Development Agreement between the City's Community Redevelopment TYSONS CORNER
Agency and Fairfield (the "DDA"). See Section 94.030.00(I)(3) of the City's Zoning Code.
WASHINGTON,D.C.
WEST PALM BEACH
WILMINGTON
ZGRICH
LA-FSl\Lapiao\379084v01\46575.010500
Greenberg Traung,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Las Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 www gtlaw.cam
Tel 310,586.7700 1 Fax 310.586.7800
Chairwoman Marantz
December 29, 2005
Page 2
Nevertheless, Fairfield requests an extension of this expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map to
avoid any confusion or uncertainty concerning this matter, and does so without waiver of any of its
vested and other rights under the DDA, the parties First Amendment thereto, the parties
Development Agreement dated January 21, 2004, and all other applicable agreements, laws and
regulations.
I. Good Cause Exists to Grant this Request in That Fairfield has Diligently Sought to
Finalize and Obtain Approval of the Final Plan Prior to the PDD Expiration
Date.
On April 7, 2003, Fairfield acquired the Project site, along with all interests in the
related approvals and entitlements, from SCHLPS, LLC, the original Project proponent.
Subsequent to acquiring the Project site, Fairfield spent over two years working closely with
the DRC and City planners and engineers to develop and refine its Final Plan for the Project
which would conform to the City's approved preliminary plan, as modified by City-approved
Project modifications. Fairfield representatives have traveled from Florida to attend most of
these meetings in order to ensure that any issues raised by City staff and/or the Commission
may be addressed promptly and in person.
The DRC and City staff worked with Fairfield and developed the following
modifications to the Final Development Plan:
A. Bringing the buildings closer together in the cast/west direction. This
change provides an additional row of parking on the east/west perimeter of the Project
to help increase the onsite parking ratio from 1.3 spaces per key to 1.5 spaces per key.
The current parking ratio is thus an improvement over the preliminary plan's original
ratio.
B. Replacement of the out-parcel restaurant, the deletion of which the
City approved, with concealed parking and an increase in landscaped open space, an
increase which the then Director of Planning requested.
C. Deletion of the secondary driveway approach from South Palm
Canyon Drive, which the City's traffic engineer considered an improved condition.
D. Relocation of the Belardo Road driveway approach toward the south to
line it up with the parking lot driveway as a result of the Belardo Bridge elevations, as
designed by the City's engineering consultant.
E. Increasing the setback for Building 10 from 20 feet to 60 feet from
South Palm Canyon Drive, improving the sightline to the mountains from this street,
and allowing more green space, rockwork and water near the street. This change also
involves reducing the density and mass of Building 10.
LA-FS I Vaplan\3790WOI\46575.010500
Creenberg Traung,LLP I
Chairwoman Marantz
December 29, 2005
Page 3
F. Modification of the design of the courtyard, while maintaining the concept
and approximate area of the original courtyard design, which in large measure was
necessitated by bringing the buildings closer together to make way for required parking, and
by increasing the setback of Building 10 from South Palm Canyon from 20 to 60 feet.
Nevertheless, the courtyard remains in substantial conformance with the original design.
In June 2004, the DRC and Commission approved the site plan for the Project, allowing
Fairfield to proceed with site engineering and submit applications for permits. Indeed, this approval
included the consideration of other small changes, such as moving the water feature in the entry
building's lobby to outside of the building, and modifying the courtyard waterfall to reduce its mass
and scale and open a 90-foot view to the mountains from the Courtyard using indigenous landscaping
materials, that do not materially affect the original Project's overall design and concept. The
Commission also approved the deletion of the out-parcel restaurant and approved landscaping and
surface parking in its place.
In September 2004, the DRC reviewed the Final Plan, including the above referenced
revisions as a result of this collaborative process, and recommended that the Project move forward
for approval of the Final Plan.
Between September 8, 2004 and November 22, 2004, the Commission held four meetings to
consider the Final Plan. During this three-month period and as a part of the Commission's
consideration of this entitlement, Fairfield's representatives met with City Planning staff on several
occasions to address issues identified by the City. As a result of this process, Fairfield revised its
Final Plan to incorporate the City's comments. Nevertheless, the Commission on November 22,
2004 denied the Final Plan.
On December 6, 2004 Fairfield appealed the Commission's decision to the Council. On
March 16, 2005, the Council held a hearing to consider Fairfield's appeal of the Commission's
decision to deny the Final Plan. The Interim Director of Planning Services prepared a staff report
dated March 16, 2005 for the Council's consideration wherein the Interim Director recommended
that the Council condition the approval of the Final Plan subject to sixteen modifications. In a letter
dated March 16, 2005, counsel for Fairfield represented to the Council that Fairfield agreed to
incorporate each and every condition contained in the Director's March 16, 2005 staff report. (See
Exhibit A.)
As noted on page 4 of the July 13, 2005 City Council Staff Report prepared by David H.
Ready, the Palm Springs City Manager, Fairfield made several revisions to the Final Plan prior to the
March 16, 2005 hearing in direct response to the requested modifications outlined in the Interim
Director's March 16, 2005 report. As a result of those changes that Fairfield agreed to make in good
faith prior to March 16, 2005, the Council voted to send the revised Final Plan back to the
Commission for its review and consideration.
LA-FSI\Wpian\37908401\46575.010500
Greenberg iraung,LLP
Chairwoman Marantz
December 29, 2005
Page 4
The Director of Planning Services ("Director") prepared a report dated April 13, 2005 to the
Commission in preparation of the Commission's review and consideration of Fairfield's Final Plan
wherein the Director again requested the incorporation of the sixteen conditions and modifications to
the Final Plan that were outlined in the Director's March 16, 2005 report. Fairfield requested a
continuance of the April 13, 2005 Commission hearing in order to prepare exhibits in response to
City staff's recommendation. In the meantime, Fairfield reiterated its willingness to incorporate all
sixteen of the suggested conditions and modifications identified in the March 16 and April 13, 2005
reports. The Commission continued the hearing to May 11, 2005 to review Fairfield's revised Final
Plan. In the Director's May 11, 2005 report to the Commission, the Director acknowledged
Fairfield's incorporation or addition of these conditions to its revised Final Plan to the City.
As the Director and his staff concluded on page two of the May 11, 2005 report, "with the
imposition of the conditions as outlined in the recommendation, the project is in substantial
conformance with the preliminary development plans." (See exhibit B.) (Emphasis added.) In the
spirit of cooperation and undertaking a good faith effort to satisfy the Director, City staff and the
members of the Commission, Fairfield incorporated each and every one of these conditions into its
Final, thus ensuring the Final Plan's substantial conformance with the preliminary plan. (See exhibit
C.)
In spite of this substantial conformity,the Commission disapproved this Final Plan at its May
11, 2005 meeting. Fairfield promptly filed its appeal of the Commission's ruling to the Council.
The Council set a hearing for July 13, 2005 to review Fairfield's appeal of the Commission's
decision to deny Fairfield's application for its Final Plan. The Director and the Palm Springs City
Manager ("City Manager") in their July 13, 2005 report acknowledged that Fairfield submitted a
revised Final Plan which included the revisions which the Director requested in the March 16 and
April 13, 2005 reports. In light of the revisions Fairfield incorporated into its Final Plan pursuant to
the City's request and subject to the incorporation of six additional conditions, the City Manager and
the Director determined that Fairfield's Final Plan would be in substantial conformance with the
Preliminary Plan. The City Manager and Director's July 13, 2005 report stated the following:
"The revisions to the final plans, listed in the Staff Analysis above, have brought the project
more into substantial conformance with the preliminary project and it is staffs
recommendation that the City Council override the Planning Commission's decision and
find that the final plans are in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans with the
inclusion of the following conditions." (Report at pg. 7.) (Emphasis added.) (See exhibit
D.)
Fairfield agreed to incorporate each and every one of these City requested modifications to its
Final Plan ensuring its substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plan. (See exhibit E.)
LA-FS l Vapianl37908401\46575.010500
Greenberg iraung,LLP
Chairwoman Marantz
December 29,2005
Page 5
The City Manager and Director acknowledged Fairfield's diligence and cooperation by
stating that "Staffs recommendation is based on the fact that Fairfield Resorts has diligently been
modifying the final plans to bring them more into substantial conformance with the preliminary
plans." (July 15, 2005 Report at pg. 7.) (Emphasis added.) (See exhibit D.)
The July 13, 2005 Report finds that the same changes to the Project actually improved the
quality of the Project. For example, the July 13, 2005 Report states that the lower-scale water feature
on the northern portion of the courtyard "probably better accentuates and frames the view of the
mountains and beyond." (Id.) (Emphasis added.)
The July 13, 2005 Report also highlights the following project improvements that the
inecessary changes will facilitate:
"The applicant [Fairfield] has also made modifications to the lobby area and improved the
inside-outside relationship between the lobby and the courtyard in turn improving the visitor
experience to the resort. The already approved reduction in number of units has also
allowed an improvement in the interior spaces where unit sizes are much larger in
comparison to the preliminary plans." (Id.) (Emphasis added.)
Finally,regarding the modifications of the building connections in the Final Plan, the July 13,
2005 Report provides that "it is the staffs opinion that the open walkways between the buildings
actually help to soften the overall mass of the buildings. . . The exterior finishes have also been
improved in the final plans so that they closely match the materials that were presented in the
preliminary plans." (Id.) (Emphasis added.)
To Fairfields' surprise and disappointment, the Council voted to deny Fairfield's appeal in
spite of the evidence in the administrative record, the City Manager and Director's recommendation
to override the Commission's ruling and approve Fairfield's Final Plan and Fairfield's efforts to
work with City staff towards the completion of a first rate resort for the City, its residents and
visitors. However, Fairfield remains committed to working with City staff to ensure that Fairfield
builds a Project that Fairfield,the City, its residents and tourists will be proud of.
II. An Extension of the PDD and Tentative Map is Necessary at This Time to Protect
Fairfield's Entitlements.
As the above discussion demonstrates, Fairfield has undertaken extensive efforts and incurred
significant expense in diligently pursuing completion and approval of the Final Plan in cooperation
with the City. The collaborative process with the City staff,the DRC and the Commission has been a
much lengthier and involved process than anticipated. Fairfield and the City Manager and Director,
as reflected by their July 13, 2005 Report, believe that this collaborative process with the City has
yielded a Final Plan that substantially conforms with the Preliminary Plan the Commission and City
Council previously approved for the Project and reflects an improvement over the former plan.
Fairfield seeks to protect its vested rights during the time that Fairfield and City staff continue to
work together to develop a Final Plan that meets the Commission's vision for the Project and avoid
LA-FSI\tapiano79084v01\46575010500 Greenberg Traung,LLP
Chairwoman Marantz
December 29,2005
Page 6
any uncertainty over the period of vesting by requesting this extension in view of the fast-
approaching January 26, 2006 expiration date.
In addition, Fairfield requests a concurrent extension of Tentative Tract Map # 29691 for a
period of two (2) additional years. Fairfield intended to submit the Final Subdivision Map to the
City's Engineer following the Commission's approval of the Final Plan to coordinate with obtaining
the Project's building plans, which Fairfield understands is the City's custom and practice. Because
Fairfield is still working with the City staff and the Commission in obtaining Final Plan approval,the
Final Subdivision Map has not been submitted.
For all the foregoing reasons, good cause exists to grant this request for an extension of the
PDD and the Tentative Map. The request should thus be granted. Accordingly, please place the
consideration of this request on the Commission's January 11, 2006 agenda for the Commission's
consideration.
Sincerely,
Noel Tapia
cc: Douglas Holland, Esq.
Mr. John Raymond
LA-F51 Vapian\379084W 1\46575.010500
Greenberg Traung,LLP