HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/16/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (7) DATE: March 16, 2005
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim Director of Planning Services
CASE 5,0830 PD-260 — APPEAL BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT IN
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON
DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision that the final development
plans as pending before the Planning Commission on December 22, 2004, are not in substantial
conformance with the preliminary planned development district for the Star Canyon Resort
located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive.
If the City Council wishes to consider the modified final development plans presented to the City
Council subsequent to the Planning Commission action, staff recommends that Council include
the following conditions and additional modifications to the modified final development plans:
1. If the applicant wishes to delete one exit lane on the site plan in order to increase the
landscaped space between the building and the entry driveway from South Palm
Canyon Drive, that a modified traffic study be required to show that one exit lane will be
able to accommodate the vehicle stacking requirements for the volume of traffic to be
generated by the project.
2. In order to soften the south elevation of Building 10, the applicant shall include a building
mass south of the entry wing. The exterior building elevation design shall be compatible,
to the extent feasible, with the originally proposed restaurant building and the design
elements of the remainder of the project. This may include glazing or decorative screens
in window openings. The building mass shall be continuous and have sufficient depth in
order to make it appear to be real building instead of a fagade.
3. Improve the architectural compatibility of the rectangular opening and the curved arch
under the east wing of Building 10.
4. Continue the articulation of the building mass on the east wing of Building 10 throughout
the remainder of the project.
5. Ensure that all architectural embellishments are authentic, especially with respect to the
false window openings on the towers and upper floors.
6. Provide additional details regarding the scuppers that project from below the balconies.
As exterior downspouts are not permitted, the scuppers shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Advisory Committee.
7. All landscaping shown on renderings or coloured elevations shall be required to be
installed. Irrigation plans shall be submitted for the balcony and trellis landscaping.
8. The connections between buildings shall be strengthened and restudied in order to
reduce the effect of ramps and catwalks between buildings.
9. The roof over the loading dock area shall be designed to match the remainder of the
project.
10. The balcony pole shown on the north elevation of Building 10 on the east side of the
building shall be thickened to match the other poles in the project.
11. The turning radius into the underground parking garage shall be modified. The current
turning angle is too sharp for a vehicle to reasonably turn from the check-in area into the
garage.
12, All railings shall be wrought iron.
13. Two-piece, mudded, clay tile shall be used on all roofs.
14. The stone applied to the building shall be of varying thickness with the minimum size no
smaller than those shown in the material samples. Prior to application of the stone, a
mock-up shall be provided on-site and approved by the Architectural Advisory
Committee and Planning Commission.
15. The balcony depth for each unit shall be a minimum of 6 feet with a minimum of 50% of
the units at least 8 feet in depth.
16. The pad elevations shall either match or be lower than those elevations approved as
part of the preliminary grading plan.
A resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision and finding that the plans presented
to the Planning Commission are not in substantial conformance with the preliminary
development plans for the project is attached to this report. In the event that the Council desires
to find the modified final development plans presented to the City Council at the Council's
hearing are in substantial conformance with the preliminary plans for the project, staff
recommends that the Council instruct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution making such
finding and including any additional conditions or modifications the Council may desire and
present this resolution to the Council at its meeting on April 6, 2005.
SUMMARY.
On November 24, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (1 abstention) to find that the final
development plans were not in substantial conformance with the preliminary planned
development district for the Star Canyon Resort. The resolution of denial was formally adopted
by the Planning Commission on December 22, 2004. For the Council's reference, the staff
report from the November 24, 2004 Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report.
Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 6, 2004.
Staff subsequently met with representatives from Fairfield Resorts on December 16, 2004 to review
possible changes to the plans that were found to not be in substantial conformance by the Planning
Commission. Revised final plans were submitted to staff on February 2, 2005 and were reviewed by
staff on February 14, 2005. A number of design comments were generated from the February 14
review and were communicated to Fairfield Resorts in a series of telephone calls and ultimately a
meeting on February 23, 2005. At the February 23 meeting, staff determined that the revised final
plans should be reviewed by the Planning Commission in order to ensure that the City Council
considers an appeal of the same plans that were reviewed by the Planning Commission. In a
conference call with Fairfield Resorts on March 1, 2005, staff reviewed the February 14 design
comments with the applicant and worked with the applicant to come up with possible resolutions to
the comments. Staff scheduled the revised plans for review by the Planning Commission on March
9, 2005. However, the item was removed from the agenda at the applicant's written request because
the applicant feels that the consideration of final plans should be resolved solely by the City Council
and should not be required to go back to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
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
MaGruder Chevrolet to the south.
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 was approved by City Council on May 17, 2000. The
original staff report is attached. The original project had a significant financing gap that could
not be feasibly closed with private sector financing. Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency
agreed to provide financial assistance to the project in order to assist the development through
a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") approved on September 19, 2001.
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. Subsequent amendments to PD-260 included
the deletion of the out-parcel restaurant building and southerly exit-only driveway.
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.
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 difficulty existed
before September 11, 2001, but was exacerbated by the global effects on tourism due to the
terrorist acts. 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 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 (SCHLPS, LLC, since assigned to Fairfield Resorts, Inc.) and the
Agency, the City's legal staff felt the most legally appropriate way for the fee to be imposed and
collected would be 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. A follow-up amendment to the development agreement, which has
not yet been finalized, was to have the City or Redevelopment Agency purchase the triangular
parcel abutting the MacGruder Chevrolet property, in order to preserve MacGruder's frontage
on South Palm Canyon Drive.
PROJECT DESIGN
The following are revisions that were made to the plans after the Planning Commission's review
of the plans on November 24, 2004:
• The lobby space was re-adjusted to provide for a more open area and increased visibility of
the courtyard from the entry doors
• Reduction in surface parking by 32 spaces
• A revised vehicular entry into the check-in area
• Addition of carport structures in area where outdoor dining area of out-parcel restaurant was
located
• Adjustment of the turning radius into the underground garage
• Revisions to the walkways connecting buildings
• Additional consideration for villa buildings to have similar building articulation and massing
as the east wing of Building 10
A comparison table for the key development standards of the original approved project and the
amended project is provided as follows:
Original Approved Project Amended Project_
Front setback (South Palm Canyon Drive) 20 feet 62 feet
Maximum distance between buildings at west 140 feet 110 feet
side of pool/recreation area
Building height of entry wing 64 feet—69 feet 60 feet—66 feet _
Parking spaces 544 spaces 524 spaces
With respect to parking, despite the deletion of the underground parking spaces underneath a
portion of the entry wing, the project will still have 524 parking spaces for a ratio of 1.4
spaces/key -- a ratio that meets the industry standard. The revised project complies with the
required number of parking spaces. While the revised project is deficient by 20 spaces
compared to the original project, it should be noted that the original project had a total of 374
hotel/timeshare units and a restaurant compared to the revised project of 255 timeshare units
(254 as designed) without a restaurant.
The applicant maintains that the project is in substantial conformance with the preliminary PD-
260 after it was amended to the timeshare use. The change in use from hotel and timeshare to
all timeshares necessitated a change in the module size of units and space programming for the
building which resulted in some exterior changes. In reviewing the Planning Commission
minutes from July 10, 2002, assurances were given by the property owner that the timeshare
project would be constructed as designed and the Planning Commission confirmed with staff
that the architecture of the project would remain unchanged with the exception of some minor
changes and that the extensive amenities were a sufficient trade-off for the density and height of
the project. The plans reflecting the original hotel and timeshare project were not revised at the
time that the amendment to PD-260 was approved. However, a review of the meeting minutes,
staff report, conditions of approval, and development agreement for the project indicates that
approvals for the PD amendment were given with the intent that the timeshare project be
consistent with the design and quality of the original hotel/timeshare project.
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), 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
A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property
and was published in The Desert Sun on March 5, 2005. As of the writing of this report, staff
has not received any comment.
Interim DirToo lof Planning Services
City Manager
r
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Notice of appeal from Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
3. Letter from Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. requesting removal of
the project from March 9, 2005 Planning Commission agenda
4. Planning Commission staff report from November 24, 2004
5. Draft Resolution
Greenberg � ��{ r�
CITY OF PfALN SprltlGS,
Traurig 2005 MAY I I Pf1 2: 24
Fernando Villa
Tel 310.586.7646 1 1'�w.� iHJiyi'aSl.di
vitlaf®gtlaw.com CITY L L E P K
May 11,2005
VIA FACSIMILE,EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Re: Case 5.0930 PD-260 --Application for Final Development Plan for the Star Canyon
Resort Located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3, Sections
22 and 23
Dear Chairman Schoenberger and Commissioners:
ALBANY
We represent Fairfield Resorts,Inc. ("Fairfield") in connection with Fairfield's AMSTEROAM
application for the Final Development Plan for its 254-timeshare unit resort development AT N A
(the "Project"). We submit this letter, along with the Final Development Plan and related
materials Fairfield is submitting concurrently, in support of Fairfield's Final Development a°u RAroN
Plan,
BOSTON
CHICAGO
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DALLAS
ORNYER
As articulated by Councilmember Chris Mills at the City Council hearing on FORT MCERCALE
Fairfield's March 16, 2005 appeal, and as set forth in the report(at page 1)prepared by the
Interim Director of Planning Services (the"Director") to the Planning Commission(the LOS ANCELEs
"Commission") dated May 11,2005, the scope of the Commission's review of Fairfield's ! `OA"i
Final Development Plan is limited to determining "whether the final development plans are NEW JERSEY
in substantial conformance with the aproved preliminary PD-260." Also as stated by NEW YORK
Councilmember Mills at the March 169 hearing, such matters as the Project's height, ORANGE°°LNry„A
density,mass, architecture theme or use as a timeshare—all of which the City Council and
the Commission previously approved—are thus beyond the proper scope of the
Commission's review of the Final Development Plan, aoeLVHIA
vHOENI%
Fairfield has revised the Final Development Plan to address and incorporate each and
every concern and comment raised by the City pertaining to the design and elements of this n<ON:A tY
plan. Indeed as detailed below, as a result of several meetings between representatives of I TALLAHASSEE I
Fairfield and of the City since December 2004, Fairfield incorporated each of the sixteen �. :ON=CORNER
conditions which the Director proposed at the March 16,2005 City Council hearing on wASH,NG;°N,aG.
Fairfield's appeal from the Commission's November 22, 2004 denial of the earlier version
wEsr vAtm REACH Y
of the plan. Fairfield has likewise agreed to each of the ten conditions that the Director p
! wll^IING;ON C
! f
ZURICH
Greenberg Traur!g,LLP I Attorneys aY Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avem,e I Suite 400E I Santa "lomca,CA 9040A I www.gtlaw coal
Tel 310.586.77001 Fdx 310,586,7800
May 11, 2005
Page 2
urged in his May 11, 2005 report to the Commission regarding the Final Development Plan. As
the Director and his staff have concluded on page two of the May 11,2005 report, "with the
imposition of the ten conditions as outlined in the recommendation, the project is in substantial
conformance with the preliminary development plans." Because Fairfield has agreed to include
each of the ten conditions outlined in the May H, 2005 report, the evidence before the
Commission demonstrates that the Final Development Plan substantially conforms to the
previously approved Preliminary Plan. This entitlement must accordingly be approved.
II.
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
Pursuant to the City of Palm Springs' (the "City") Zoning Code and consistent with
California law, the Commission must approve Fairfield's Final Development Plan so long as it
substantially conforms to the modified Preliminary Plan. Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Code,
which governs Planned Development Districts, including PD-260 here, requires the submittal of
a final development plan to the Commission for approval, which final plan"shall be in
substantial conformance"with the approved preliminary plan, and shall incorporate "all
modifications and conditions to the preliminary plan"made by the Commission and the City
Council.
While the City's Zoning Code does not define "substantial conformance,"the California
judiciary has defined and shaped the contours of this standard of review in land use matters.
California courts have determined that"[sjubstantial compliance means actual compliance with
respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute as distinguished
from simple technical imperfections of form." (Kevin Hoffutaster v. City of San Diego (1997)
55 Cal.App.4a' 1098, 1106.) Accordingly,pursuant to the definition and meaning of
"substantial compliance" developed by the California Supreme Court and in the absence of a
definition in the City's Zoning Code for"substantial conformance,"the Commission must
review Fairfied's Final Development Plan and its conformity with previously approved {
Preliminary Development with an eye towards reasonableness rather than a strict technical
application.
III. I
BACKGROUND
i
1. Evolution of the Project
For more than four years Fairfield and its predecessor, SCHLPS, LLC ("SCHLP"), have
worked closely and collaboratively with the City, the City's Community Redevelopment
F
i
t
GreenUerg Trnong,LL6 2
E
May 11, 2005
Page 3
Agency(the "Agency"), the Commission and City staff to produce a high-quality resort
development. The Project will match or strive to exceed these high standards, and will be
comprised of 254 timeshare units with pools, spas, other recreational facilities, elaborate
building, landscape and waterfall features, inner courtyards and on-site parking. The Tuscan
and Southern European architecture of the Project will evoke images of a magnificent European
castle with such features as battered stone walls and a stone tower rising from the boulders and
landscape. The Project also features two-piece,mudded clay tile, luxury villas, interwoven
courtyards, blossom-covered wooden trellises and sun-bleached,hand-plastered stone walls.
The Project has evolved significantly since the City Council first approved it on May 17,
2000 when SCHLPS was the Project's proponent. As originally conceived and approved, the
Project included a 198-unit hotel, 176 timeshare units, banquet and meeting facilities, restaurant
and lounge facilities, a pool, inner courtyards and related elements. The City Council and
Planning Commission had approved SCHLPS' Preliminary Plan for the Project which
encompassed these original elements and land uses. Through a series of actions, however, the
City's various bodies have approved several modifications to the Project,the most prominent of
which was to change the Project to all timeshare use, eliminating the 198-unit hotel, and
reducing the overall intensity of use from a total of 374 combined hotel and timeshare units to a
current total of 255 timeshare units only. These approved modifications also include, among
others, eliminating the restaurant, ballroom and large kitchen,relocating recreational facilities,
meeting rooms and the spa to the former ballroom location and adding nine timeshare units to
the former spa location.
The City approved the Project's modifications in a manner which has vested Fairfield's
right to develop the Project as approved. On July 17, 2002 the City Council approved an
amendment to Planned Development District 260("PD-260") which accomplished the changes
to the Project from a combined hotel and timeshare resort to a timeshare development only as
described above. On November 6, 2002 the Agency amended its Disposition and Development
Agreement(the "DDA") with Fairfield's predecessor, SCHLPS, to reflect these approved
changes. Finally, and critically, on January 21, 2004 the City Council approved and entered into
the Development Agreement with Fairfield which, in addition to imposing fees to compensate
for the loss of transient occupancy tax revenues from the original hotel use,provides as follows:
"Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Site in accordance with, and
to the extent of, the Development Plan (including any Subsequent Development
Approvals),the Existing Land Use Regulations, and this Agreement."
I
The Development Agreement, § 3.1.
i
i
GreanUrvg irnung,LLP
i
May It,2005
Page 4
On April 7, 2003 Fairfield purchased the Project's site and all the rights to develop the
Project from SCHLPS. As a consequence,Fairfield, in addition to its vested rights under the
Development Agreement, has succeeded in interest to all of SCHLPS' rights under the DDA
and the First Amendment thereto,PD-260, Tentative Tract Map 29692 ("TTM 29692") and all
other approvals and entitlements related to the Project.
2. Fairtield's Final Development Plan
As the Project's current owner and proponent,Fairfield spent over a year working
closely with the City's Design Review Committee (the "DRC") and City planners to develop
and refine its Final Development Plan for the Project which would conform to the City's
approved Preliminary Plan and Project modifications. In June 2004, the DRC and Planning
Commission approved the site plan, allowing Fairfield to proceed with site engineering and
submit the Project for permits. In September 2004 the DRC reviewed the Final Development
Plan, as revised as a result of this collaborative process, and recommended that the Project
move forward for approval of the Final Development Plan.
This Plan conforms to the essential elements of the Preliminary Plan, as the City
has modified it, by:
• remaining true to the original design's inspiration of a European castle, with the
main building,towers and timeshare villas maintaining their mass, scale and
height and relationship to one another built around elaborately landscaped
courtyards with pools and waterfalls, and surrounded by onsite, well-landscaped
parking areas;
• maintaining the essential architectural design and features of the original
building concept, including the wall and window design, the balconies and
trellises,the relationship of the buildings to one another and their general
locations, and the tower and battered wall elements to reinforce the Southern
European design concept; and j
• using the same high-quality building materials as the original conceptual design,
including hand-plastered walls, stone walls, wooden trellises, two-piece, mudded
clay tile roofing, extensive use of wrought iron and window treatments
throughout the complex. I
In the course of its collaborative effort with the DRC and City staff,Fairfield revised or
augmented the design and features of the Preliminary Plan: a) in cooperation with the DRC
I
Greenberg iraurig,LLPp
i
May 11, 2005
Page 5
members and City planning and engineering staff, such as increasing the setback of Building
10, the front entry wing, from 20 feet to 60 feet from South Palm Canyon Drive, relocating the
secondary driveway approach off of Belardo Road and deleting the secondary driveway at
South Palm Drive; b)to provide the detail lacking in the Preliminary Plan,which was
essentially a conceptual plan, as a natural,more final evolution of that concept; and c) to reflect
the approved change in use from a combined hotel and timeshare use to an exclusive timeshare
resort.
The latter revisions were necessitated by the City's approved change in the Project's use
from hotel/timeshare mixed-use to timeshare use only. This change in use requires some
modifications to building exteriors and related elements, as described below:
As Allen Thatcher of Fairfield explained at the October 13, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting, the design, flow and layout of the interior space of a timeshare unit vary
fundamentally from that of the interior space of a hotel room consistent with the resort
industry's building standards. A timeshare unit is essentially a residence, and must contain the
living space elements of a residence, including separate bedrooms,closets, kitchen, living room
and bathrooms. In sharp contrast, a typical hotel room flows directly from the unit's entrance to
its exterior wall,has no separation between the sleeping quarters and the remainder of the unit,
except for a closet and bathroom, and is much smaller than a timeshare unit. As a consequence,
most of a hotel room's exterior wall consists of either windows or glass doors and often, a
balcony, By contrast, as a residence, a timeshare bedroom will have a window only,allowing
for furniture arrangement, and may also include a door to a balcony off the living room.
Moreover, the differing floor plans of a hotel room and timeshare unit, which has a much larger
square footage requirement than a hotel room, also affect the exterior design, form and footprint
of the building. Finally, timeshare units and hotel rooms have different access and common
area standards,with hotel rooms generally having enclosed hallways and connections between
buildings, and timeshare units having exposed hallways and building connectors. In summary,
the sharply contrasting interior design requirements of timeshare units and hotel rooms greatly
influence: a) a building's exterior design, such as the size, number and treatment of windows
and use of balconies; b)the design, shape and footprint of a building; and c) and the design and
look of common areas, including hallways and building connectors.
In other words,form truly follows function when it comes to designing timeshare and
hotel units in the resort industry. Fairfield has in its Final Development Plan followed this
principle to the extent this Plan reflects modifications to the Preliminary Plan's exterior
building design, articulation,building shape, footprint and layout and the buildings' hallways
and connectors necessitated by the Project's exclusive time share use, without changing the
t
f
i
Greenberg 7raurig,LLP
f
May 11, 2005
Page 6
design intent of the original design. As can be seen, since the Project now only has a timeshare
use, the Final Development Plan could not, functionally and architecturally, identically conform
to the Preliminary Plan's original combined hotel and timeshare use concept. Since the City
Council, the Commission and the Agency have each approved the change to a timeshare use
only from a hotel and timeshare mixed-use, with the hotel use predominating the original
concept, Fairfield's changes conform to the letter and spirit of the Preliminary Plan and the
approved change in use. The Final Development Plan substantially conforms to the Preliminary
Plan, as modified by the City, and it must thus be approved.
3. Fairfield Has Revised Its Final Development Plan to Incorporate Each
Condition Requested By The City
Between September 8,2004 and November 22, 2004, the Commission held four
meetings to consider the Final Development 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 Development Plan to incorporate the City's comments.
Nevertheless,the Commission on November 22,2004 denied the Final Development Plan. On
December 6, 2004 Fairfield appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council.
On March 16, 2005, the City Council held a hearing to consider Fairfield's appeal of the
Commission's decision to deny the Final Development Plan. As acknowledged by the
Director's April 13, 2005 report to the Commission(at page 1-2), Fairfield made several
revisions to the site plan and elevations prior to the March 16,2005 hearing in response to the
Commission's identified concerns regarding the Final Development Plan. The Director in this
report also proposed adding sixteen new conditions and modifications to the Final Development
Plan. Fairfield agreed to incorporate all sixteen of the suggested conditions and modifications.
As a result of those changes that Fairfield agreed to make to the Final Development Plan
between December 6,2004 and March 16, 2005, the City Council voted to send the revised
Final Development Plan back to the Commission for its review and consideration. The Council
reasoned that the Council and the Commission should review the same Final Development
Plan, and the revised Final Development Plan before the Council on March 16`n differed from
the Final Development Plan that the Commission considered and acted upon.
The Director's May 16, 2005 report to the Commission for today's hearing:
r
Cr(-enberg Traurig.L Lf k�
May 11,2005
Page 7
(a) acknowledges that the Final Development Plan already reflects several of the
above referenced conditions which Fairfield agreed to incorporate into its Final Development
Plan; and
(b) proposes to add the ten remaining conditions which the Director previously
proposed at the March 16, 2005 hearing.
As stated above, Fairfield has agreed to include each and every one of these conditions
in its Final Development Plan and to incorporate all of the remaining conditions described in
the Director's March 16, 2005 report. As the Director and his staff have 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." We agree with the Director's conclusion. Because the evidence before the Commission
demonstrates this conformity,the Commission must approve this revised Final Development
Plan,
IV.
DISCUSSION
1. The Final Development Plan Must Be Approved If It Substantially
Conforms to and Logically Evolves From the Project's Preliminary Plan As
Modified
The City's own Zoning Code, consistent with California law, requires the approval of
Fairfield's Final Development Plan so long as it substantially conforms to the modified
Preliminary Plan. Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Code, which governs Planted Development
Districts,including PD-260 here, requires the submittal of a final development plan to the
Commission for approval, and states that the final plan"shall be in substantial conformance"
with the approved preliminary plan, and shall incorporate "all modifications and conditions to
the preliminary plan" made by the Commission and the City Council. In circumstances similar
to the matter here, California Courts have held that where an agency's only role is to determine
whether a final map is in"substantial compliance" with an approved tentative map, the F
a
agency's approval becomes ministerial, leaving that agency little, if any,room for discretion or
judgment, Findleton v. El Dorado Co. Board of Supervisors, 12 Ca1.App. 41h 709 (1993). That
result is especially compelled where, as here, an applicant's right to develop the project is
vested, and the applicant has complied with every requirement for project approval, as Fairfield
and its predecessor have done in obtaining: (a) the City's approval of the Preliminary Plan,the I
Project's change in use and the Development Agreement, and (b) the DRC's approval of the s
Greenberg Traung,UP
t
May 11, 2005
Page 8
site plan and recommendation of approval of the Final Development Plan. See California
Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5;see also the Development Agreement, Section 3.1.
As previously discussed, California courts have determined that"[s]ubstantial
compliance means actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable
objective of the statute as distinguished from simple technical imperfections of form." (Kevin
Hoffinaster v. City of San Diego (1997)55 Cal,AppAth 1098, 1106.) As set forth herein, the
differences between the Final Development Plan and the Preliminary Plan are immaterial and
technical in nature. The differences primarily reflect minor modifications related to the
practical use differences between a hotel unit and a timeshare Lunt. An application of the
"substantial compliance"test to our facts demonstrates that Fairfield's Final Development Plan
substantially conforms with the previously approved Preliminary Plan.
Likewise, the Final Development Plan must be approved if it represents a"logical
evolution" of the previously approved Preliminary Plan and Project changes. In establishing
the procedure for approval of"preliminary and final drawings", Section 5.16(b) of the parties'
DDA states that"plans . . . will be approved if[they are] a logical evolution of plans, drawings
or specifications previously approved". (Emphasis added).
As demonstrated below, the Final Development Plan not only substantially conforms to
the Preliminary Plan and its modifications which the City Council and Commission previously
approved, it represents a logical evolution of the Preliminary Plan. Accordingly, the Final
Development Plan must be approved.
2. The Final Development Plan Must be Approved Because it Substantially
Conforms to and Logically Evolves From the Modified Preliminary Plan
Fairfield's Final Development Plan, as presented to and considered by the
Commission, substantially conforms to the modified Preliminary Plan by:
• remaining true to the original design's inspiration of a European castle, with the
main building,towers and timeshare villas maintaining their mass, scale and
height and relationship to one another built around elaborately landscaped
courtyards with pools and waterfalls, and surrounded by onsite, well-landscaped
parking areas; j
• maintaining the essential architectural design and features of the original E
building concept, including the wall and window design, the balconies and
trellises, the relationship of the buildings to one another and their general
i
Greenberg ioung,LIP
May 11, 2005
Page 9
locations, and the tower and battered wall elements to reinforce the Southern
European design concept; and
• using the same high-quality building materials as the original conceptual design,
including hand-plastered walls, stone walls, wooden trellises, two-piece, mudded
barrel tile roofing, extensive use of wrought iron and window treatments
throughout the complex.
Moreover, the Final Development Plan signifies a logical evolution of the
modified Preliminary Plan in that the former Plan, including all its drawings, site plan,
and building elevations, is a permit-ready document providing exact improvement
specifications, building materials and finishes, and precise landscape, grading, parking,
public infrastructure and utility plans and drawings. The modified Preliminary Plan, by
contrast, was conceptual in nature and lacked such details. The Final Development
Plan's more detailed,permit-ready drawings nevertheless embody the principal
architectural concept and features, site plan design and building materials presented in the
modified Preliminary Plan, as discussed above.
Accordingly,as it substantially conforms to the modified Preliminary Plan and
logically evolves from that Plan, the Final Development Plan should have been approved
by the Commission, and it was reversible error for that body's failure to do so. See the
City's Zoning Code Section 94.03.00; Findleton v. El Dorado Co. Board of Supervisors,
supra; the DDA, Section 5.16(b).
What differences lie between the Final Development Plan and the modified
Preliminary Plan do not undermine the substantial conformity between the two plans. As
stated earlier, these differences, none material, arise from three principal sources: a) the
Project's revisions made with the input and cooperation of the DRC and City planning
and engineering staff; b) added details lacking in the conceptual Preliminary Plan but
required to be included in the Final Development Plan; and c)modifications necessitated
by the City-approved change in the Project's use from a combined hotel and timeshare
use to timeshare use only. The above discussion in this Section addresses those Project
details which the Final Development Plan was required to add but which the conceptual
Preliminary Plan lacked. The following analysis demonstrates why changes resulting
from the City's direction or the approved change in use reinforce, not compromise,the
Final Development Plan's conformity with the modified Preliminary Plan.
i
a
Greenberg fraaw LLP
f
May 11, 2005
Page 10
Prior to the March 16, 2005 hearing, the DRC and City staff worked with
Fairfield to make the following changes, which are reflected in the Final Development
Plan submitted to the Commission:
1. 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.
2. Replacement of the out-parcel restaurant, the deletion of which the City
has approved, with concealed parking and an increase in landscaped open
space, an increase which the then Director of Planning requested.
3. Deletion of the secondary driveway approach from South Palm Canyon
Drive, which the City's traffic engineer considered an improved condition.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
i
All of these changes are in substantial conformity with the modified Preliminary
Plan and were made with the input and cooperation of the DRC and City staff.
Fairfield also made other modifications primarily to reflect the City-approved
change in use to an exclusive timeshare use. These include the following: a
S4
r
Greenoerg Traung,LLu
f
May 11, 2005
Page I 1
I. Minor changes were made to building exteriors and elevations, including a
reduction in some window spaces, slightly different window and wall
features, building layout and building connectors. Fairfield made these
changes to design building exteriors, layout and connectors to
accommodate the interior design requirements of timeshares, which vary
greatly from those of hotel units, as detailed above. Since the City has
approved this change in use,and since these changes are necessary to
accommodate this change in use,these changes are in substantial
conformity with the Preliminary Plan as the City has modified it to
accommodate the Project's exclusive timeshare use.
2. The pool areas have been changed, but they remain in substantial
conformance with the pool's original design. The pool was redesigned in
part to reflect the exclusive timeshare use and the pool design which
works harmoniously with such a use versus a hotel-driven pool design.
Additionally,a small number of 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, do not materially affect the original Project's
overall design and concept. Indeed, the DRC reviewed and agreed to these revisions.
Moreover, since the Commission's November 22od action on the Final Development
Plan, Fairfield has agreed to add to this plan each condition requested by the Director and other
City representatives. Fairfield has understood from its discussions with City representatives that
if this plan included each of these conditions, the City would consider this plan in substantial
conformity with the Preliminary Plan. Indeed,the Director has confirmed this understanding by
stating that with the inclusion of these City-requested conditions, "the project is in substantial
conformance with the preliminary development plans". See the Director's May I I'll Report to
the Commission(emphasis added), In his May 11"'Report the Director confirms that the Final
Development Plan already reflects the following conditions which he and other City
representatives proposed to be added, and Fairfield has agreed to meet the remainder of the
sixteen conditions proposed by the City: t:
i
1
The balance of the sixteen conditions are those which primarily would need to be satisfied at either the
time permit-ready construction drawings are submitted or on-site at the time of construction itself. See, e.g., €
condition 3 ("ensure that all architectural embellishments are authentic. . ."),condition 5("all landscaping shown i
f
Greenberg Traun&LLP
i
i
May 11, 2005
Page 12
1. A building mass south of the entry wing. The structure is a carport
designed to look like a building instead of a fagade. The gazebo structure
at the southern portion of the parking lot has been revised to match the
architecture of the carport structure.
2. The rectangular opening that leads into the check-in area has been
modified into a curved arch to match the other opening.
3. The building connections have been improved to be more massive.
Additional stone work has been added to the lower two levels transitioning
into stucco and ultimately a metal railing on the highest level.
4. The roof over the loading dock area has been modified to be tile from the
previous shed roof proposal.
5. The turning radius into the underground parking garage has been modified
to allow a vehicle to reasonably turn from the check-in area into the
garage.
In addition to the foregoing City-requested conditions which the Final Development Plan
already manifests,Fairfield agrees to incorporate each of the ten conditions outlined in the
Director's May I I'h Report. As stated above (see note 1), by their terms these conditions would
be satisfied at the time Fairfield submits permit-ready construction drawings or during the
construction phase of the Project. Since Fairfield's revised Final Development Plan includes
each and every condition the City has requested,and in view of the Director's conclusion that
such conditions bring tMs plan into "substantial conformance", this conformity cannot be
seriously questioned. This plan must be thus approved.
V.
CONCLUSION
Fairfield has in its revised Final Development Plan satisfied each concern that
City has identified to show its unequivocal commitment to produce a high-quality
timeshare resort which meets or exceeds the design elements of the approved Preliminary
Plan and PDD. Having surpassed the "substantial conformance"standard, and reflecting
on renderings . . . shall be required to be installed. ..")and condition 8 ("a mock-up [of the required stone]shall be !
provided on-site and approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.").
i
f
GHEENSERG TRAURIG, LLP
May 11, 2005
Page 13
on Fairfield's extraordinary effort to meet the City's goals for the Project, this plan is in
substantial conformance, and it must be approved.
Fairfield looks forward to working with the City to successfully complete its Project,
provide the community with a first-class resort, expand employment o 6tunities and generate
City revenues in the form of fees and tax increments.
i
S' cerel
Fernando Villa
cc: Douglas H. Holland,Esq.
Mr. John Raymond
Mr. James Thompson
Ms. Jing Yeo
Via e-mail only
i
I
3
I
Greenberg imuro,LL.
i
. . «.� a ur: L ;
,n n,,van
i, u,lsis no
Cept
April 9, 2005 —
VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST-CLASS U.S.MAIL
Mr. David 1I, Ready
City Manager
City of Patin Springs
3200 E. Taliquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case 5.0830 PD-260—Application By Fairfield Resorts For Its Final Development
Plan for the Star Canyon Resort Located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, 'Zones W-
C-1 and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23
Dear Mr, Ready:
I provide as follows the status of compliance of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield")
with the Disposition and Development Agreement dated September 19,2001 (the "DDA")
and the First Amendment thereto dated November 22, 2002 (the "First Amenchnent") between
the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs (the "Agency") and
SCFILPS, LLC, to which Fairfield has succeeded as the developer under these agreements.
As you may recall, the First Amendment requires Fairfield to "obtain all necessary
permits and commence construction of the first phase of the Project. . . after [the] successful
conclusion to [the] validation action and within 2 years of the Close of Escrow". See the First
Amendment, § 18 and the Schedule of Performance attached thereto, Item 19. Section 5.16(c)
of the DDA similarly states that before commencing the Project's construction,Fairfield must
"secure . . . any and all permits and approvals"required by the City of Palm Springs (the
"City") "or any other governmental agency"for any construction or other work "pursuant to
the Scope of Development". The DDA also provides,however,that"Developer shall not be
obligated to commence construction if any such permit is not issued despite good faith effort
by Developer". (Emphasis added.)
Fairfield is not obligated to commence the Project's construction because it has
undertaken diligent, good faith efforts to secure all "permits Enid approvals" to enable my
client timely to begin construction. To date, Fairfield or its predecessor have secured, among
other approvals, the DDA, the First Amendment, the Development Agreement dated January
21, 2004, the Planned Development District 260 ("PD 260") and site plan approval. As you
I.A.PSIVJ1,F0180ntv01 VA 5105V,16575,010500
Greenberg Laurig, LL7 I Allorneys at Low I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suila 400E I Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tel 310,586.7700 1 Fox 310.586.7800 1 www.gtlaw corn
r
Page 2
know, Fairfield has likewise diligently and in good faith sought to obtain the City's approval
of my client's Final Development Plan(the "Final Plan") application for the past year and a
half:
• Beginning in the fall of 2003 and through September 2004,Fairfield's architects and
other personnel met and communicated on numerous occasions with the City's
Planning and Engineering staff and the Design Review Committee (the "DRC")in
submitting, refining and finalizing the Final Plan.
• In September 2004, Fairfield obtained the DRC's recommendation that the Final
Development Plan move forward for approval by the City's Planning Commission(the
"Commission").
• Between September 8, 2004 and November 22, 2004 Fairfield presented its Final Plan
before the Commission for approval at four separate Commission hearings, and met
with City Planning and Redevelopment staff to address issues identified by the City.
During this period Fairfield revised its Final Plan to incorporate the City's comments,
as it did when it sought and obtained the DRC's recommendation.
• In spite o'fFairfield's repealed attempts to secure the Commission's approval of the
Final Plan, the Commission denied this application at its November 22, 2004 meeting.
• Since the Commission's November 22nd action,Fairfield promptly appealed this
decision to the City Council, requested an early hearing on its appeal and continued to
meet with City Planning and Redevelopment personnel to resolve the issues
concerning the Final Plan.
• To preserve its entitlements, including the PD 260 and Tentative Tract Map 29691
("TTM 29691"), while the City Council and the Commission considered the Final
Plan, Fairfield on February 16,2005 sought and obtained from the City Council a one-
year extension of PD260 and TTM 29691,
• Again, in spite of Fairfield's diligent prosecution of its appeal and effort to obtain the
City Cotmcil's approval of the Final Plan,that body instead on March 16, 2005 voted
to remand this application to the Commission for a consideration of what the Council
apparently viewed as a"different"Final Plan.
In view of these steps taken by Fairfield to secure "any and all permits and approvals"—
all done diligently and in good faith—Fairleld has no duty to commence construction under
the DDA or the First Amendment. See the DDA, § 5.16(c). Since our client has complied
with this and all other applicable terms of these agreements,the DDA and First Amendment
remain in full force and effect.
LA.]S1 AV�IIn 1328063,01 v11510506595 010500
GREENunrrc'I'a,rnrctc, ll LP
Page 3
Please advise me at your earliest opportunity if either the City or the Agency disagrees
with Fairfield's position. Although you as the Agency's Executive Director "have the
authority to approve extensions of time without action of the Board of Directors of the
Agency"of up to six months, no such extensions are necessary since Fairfield has no
obligation to commence construction at this time. See the Schedule of Performance attached
to the First Amendment at J. Again, if the City of Agency believe otherwise,please inform
me as soon as possible.
Fairfield looks forward to continuing to work with you the City and the
Agency toward a successful completion of theiA
S
F
cc: Douglas H. Holland, Esq.
Mr. Gary Wayne
Mr. John Raymond
Mr. James Thompson
Ms. Jing Yeo
All via e-mail only
LA.PSHvaWY)3290bl�A1Vt]5/05\46575 0105 DO
CREENBERc.TRAURl(:, LLP
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT
IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 FOR THE STAR
CANYON RESORT LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON
DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2002 a public hearing on the 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 for property located
at South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue to the
south, Random Road to the east, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3
Zones, Sections 22 and 23, 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 project including, but not limited to, the staff report and all
written and oral testimony presented and, on July 10, 2002, voted to recommend that the City
Council approve said amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, a public hearing on the 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 for property located
at South Palm Canyon Drive between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue to the
south, Random Road to the east, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3
Zones, Sections 22 and 23, was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable.law;,and„
WHEREAS, the City Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in
connection with the project including, but not limited to, the staff report and all written and oral
testimony presented and, on July 17, 2002, voted to approve said amendment; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2004, the City Council voted to approve a Development Agreement
for the Star Canyon Resort; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to approve the site plan for the
Star Canyon Resort; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans and requested that the applicant address concerns regarding the
project; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans per the applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans in order for the applicant to provide more information and for staff to
prepare a comparison of the approved and revised timeshare project; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2004, the Planning Commission voted to continue action on the
final development plans in order for staff to work with the applicant to finalize the comparison
table; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and voted
6-0 (1 abstention) to find that the final development plans are not in substantial conformance
with the preliminary PD-260; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the
final development plans for the Star Canyon Resort; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2005, the City Council held a public meeting to consider the
applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision that the final development plans are
not in substantial conformance with the preliminary PD-260; 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
reports, all written and oral testimony submitted by the applicant, and all written and oral
testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
was previously adopted by City Council on May 17, 2000, in conjunction with the
approval of the Star Canyon Resort. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 City Council finds that the revised architecture, landscaping, and walls, the
project will not be compatible with and will not integrate well into the surrounding
community.
The project has been altered from its original approval such that the treatment of
the massing is inappropriate and the materials proposed are not of a quality that
would integrate the project into the surrounding community. The pad elevations
have been altered in the southern portion of the site such that the height of the
buildings would increase the overall height of the building beyond the approved
height.
The re-design of the buildings have resulted in fewer articulations and a
substantial reduction in glazing. The effect has been to emphasize the mass of
the buildings leading to incompatibility with the surrounding environment.
Section 3: The proposed project is not in substantial conformance with the Preliminary
Planned Development District (PD-260). The project has several deficiencies
that have resulted in a project that does not match the overall quality of the
approved PD. A comparison table between the two projects shows that the
revised project is deficient in providing amenities, balcony space, building
articulation, building footprint, exterior materials, trellises, ratio of underground to
surface parking, strong building connections, and comparable window size.
The spa and recreation space has been reduced by more than 50%, and
courtyard amenities such as pool size and number of jacuzzis have been
reduced. The lobby size has also been reduced and outdoor patio areas that
previously were an extension of the lobby area have been eliminated from the
plan or enclosed. This reduction in amenities devalues the lobby experience for
visitors to the project because of the elimination of the inside-outside relationship
that was an integral part of the approved project.
With respect to building size and locations, all the buildings have been separated
thereby eliminating the large stone towers that were included in the approved
project. The stone clad towers were used to hide the staircases and building
connections such that there was a continuous architectural theme to the exterior
of the project. The proposed project has exposed walkways that are a weaker
connection between buildings and are not consistent with the description as
given in the scope of development in the DDA.
With respect to exterior materials, the substitution of natural stone with cultured
stone has resulted in a proposed project that does not match the quality of the
approved project in look and feel. The inherent articulations that depth that come
with natural stone will be lost with the application of cultured stone, which is
flatter.
With respect to the architecture of the building, the applicant's contention that the
timeshare project drives a different design is contrary to the conditions of the
approval that were placed on the amendment of PD-260. The Planning
Commission and City Council, at that time, were assured that the change to the
timeshare use from a hotel/timeshare use would not reduce the overall quality of
the project and that the architecture would not suffer. However, the proposed
project shows that the architecture has suffered as a result of the timeshare
modules. The building articulations that were so prevalent in the approved
project and helped to soften the height and mass of the buildings have been
eliminated from the proposed project and replaced with flat walls with only 1-3
foot articulations.
In addition, the balcony detailing and trellises that also helped soften the mass of
the building in the approved project have either been deleted or substantially
reduced in the proposed project. The balconies on the approved project had a
depth ranging from 6-8 feet with curved railings that projected out from the face
of the balcony. In the proposed project, the curved railings have been replaced
with flat railings and the balcony depth has been reduced to 3-6 feet. The
trellises that were included on every unit in the approved project have been
limited to only the 5th floor of the entry wing and either the 2"d or 3'd floor for the
villas in the proposed project.
With respect to parking, although the ratio of parking provided exceeds the
approved project, the ratio of surface to underground parking is a significant
departure from the approved project. The approved project had 304 underground
spaces and 240 surface spaces. The proposed project has 87 underground
spaces and 444 surface spaces. The 85% increase in surface parking coupled
with the 71% decrease in underground parking has resulted in a less attractive
site plan where the entire perimeter of the site is lined with at least a double row
of parking spaces.
These reductions of amenities, detailing, building footprint, and simplification of
architecture detract from the overall quality of the project and are inconsistent
and not in substantial conformance with the preliminary Planned Development
District and site plan provided by the applicant in the current DDA and
Development Agreement. Therefore, the City Council cannot make the finding
that the final development plans are consistent with the approved PD-260.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision that the final development plans are not
substantial conformance with the preliminary PD-260 for the Star Canyon Resort.
ADOPTED THIS_day of 2005.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
Reviewed and Approved as to Form:
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Appeal of Planning Commission's decision that
the final development plans are not in substantial conformance
with the preliminary planned development district for
the Star Canyon Resort
Case No. 5.0830 -PD 260
Applicant: Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California will hold a public
hearing at its meeting of March 16, 2005. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal by Fairfield Resorts, Inc. of the Planning
Commission's decision that the final development plans for the Star Canyon Resort are not in substantial
conformance with the preliminary planned development district for the Star Canyon Resort located at 961
South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 AND W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23.
The Planning Commission found that the final development plans were not consistent with the preliminary
planned development district because of the revised architecture, landscaping and walls and deficiencies
in amenities, balcony space, building articulation, building footprint, exterior materials, trellises, ratio of
underground to surface parking, strong building connections, and comparable window size. At the public
hearing, the City Council may uphold, override, or modify the Planning Commission's decision.
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. Pursuant to Section 15162 of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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. The previously adopted MND, appeal, and related documents are available for public review
at the City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services counter, Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.
If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence to the City Clerk, at or prior to the City
Council hearing.
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding
this case may be directed to Jing Yeo, Principal Planner, (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carts, porfavor flame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine
Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
?JAMES THOMSPON
lerk
AMA c Department of Planning Services "
M1� Vicinity Map w+E
s
0
a
¢ 1
m IIIL--��I � +�
SUNNY DUNES P.D � i �"IS , o
c
\ p
a
}
n
x
y N
r.
J MESQUITE E
OI C
of z
A U
PALO VEP,DE AVE
I
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 5.0830 PD260 DESCRIPTION:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision that the final
APPLICANT: Fairfield Resorts, Inc. development plans are not in substantial conformance with the
preliminary planned development district for the Star Canyon
Resort located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1
and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23.
508 161 002 508 171 005 508 171 007
Riverside County Flood Cent John Polos &Kathe Polos Riverside County Flood Cont
1995 Market St 777 S Palm Canyon Dr 1995 Market St
Riverside,CA 92501 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Riverside, CA 92501-
508 171 008 508 171 009 508 172 005
John Polos &Kathe Polos Riverside County Flood Cont Ptshp Olympic-barrington
777 S Palm Canyon Dr 1995 Market St 9229 W Sunset Blvd 4625
Patin Springs,CA 92264 Riverside, CA 92501 West Hollywood,CA 90069
508 172 007 508 172 008 508 172 009
Ptshp Olympic-Farrington Riverside County Flood Cont Ptshp Olympic-barrington
9229 W Sunset Blvd#625 1995 Market St 9229 W Sunset Blvd#625
West Hollywood,CA 90069 Riverside, CA 92501 West Hollywood, CA 90069
508 291 003 508 291 004 508 291 028
Patrick Lacroix&Roy Ragle James Crippam Jerold Harris &Lary Tabberer
1558 Curran St 145 E Mesquite Ave 8830 Rangely Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90026 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Los Angeles, CA 90048
508 291 029 508 291 034 513 250 014
Emlinia Verlengia Steven Reid Chevrolet Macniagruder
1080 S Palm Canyon Dr 1000 S Palm Canyon Dr 999 S Patin Canyon Dr
Patin Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
513 300 005 513 300 006 513 300 007
Parkview Mobile Estates Inc Fey Family Investments Limited Partin Fey Family Investments Limited Partn
211 W Mesquite Ave 2000 S Madrona Dr 2000 S Machona Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
513 300 030 513 300 031
George Mararitz&Dianne Marantz George Marantz&Dianne Marantz
6 Palomino Rd 211 W Mesquite Ave
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Pahn Springs, CA 92264
NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION MR PETER DIXON MR BILL DAVIS&
CASE NO,,-,5,0830-PD 260 TENNIS CLUB AREA MS TRISHA DAVIS
FAIRFIELD RESORTS;, INC." 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE TENNIS CLUB AREA
CITY COUNCIL 'MEETING-03.16.05 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 3375 FOOTHILL ROAD,#921
MR BILL DAVIS AND CARPINTERIA, CA 93013
MR FRANK TYSEN MS CHRISTINE HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN
C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN TAHQUITZ RIVER ESTATES TENNIS CLUB/SMALL HOTELS
SMALL HOTELS 1155 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD
175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR TIM HOHMEIER MS ROXANN PLOSS MR PHIL TEDESCO
DEEPWELL OLD LAS PALMAS DEEPWELL RANCH
1387 CALLE DE MARIA 930 CHIA 335 BIG CANYON DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
MR MARSHALL ROATH
MS SHERYL HAMLIN
HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA
565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MS MARGARET PARK
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS I I I I 1 1 INDIANS
650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO 5.0830-PD 260
PLANNING &ZONING DEPT MRS JOANNE BRUGGEMANS
VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 1 1 ATTN SECRETARY 506 W SANTA CATALINA ROAD
PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743
MR BILL KESTERSON MR GARY OLMEIM
FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC. FAIRFIELD RESORTS
SPONSORS I 1 1 8427 SOUTH PARK CIRCLE, #200 9805 WILLOWS ROAD
ORLANDO, FL 32819 REDMOND, WA 98052
MR FERNANDO VILLA CASE NO. 5.0830-PD 260
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP MR PETE MORUZZI
2450 COLORADO AVENUE, #400E HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 PO BOX 4738
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738
Mr. Gary Wayne
Director of Planning
City of Patin Springs
3200 E. Taliquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the"Project") MAW,
ANVERDAM
Dear Mr. Wayne:
On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"), we ask that Fairfield's Final
Development Plan Application(the "Application") be taken off the agenda for the Planning b
Commission's meeting tomorrow. As you know, the Planning Commission has already r:;icnco
acted on the Application, Fairfield has appealed the Commission's decision to the City i CdWd
Council and the City Council will hear this appeal at its March 16, 2005 meeting. Fairfield „-q
did not request that the Application be reconsidered by the Planning Commission, and our
client intends to proceed with its appeal. The Application is thus now properly before the
City Council and should be heard by that body. O P40 Lf9
We understand that the Planning Department has decided to place this matter on the NiW J=',r,•
Planning Commission's March 9, 2005 agenda because of changes Fairfield has discussed Mr• ,„G
malting to its Final Development Plan with Planning staff. Those changes, and related
discussions, do not warrant remanding the Application to the Commission for its
reconsideration of an action that bodyhas already taken. As a matter of procedure,the City ""'AN DO
Y P ty. i :.>,
Council generally may approve or deny a final development plan application, or approve onel lk'
such an application as the Council may modify, regardless of whether the Planning o,rv,r
Commission itself considered any modifications the Council decides on its own to impose.
The same is true for other entitlements, such as a tentative tract map which a city council has
the power to approve by imposing conditions a planning commission neither imposed nor
considered. r+sous CO.N!R
wAswrvcru,ac
W EsT P.i M IFACI i
! vncnwaior<
ZURICH
LA-FSM26972v01199971158424
GreenbRra 7rauri�,LLP 1 Axtcrneys at Lew I Los Aiptf,s Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Slide 40OF I Santa Moni,,_A 9'494 vaww.�'tla or.com
-0310.58677001`ax}JM86.7800
Mr. Gary Wayne
March S,2005
Page 2
Furthermore, the changes Fairfield has discussed with City staff to date since the
Planning Commission's action on the Application are not`final"and are subject to further
evolution based the City Council's own actions. Any attempt to have the Planning Commission
act on changes Fairfield and City staff continue to discuss or which the City Council may want
to modify would ignore this reality, and would undermine Fairfield's right to appeal the
Commission's action.
The Planning Commission held several meetings over a three-month period to address
the Application, and finally denied it on November 24, 2004. The Commission's action itself
followed more than a year of efforts by Fairfield to work with the Design Review Committee
and the City's Planning and Engineering staff in fashioning a final development plan which
substantially conforms vvith the preliminary development previously approved. It is time to
move on and let the process of appeal proceed in an orderly fashion consistent with Fairfield's
right to be heard on the Commission's action.
Please inform me of the City's response to Fairfield's request at your earliest
opportunity.
Si cerely,
�\
V/ Fernando Villa
cc: Mr. John Raymond(via e-mail)
Mr. Douglas Holland,Esq. (via e-mail)
Ms. Jing Yeo (via e-mail)
LA-FS 11326972vO 119997E 158424
GRUNBERG TRAURIG,LLP
February 25,2004
VIA FACSIMILE &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
Case 5.0830 PD-260--Application By Fairfield Resorts for Final Development
Plan for the Star Canyon Resort Located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive,
Zones W-C-I and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23
Dear Mr,Thompson:
I represent Fairfield Communities, Inc. in connection with the above referenced matter.
On December 3,2004,I tiled a notice of appeal with Ms.Kathie Hart,the acting City Clerk,a
copy of which is attached hereto. I am hereby requesting that this matter be added to the March
10 agenda of the City Council. Municipal Code Section 2.05.050 requires that an appeal be
heard by the City Council within 45 days following the filing of the notice of appeal. As the
deadline for this matter to be heard by the City Council has expired,we ask that the City adhere
to the March 16°i hearing request.
Please ensure that any reports required by the planning staff are prepared in time for the
March 16"'date, and please send me a copy of the applicable reports as soon as they are available.
Your prompt attention and review of this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sin erely,
Fernando Villa
Cc: Mr. Douglas Holland,Esq.
Mr.John S. Raymond
Mr. Gary Wayne
Ms.Jing Yeo
Creenberg Taurlg,LLF I Attorneys at Law I Cos Angeles OfNce 12450 Colorado Avence I SuL'e 400E I Santa Monica,CA 904041 Tel 310585.770C I Fax 310 586..7800 1 wVwYgilew.com
laf Y6 A��'✓�
����1xy,�4�rJ �E? •
City of Palm Springs
1 ppI
Office of the City Clerk
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262
Tel: (760)323-8204 • Fax:(760)322-8332 • Web:wwwci.palm-springs.ca.us
December 6, 2004
Ms. Elyse Lewis
MSA Consulting, Inc.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Ms. Lewis:
RE: Request to Appeal Planning Commission's Decision to City Council
Application by Fairfield Resorts for Star Canyon Resort
Located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA
This letter is to confirm receipt of the above referenced request accompanied by a
payment of$475.00, the fee to file for an appeal. This office will contact you with the
meeting date it shall be presented to the City Council for consideration.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathie Hart, CMC
Acting City Clerk
/kdh
w/ attach.
c: Mayor and Councilmembers, w/ attach.
David H. Ready, City Manager, w/ attach.
David Aleshire, City Attorney, w/ attach.
John S. Raymond, Director of Community & Economic Development, w/ attach.
Doug Evans, Director of Strategic Planning, w/ attach.
Jay Wiser, Fairfield Resorts, Inc., w/ attach.
Fernando Villa, Greeberg Traurig, LLC, w/ attach
Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-274�
MSACONSULTING, INC.
R' AsSOCIATES, INC.
ID PLANNING ■ CIVIL ENGINEERING ■ LAND SURVEYING
Letter of Transmittal
Date: December 3, 2004 Via: Hand Deliver
Job#: 1403
To: Ms. Kathy Hart
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Engineering Division
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
From: Elyse Lewis
Re: Letter Regarding Notice of Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission on Case 5.0830 PD-260
Project: Star Canyon-Fairfield Resorts
CC: Kimberly Jaime, Bill Kesterson,Allen Thatcher, Sheila Rowley
❑ Urgent ® For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑As Requested ❑ Other
CITY. ITEM
1 Copy Letter Regarding Notice of Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission on Case 5.0830 PD-260
1 Check In the amount of$475.00
• Comments: Kathy — Forwarding to you by at the request of Kimberly Jaime of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Also
attached are packages to Ron Oden, Chris Mills, Ginny Foat, Mike McCulloch, Stephen Pougnet, David Aleshire, and
John Raymond for your distribution. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance.
34200 BOB DOPE DRIVE ■ RANCHO MIRAGE A CALIFORNIA ■ 92270
760.320-9811 0 760.323-7893 fax 0 www MSACoNsrrLTTrTGINC COm
December 3,2004
VIA BAND DELIVERY& FEDEX
Ms. Kathie Hart
Acting 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 Case 5.0830 PD-260--Application By Fairfield Resorts for
Final Development Plan for the Star Canyon Resort Located at 961 South ALBANY
Palm Canyon Drive,Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3,Sections 22 and 23 AMSTERbAM
ATIaNTA
Dear Ms. Hart. OOCA RATON
We represent Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield")in connection with the above BOSTON
referenced matter, and we submit this letter as a notice of appeal by Fairfield to the City CHICAGO
Council of the City of Palm Springs(the"City Council")from the decision of the DALLAS
Planning Commission of the City of Pahn Springs(the"Planning Commission"),at its nENVER
hearing on November 24, 2004, to disapprove Fairfield's Final Development Plan for the PORT LAUDERDALE
Star Canyon Resort,
LOS ANCELES
We hereby request review and reversal of the Planning Commission's decision by MIAMI
the City Council on each of the following grounds: NEW IERRee
1. The Planning Commission abused its discretion, if any it had,under NEW YORK
§94.03.00 of the City's Zoning Code because the Final Development Plan ORANGE COUNTY,CA
was in substantial conformance with previously approved preliminary ORIANbO
plans . PHILAOCLPHIA
2. The Planning Commission acted unlawfully and abused its discretion, if PHOENIX
any it had, by voting to disapprove the Final Development Plan when such SILICON VALLEY I
decision was not supported by substantial evidence on record. AL A„AstEc
3. The Planning Commission's failure t0 LilaiCe specificspecificfindings 6f IaCt in TYSONS CORNER
support of its decision to disapprove the Final Development Plan violates WASHINGTON,LIC.
the requirements set forth in Toponga Assn.for a Scenic Community v. I WEST PALM BEACH
County of Los Angeles, I CaUd 506(1974), and other applicable law . WILMINGTON
ZUXICH
Greenberg Traung,L47 I A.ttomeys at law I Las Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 W W W.gdaw Eom I`
TO 310536,77GO j fax 310.SB6.7800
Ms. ]Kathie Hart
December 3,2004
Page 3
Based on the foregoing,Fairfield respectfully requests that the City Council
reverse the decision of the Planning Commission,and grant approval of Fairfield's Final
Development Plans for the Project.
We further request that the City Council notify Fairfield and Greenberg Traurig of
the date on which the City Council will hear the appeal. All notices related to this matter
should be mailed and faxed to the following:
Fairfield Resorts, Inc. Greenberg Traurig,LLC
8427 South Park Circle 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 East
Orlando, Florida 32819 Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attention: Jay Wiser Attention: Fernando Villa
Fax: (407)370-5222 Fax: (310) 586-7800
We enclose with this notice of appeal the required fee in the amount of$475.00.
Your prompt attention and review of this matterZilla
ed.
Sine re
Fernando
Cc: The Honorable Ronald Oden
The Honorable Chris S. Mills
The Honorable Ginny Foat
The Honorable Mike McCulloch
The Honorable Stephen P. Pougnet
David Aleshire,Esq.
Mr.John S.Raymond
GREM39RG THAOUG,LLP t
December 3, 2004
VIA BAND DELIVERY & FEDEX
Ms. Kathie Hart
Acting 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 Case 5.0830 PD-260 -- Application By Fairfield Resorts for
Final Development Plan for the Star Canyon Resort Located at 961 South ALBANY
Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23 AMSTFRDAN
ATLANTA
Dear Ms. Hart: eOCA RATON
We represent Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield") in connection with the above BOSTON
referenced matter, and we submit this letter as a notice of appeal by Fairfield to the City `HICAGO
Council of the City of Palm Springs (the "City Council") from the decision of the DALLAS
Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs (the "Planning Commission"), at its DENVER
hearing on November 24, 2004, to disapprove Fairfield's Final Development Plan for the
FORT LAUDERDALC
Star Canyon Resort.
LOS ANGELES
We hereby request review and reversal of the Planning Commission's decision by MIAMI
the City Council on each of the following grounds: NEW JERSEY
1. The Planning Commission abused its discretion, if any it had, under NEW YORK
§94.03.00 of the City's Zoning Code because the Final Development Plan ORANGE COUNTY,CA
was in substantial conformance with previously approved preliminary ORLANDO
plans . PHILADELPHIA
2. The Planning Commission acted unlawfully and abused its discretion, if PHOENIX
any it had, by voting to disapprove the Final Development Plan when such SILICON VALLEY
decision was not supported by substantial evidence on record . TALLAI ASSES
3. The Plamiing Commission's failure to make specific findings of fact in TYSONS CORNER
support of its decision to disapprove the Final Development Plan violates WASHINGTON,D.C.
the requirements set forth in Topanga Assn.for a Scenic Community v. WEST PALM REACH
County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974), and other applicable law . WILMINGTON
ZURICH
Green berg Traurig,UP I Attorneys at Law I Las Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 www.gtlaw Coon
Tel 310.586 7700 1 Fax 310.586 7800
Ms. Kathie Hart
December 3, 2004
Page 2
4. The Planning Commission acted unlawfully in disapproving the Final
Development Plan by (a) violating the City's own rules, ordinances and
regulations, including but not limited to, Chapter 94.00 of the City's
Zoning Code governing Planned Development Districts and standards for
architectural review, and Title 9 of the City's municipal code governing
procedures for approving subdivision tract maps , and (b) violating
applicable provisions of California's Subdivision Map Act as set forth in
Title 7, Division 2 of the Government Code of the State of California,
§66410, et seq.
5. By disapproving the Final Development Plan, the Planning Commission
materially breached the Development Agreement dated as of January 21,
2004 between the City of Palm Springs and Fairfield Resorts, Inc. (the
"Development Agreement"), as approved by the City Council on such date
and codified in Section 94.08.08 of the City's Zoning Code.
6. By disapproving the Final Development Plan, the Planning Commission
materially breached the Disposition and Development Agreement between
the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs and
SCHLPS, LLC, approved by the Agency Board on September 19, 2001,
and the First Amendment thereto dated as of November 6, 2002
(collectively, the "DDA"), including, but not limited to the requirements
that the Commission approve a logical evolution of plans as provided in
§5, and that the Commission act in good faith as provided in §9.9.
7. In disapproving the Final Development Plan, the Planning Commission
violated Fairfield's vested rights as provided by Cal. Government Code
§§65864-65869.5, §94.08.00 of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code and
the Development Agreement, including, but not limited to §3.1 thereof.
8. In disapproving the Final Development Plan, the Planning Commission
violated the California Community Redevelopment Law, as set forth in
Cal. Health and Safety Code §§33000 et seq.
9. The Planning Commission abused its discretion, if any it had, and
exceeded all authority conferred upon it by the City's Municipal and
Zoning Code, the DDA and the Development Agreement by basing its
decision on improper, inapplicable and irrelevant grounds, including, but
not limited to, the desirability of this project, its mass, scale and density,
and the timeshare use, all of which the City Council and Planning
Commission previously approved and as to which Fairfield has vested
development rights.
10. The Planning Commission abused its discretion by basing its decision to
disapprove the Final Development Plan on vague, inapplicable and
improper architectural standards.
GREENBERG TRABRIG, LLP
Ms. Kathie Hart
December 3, 2004
Page 3
Based on the foregoing, Fairfield respectfully requests that the City Council
reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, and grant approval of Fairfield's Final
Development Plans for the Project.
We further request that the City Council notify Fairfield and Greenberg Traurig of
the date on which the City Council will hear the appeal. All notices related to this matter
should be mailed and faxed to the following:
Fairfield Resorts, Inc. Greenberg Traurig, LLC
8427 South Park Circle 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 East
Orlando, Florida 32819 Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attention: Jay Wiser Attention: Fernando Villa
Fax: (407) 370-5222 Fax: (310) 586-7800
We enclose with this notice of appeal the required fee in the amount of$475.00.
Your prompt attention and review of this matter is r atl a preciated.
Sincere
Fernando Villa
Cc: The Honorable Ronald Oden
The Honorable Chris S. Mills
The Honorable Ginny Foat
The Honorable Mike McCulloch
The Honorable Stephen P. Pougnet
David Aleshire , Esq.
Mr. John S. Raymond
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
DATE: November 24, 2004
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Strategic Planning
CASE 5.0830 PD-260 — APPLICATION BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS FOR FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH
PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission review and consider final development plans for the Star Canyon
Resort located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive. At the conclusion of the public meeting, the
Planning Commission may direct staff to prepare a resolution approving or denying the revised
site plan and building plans.
UPDATE
The project was continued from the meeting of November 10, 2004 in order for staff to review
the final development plans for Building 10 that were submitted on November 8 by the applicant.
At the November 10 meeting, a number of property owners who live east of South Palm Canyon
Drive spoke in favour of the project.
Staff has reviewed the plans and worked with the applicant to finalize the comparison table that
is attached to this report. The plans and material samples will also be reviewed by the Design
Review Committee on November 22, 2004.
At the November 10 meeting, the applicant submitted written responses to the Planning
Commission's requests from the meeting of October 13, 2004 and a letter from Greenberg
Traurig, on behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc., requesting that the Planning Commission take
action on the project based on provisions in the DDA.
The City Attorney has reviewed the letter and indicates that Section 5.1.6(d) of the DDA states
the following:
"Approval by Agencv. The Agency shall approve or disapprove any submittal made by the
Developer pursuant to this Agreement within thirty (30) days after such submittal. All submittals
made by Developer will note in bold type the thirty (30) day time limit and specifically reference
this Agreement and this Section. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reason for the
disapproval and the changes which the Agency requests to be made. After Developer
resubmits the corrected submittal, Agency shall have an additional thirty(30) days for the review
of the resubmittal but if the Agency disapproves the resubmittal, then the cycle shall repeat, until
the Agency's approval has been obtained. Any approvals made by the City relating to the
design of the Project shall be deemed to also constitute approval by the Agency."
In the submittals made by the applicant, staff has not received notes in bold type regarding the
30 day time limit and specific references to the DDA and Section 5.1.6(d). Therefore, the
applicant has not complied with the language in the DDA with respect to submittals. The first
time that staff received written notification of Section 5.1.6(d) of the DDA was in the letter
submitted to the Planning Commission on November 10, 2004.
With respect to the Planning Commission's request for clarification regarding the time line for
the Planned Development District (PD-260), the deadline to approve final development plans
was July 17, 2004. The applicant submitted plans prior to this date and had a site plan
approved on June 23, 2004. The PD ordinance (Section 94.03.00 of the zoning ordinance)
states that a developer has 6 months (December 23, 2004) from the approval of final
development plans to commence substantial construction or else the PD is terminated.
However, there have been further modifications to the final development plans since the
approval of the site plan so the 6 month time limit would be extended from the next time that
action is taken, should the Planning Commission approve the project.
In the City Attorney's preliminary review of the DA, which has a term of 20 years, there did not
appear to be language that would supersede the time frames provided in the PD ordinance
except for the Schedule of Performance, attached to this report. Item 20 of the Schedule of
Performance allows the developer 18 months after commencement of construction to complete
the first phase of the project. Subsequently, the developer must complete construction of the
remaining phases of the project within 5 years and 6 months after commencement of the first
phase. The Schedule of Performance also states that the developer has 2 years from the Close
of Escrow to commence construction on the first phase of the project, which would be April 7,
2005.
The expiration date of January 30, 2005 date stated in the last page of the Greenberg Traurig
letter refers to the time extension that was granted by the City Council extending PD-260 and
TTM 29691 from May 17, 2003 to January 30, 2005.
BACKGROUND
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
MaGruder Chevrolet to the south.
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 was approved by City Council on May 17, 2000, The
original staff report is attached. The original project had a significant financing gap that could
not be feasibly closed with private sector financing. Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency
agreed to provide financial assistance to the project in order to assist the development through
a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") approved on September 19, 2001.
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 approved 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.
The decline in hotel occupancy and in average daily room rates over the past two years has
made the financing of the hotel portion of the project increasingly difficult. This difficulty existed
before September 11, 2001, but was exacerbated by the global effects on tourism due to the
terrorist acts. 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 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 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 (SCHLPS, LLC, since assigned to Fairfield Resorts, Inc.) and the
Agency, the City's legal staff felt the most legally appropriate way for the fee to be imposed and
collected would be 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.
PROJECT DESIGN
The project has been reviewed extensively by the Design Review Committee (DRC) for over a
year. Initially, the developer had proposed a project that decreased the mass and scale of the
building. In doing so, the project architecture was substantially altered. However, after
consultations with the DRC and staff, the developer was directed to re-design the project to
match the detail of the original project. In the course of the project design, the following
changes were made to the site plan:
• the buildings were pulled closer together in the east/west direction in order to provide an
additional row of parking on the east/west perimeter of the project. The parking scheme on
the north/south perimeter did not change,
• the out-parcel restaurant was deleted and replaced with surface parking and landscaped
open space.
• the secondary driveway approach off South Palm Canyon Drive was deleted which is
accepted as an improved condition by the City Engineer.
• the entry wing building was moved closer (northward) to the main entrance driveway
• the secondary driveway approach off Belardo Road was relocated to the south in order to
adjust to the Belardo Road grade profile.
• deletion of underground parking below a portion of the entry wing
In comparing the original site plan with the amended site plan, the DRC was comfortable that
the courtyard/pool area would not be compromised by pulling the buildings closer together. The
original 45-degree angle massing on the entry wing is matched in the revised architectural
plans. In addition, the design intent of the detail of the balconies and windows on the original
was attempted to be matched by the revised architectural plans. Overall, the revised project
resulted in a reduction in the intensity of the land use by reducing the total of units on the site.
A comparison table for the key development standards of the original approved project and the
amended project is provided as follows:
Original Approved Project Amended Project
Front setback (South Palm Canyon Drive) 20 feet 62 feet
Maximum distance between buildings at west 140 feet 110 feet
_side of poollrecreation area
Building height of entry wing 64 feet—69 feet 60 feet—66 feet
Parking spaces 544 spaces 531 spaces
With respect to parking, despite the deletion of the underground parking spaces underneath a
portion of the entry wing, the project will still have 531 parking spaces for a ratio of 1.5
spaces/key -- a ratio that meets the industry standard. Based on a ratio of 1.3 spaces/key and
362 keys, the revised project exceeds the required number of parking spaces by 60 spaces.
While the revised project is deficient by 13 spaces compared to the original project, it should be
noted that the original project had a total of 374 hotel/timeshare units compared to the revised
project of 255 timeshare units (254 as designed).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION
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.
Review of final development plans are an architectural review item and therefore, do not require
public notice. However, staff has received comment from some property owners who live nearby
that the project is too large and inappropriate for the site.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comparison of Approved and Revised Timeshare Project and Project Chronology
2. Schedule of Performance from First Amendment to DDA
3. May 17, 2000 City Council staff report for original project (previously provided)
4. May 17, 2000 City Council minutes (previously provided)
5. July 17, 2002 City Council staff report for amended project(previously provided)
6. July 10, 2002 Planning Commission minutes (previously provided)
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 1
Star Canyon Plans Analysis
"Note that all measurements are on average and approximate unless otherwise noted
FEATURE APPROVED PLAN REVISED PLAN
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
Building 11 84 x 100 (note: connected to Building 10) 74 x 84 (note: service corridor separates
it from Building 10)
Building 12 _ 50 x 140 50 x 132
Building 13 47 x 35 (note: this is average size of 2 35 x 78
buildings)
Building 14 84 x 193 78 x 143
Building 15 55 x 92 33 x 97
Buildinq 16 _84 x 138 76 x 101
Building 17 84 x 92 73 x 83
Buildin 18 84 x 101 75 x 83
Building 19 84 x 148 74 x 148
Building 20 84 x 140 72 x 145
Building 21 45 x 35 46 x 60
UNIT SIZE
Studio -- 430 sf to 450 sf
1 Bedroom 642 sf 805 sf to 870 sf
2 Bedroom 958 sf 1,140 to 1,160 sf
3 Bedroom 1,860 sf
4 Bedroom -- 2,370 sf
BUILDING 5-7 feet with frequent articulations 1-3 feet frequent articulations with some
ARTICULATIONS 15 feet extremes
Trellises Each unit had individual trellis Bldg. 10 —trellises at L1 (employee area)
and L5 (units) Villas — at L2 or L3 units
COURTYARD
Entire courtyard 240 x 320 230 x 235
Main Pool 183 x 135 97 x 50 (2,400 sf),
50 x 50 1,600 sf
Kids/Secondary Pool 37 x 40 17' diameter
Jacuzzis 15-25' diameter 10-15' diameter
Pool deck space (north 163 x 70 136 x 70
side)
Pool deck space 180 x 60 140 x 30
(Southside)
#of Jacuzzis 6 2
#of major water 1 (pool waterfall) 1 (fountain at west terrace)
features
#of minor water 3 (pool courtyard)/ 4 (pool courtyard)/
features 1 (restaurant water feature) 1 (entry drive waterfall)
#of pool bars 2 (water & deck) 1 (deck only)
GRADING
Building 10 462.5 462 (at L1) , 452 (at basement)
Building 11 472.5 467
Building 12 472.5 472 & 462
Building 13 465, 455 & 467.5 457
H:\USERS\PLAN\5.0830 Fairfield Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doc ' - --
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 2
Building 14 477.5 477 & 467
Building 15 467.5 & 457.5, 472.5 & 462.5 467 (may be reduced
Buildin 16 482.5 482 & 472
Building 17 482.5 482 & 472
Building 18 477.5 472 & 462
Building 19 472.5 472 & 462
Building 20 462.5 467 & 457
Building 21 457.5 457
BUILDING HEIGHT
Building 10 64-69.25' / Octagonal — 30' — note: 60' —66' (from L1 FF) / Octagon is 28'
maximum of 526.0 from L1 FF
Building 11 64' (54' from FF) 52'-58' (47-53' from FF)
Building 12 56' /Towers —62' 57' — 59'
Buildin 13 court and Unknown 18'
Building 14 56' /Towers —62' 48' — 58'
Building 15 (courtyard) Unknown 18' —28'
Building 16 54'-57' /Towers — 62' 48' - 58'
Building 17 26'-36' 38' — 48'
Building 18 26'-36' 36'-55' — note grade is -5.5'
Buildin 19 45'-56' 52'-54'
Building 20 53'-63' 56'-62' (51'-57' from FF)— note grade
+5.5'
Building 21 (courtyard) Unknown 18'
PARKING
Total 544 spaces 531 spaces
Ratio 1.5 spaces/unit 2.1 spaces/unit
_L1.3 spaces/ke 1.5 spaces/key)
#Surface spaces 240 444
# Underground spaces 304 87
ENTRY WING AMENITIES
Spa/Recreation 13,000 sf +/- 4,114 sf
facilities
Lobby + 4,829 sf +/- 2,099 sf
Patio covers over Pre-function space; detailing on east and All former exterior space is enclosed,
exterior space south side of Building 10 patio covers deleted for Building 10
BUILDING Stairwells clad in tower with natural stone Exposed walkways of 4 levels, all
CONNECTIONS architectural tower connections deleted
WINDOW SIZE
Building 10 Sliders: 9.5'wide x Thigh Sliders: 6' wide x Thigh
Windows: 4.5' wide x 6' high Windows: 2'-4' wide x 4'-5' high
Typical Villas Windows: 7 10' wide x 7' high Sliders: 6' wide x 7' high
Windows: 4' wide x 5' 1 h
EXTERIOR FINISHES
Custom blend of"Aspen" and
Stone Natural stone "Chardonnay" colors (based on Cultured
Stone product line
Windows Not specified Aluminum windows; true divided lights;
color anodized to be "mesa-brown"
H:\USERS\PLAN\5.0830 Fairfield Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doc
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 3
Aluminum storefront doors, full glass with
true divided lights at public areas;
Doors Not specified aluminum sliding glass doors, full glass
at units. All aluminum to be color-
anodized finish in dark brown to match
windows.
Type SA at parking lot
Lighting Not specified Type SC at entry drive
Type SD at bldg ext. walls
(Cut sheets provided separately)
2-piece mudded tile on east octagonal
roof only; s-tile with 2-piece eave detail
Roof Tile 2-piece clay, mudded tile on east tower roofs below Level 5 visible
from street; s-tile with standard bird stop
eave detail at upper roofs and roofs
around pool courtyard
Aluminum treated to simulate wrought
Balcony railings Black wrought iron, Stucco, or Combination iron or possibly true wrought iron at
wrought iron and stucco upper floors, accent areas; aluminum
vertical picket railings at lower floors
Towers Stone on towers and to the to of buildin s Stone onl on front tower and first level
Stucco Hand washed with antique finish Smooth texture, hand-troweled finish
P a v'i nq Flaq. Stone or concrete paving Colored concrete
Heavy timber columns and brackets
supporting heavy timber beams with
Trellises Wood (not specified) decorative ends and rafters —
stained medium brown to match
window color
Landscape boulders Granite and concrete boulders Similar/ natural boulders; size and
treatment not s ecified
HIUSERSTLAM5.0830 Fairfield Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doc
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 4
Project Approval Chronology
Planning Commission (PC), City Council (CC), and Redevelopment Agency (RDA)
Date Action Details
April 26, 2000 PC recommends approval of 198-room hotel, 176 vous, banquet
original project & meeting facilities, restaurant &
lounge facilities, pool area,
recreational amenities _
May 17, 2000 CC approves original project 198-room hotel, 176 vous, banquet
& meeting facilities, restaurant &
lounge facilities, pool area,
recreational amenities
September 19, 2001 RDA approves Disposition and Provide financial assistance to the
_Development Agreement (DDA) project
April 24, 2002 PC recommends approval of 1-year More time needed to secure
time extension to May 17, 2003 financing
May 15, 2002 CC approves 1-year time extension More time needed to secure
to May 17 2003 financing
July 17, 2002 CC approves amendment to Inability to secure hotel financing,
Planned Development District change land use to 255 timeshares
units, eliminate ballroom & kitchen,
relocation of recreational facilities,
meetings rooms, and spa to former
ballroom location, addition of 9
timeshare units in former spa
location
November 6, 2002 RDA amends DDA To reflect changes in project and
several of the deal points
January 29, 2003 CC approves time extension to Extend PD-260 and TTM 29691
January 30, 2005 _
December 10, 2003 PC recommends approval of Memorializes collection of Financial
Development Agreement (DA)for Impact Mitigation (FIM) fee due to
Financial Impact Mitigation (FIM) conversion of project to timeshares
fee (note: 1st time that PC sees revised
project— request that Fairfield
_ redesign)
January 21, 2004 CC approves DA for FIM fee Memorializes collection of FIM fee
due to conversion of project to
timeshares (note: 1st time that CC
sees revised project— requests that
Fairfield redesign)
H:\USERS\PLAN\5.0830 FairFeld Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doc
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 5
June 23, 2004 Planning Commission approves Including the deletion of the out-
final site plan parcel restaurant and secondary
access point but excepting all
landscaping, retaining walls, 30"
walkway adjacent to the Rock
Garden, handicapped parking
configuration, and building details
that may be adjusted due to
architectural refinement of the
project
August 25, 2004 PC —Amendment to Star Canyon DA not completed
Development Agreement— DA to memorialize FIM fee,
continued to September 8, 2004 incentive golf rates @ city-owned
courses, disposition to the City of
the triangular parcel, and property
expectations
September 8, 2004 Planning Commission reviews final All Commissioners made comments
development plans and votes to regarding the project and request
restudy the project— continued to specific concerns to be addressed
Sept. 22, 2004
September 8, 2004 PC—Amendment to Star Canyon DA not completed
Development Agreement— item DA to memorialize FIM fee,
removed from agenda incentive golf rates @ city-owned
courses, disposition to the City of
the triangular parcel, and property
expectations
September 22, 2004 PC— Continued to October 13, Per applicant's and Agua Caliente
2004 Band of Cahuilla Indian's request
October 11, 2004 Indian Planning Commission review Indian Planning Commission
of revised ro'ect a roves ro.ect
, 2 October 13004 Planning Commission reviews final Staff to work with applicant to
development plans and requests prepare detailed comparison of
more information from applicant, original and revised timeshare
directs staff to prepare detailed projects.
comparison of plans — continued to
November 10, 2004
November 10, 2004 Planning Commission reviews final Staff to work with applicant to
development plans and material finalize comparison table, clarify
samples —continued to November review dates in DDA, and dates fo>r
24, 2004 termination of PD
"VR6 ,
H:IUSERSTLAM5.0830 Fairfield Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doo
Star Canyon Plan Comparison and Project Chronology PC 11/24/04
Page 6
Design Review Schedule for project (Advisory Body Only)
Design Review Committee Date Recommendations
August 11, 2003 Restudy
September 8, 2003 Restudy
November 24, 2003 Recommendation to approve some parts with restudy of some items
December 2003 —June 2004 Direction from PC/CC to re-design project, meetings w/ staff to work on
project design
June 7, 2004 Restudy
June 21, 2004 Recommend approve only basic site plan with restudy of items
July 12, 2004 Restudy
July 26, 2004 Restud
August 23, 2004 Recommend approval of revised preliminary plans
H:\USERS\PLAN\5.0830 Fairfield Plan Analysis PC 11-24-04.doc
EXHIBIT"B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (AMENDED)
ITEM OF PERFORMANCE TIME FOR REFERENCE
PERFORMANCE
1. Developer executes and delivers September 19, 2001 Recitals
Agreement to Agency
2. Agency holds public hearing and September 19, 2001 Recitals
approves Agreement and Basic
Concept Drawings
3. Agency executes Agreement in November 22, 2002 Recitals
form approved by the City
Attorney.
4. Developer executes and delivers November 22, 2002 Recitals
Amendment; Agency approves First
Amendment to Agreement
5. Agency and Developer prepare and Within 90 days following
approve development agreement execution of Agreement
6. Agency initiates and completes Initiate within 60 days and 4.3(e)
validation action complete as soon as
reasonably practical but in
no event later than I year
following execution of
[Agreement/development
agreement]
7. Agency and Developer to open Upon execution of 4.4
Escrow Agreement.
8. Developer deposits Developer Loan Prior to Close of Escrow. 4.3(a), 4.8
funds.
9. Developer to submit evidence of Within 5 days of Opening 4.9
financial capability to Executive of Escrow, except that the
Director. construction contracth
shall be submitted prior to
commencement of
IRV#8229 v4 17 ' IBIT uB"TO
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DDA
Page 1 of 3
PPEM OF PERFORMANCE TIME FOR REFERENCE
PERFORMANCE
construction.
10. Agency to notify Developer of Within 10 days of 4.9
approval of evidence of financial submission.
capability.
11. Escrow Agent to advise of fees, Within 5 business days of 4.7
costs and required documents. the Closing Date,
12. Delivery by Agency and Developer On or before 1:00 p.m. on 4.13
of notice of failure of conditions to the last business day
Closing. preceding Closing Date,
13. Agency and Developer to submit On or before 1:00 p.m. on 4.7
closing documents and funds into the last business day
Escrow. preceding Closing Date.
14. Agency and Developer may cure Within 30 days of receipt 4.13
any condition to Closing of notice.
disapproved or may cure default.
15. Closing Date. On or before April 7, 4.7
2003, or within 30 days
thereafter upon
Developer's written
instruction, unless
otherwise agreed.
16. Developer prepares and submits to Within 270 days of the 5.16
City working drawings, grading approval by Agency of
plan and landscaping plan and City this Agreement.
and Agency commence approval
process.
17. City and Agency to approve In accordance with 5.16
drawings and plans Section 5.16(d)
18. Developer to submit proof of Prior to commencing any 4.10, 5.18
insurance. inspections and work on
the Project.
19, Developer to obtain all necessary After successful 5.16
permits and commence construction conclusion to validation
IRV#8229 v4 EMBBIT"B"TO
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DDA
Page 2 of 3
ITEM OF PERFORMANCE TIME FOR REFERENCE
PERFORMANCE
of first phase of the Project. action and within 2 years
of the Close of Escrow.
2Q Developer to complete construction Within 18 months after 5,16
of first phase of the Project, as commencement of
described in the Scope of construction.
Development.
21. Developer to commence Promptly after the
construction of the remaining completion of each
phases of the Project, preceding phase
22. Developer to complete construction Within 5 years and 6
of the remaining phases of the months after
Project, commencement of first
phase
23. Agency to issue Notice of Release In accordance with 5.23
of Construction Covenants Section 5.23
24. Commencement of payments on In accordance with the
Note Note terms
It is understood that this Schedule of Performance is subject to all of the terms and
conditions of 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.
The time periods set forth in this Schedule of Performance may be altered or amended
only by written agreement signed by both the Developer and the Agency. The Executive
Director of Agency shall have the authority to approve extensions of time without action of the
Board of Directors of Agency not to exceed a cumulative total of 180 days.
IRV#9229 A EXHIBIT"B" TO
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DDA
Page 3 of 3
pplicant Notified:
lue 5-12-00
Yellow 5-23-00
DATE: May 17, 2000
TO: City council
FROM: Director of Planning and Building
CASE NO.5.0830-PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO.260-APPLICATION
BY PALM SPRINGS NEW MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT, INC, TO ALLOW FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED MIXED-USE FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES A 198-
ROOM HOTEL, 176 VACATION OWNERSHIP UNITS, BANQUET AND MEETING
FACILITIES, RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE FACILITIES, POOL, SPA AND OTHER
ASSOCIATED RECREATIONALAMENITIES ONAN 11.41 ACRESITE LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, NORTH OF MESQUITE DRIVE AND
SOUTH Ol�SUNNY DUNES DRIVE IN THE R-3(MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
HOTEL)AND C-1 (RETAIL BUSINESS) ZONES, SECTIONS 22 and 23.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29691- APPLICATION BY PALM SPRINGS NEW
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT, INC,TO ALLOW FORTHE SUBDIVISION OFAN EXISTING
11.41 ACRE PARCEL INTO NINE LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM .35 ACRES TO 3.23
ACRES,AS WELLAS FOR TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES,TO FACILITATE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIXED USE FACILITY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO.260, LOCATED ON THE WESTSIDE OFSOUTH PALM
CANYON DRIVE, NORTH OF MESQUITE DRIVE AND AND SOUTH OF SUNNY DUNES
DRIVE, IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL) ZONE AND C-1
(RETAIL BUSINESS) ZONE, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approve Case No,6.0830-Preliminary Planned Development No.260 and
Tentative Parcel Map 29691,said applications submitted by Palm Springs New Millennium
Development, Inc. for the development of a mixed use facility consisting of hotel and
vacation ownership units, as well as the subdivision of the 11,41 acre project site into 9
parcels as described above, subject to the conditions as contained in the attached
resolution. The officers of New Millenium Development are Art Gold,C.E.0.and Secretary,
J. Burton Gold, President, and Jason Gold, Vice President,
BACKGROUND:
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc, has submitted applications for a
Preliminary Planned Developmentand a Tentative Tract Mapto allow for the development
of a Radlsson Hotel and vacation ownership unit project on the west side of South Palm
Canyon Drive, north of Mesquite Drive and south of Sunny Dunes Drive. The major
elements of the project include a hotel, vacation ownership units, outdoor recreational
amenities Including pools,a waterslide, a formal restaurant, lounge and banquet facilities.
The Tahquitz Creekflood control channel abuts the site at its northerly propertyline, and the
Rock Garden Cafe is located north of, and adjacent to, the site. The Mac Magruder
C havrolet dealership is located south of the site. Vacantindlan Land is located tothewest. ;
1t • i
Page 2 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
The basic site design for the project involves the clustering of the vacation ownership units
around a central pool/outdoor recreation area at the west portion of the project site,with the
main hotel structure oriented toward the front of the project site. The hotel development
would incorporate a single level of subterranean parking containing 183 stalls. Otherwise,
all off-street parking areas would be open/uncovered, and are primarily located at the
perimeterof the site,adjacent to exterior properly lines and the vacation ownership buildings
The applicant's proposal involves a mixed use project with several components. In order
to provide clear and thorough information to the City Council,each partofthe application will
be discussed in detail; including specific emphasis on the following major categories of
analysis:
1. Zoning and General Plan: This portion of the analysis will deal with the existing
zoning and General Plan designations and proposed Planned Developrpent District
to facilitate development of the project. This section will also include a discussion
relative to the consistency of the proposed uses with the Planned Development
District.
2, Planned Development/Site and Architectural Review: This portion of the project
requests approval of the overall site and design concept,including the proposed land
uses,building type and design,orientation of project and other general areas of the
master project. The Planned Development application also contains the formal
request and reasoning for certain proposed deviations from zoning code
requirements relative to setbacks and open space for highrise building structures.
3. Highrise Ordinance:This section will deal with the applicant's request to construct
highrise,buildings which exceed the C-1 and R-3 Zone District respective maximum
building heights of30feet. The Highrise Ordinance defines a highrise building as a
structure which exceeds 35 feet in height. The maximum height of highrise buildings
shall be 60 feet(allowable projections allow additional 15 feet), and said buildings
shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development
District. The applicant's proposal to constrict 60 ft, high buildings is being
requested as part of the Planned Development District application. The Highrise
Ordinance allows for deviations based upon site-specific circumstances.
4. Parking Analysis and on-site circulation: Due to the multiple uses which constitute
the proposed project, the report will contain a separate parking analysis which
analyzes parking and on-site circulation issues in detail. This portion of the
application involves a requestfor a ten percent reduction in the number ofrequired
parking stalls.
5. Traffic and Off-site circulation issues:This section of the report will dealwithonand :'s".t�';; ,
off-site circulation and traffic issues such as additional traffic impacts attributable to
the project, the future construction of the Belardo Road extension and bridge
crossing over the Tahquitz Creek flood control channel.
6. Outdoor recreational areas: This section will deal with the numerous types of
outdoor recreational areas which are proposed within the project area.These include +
the pool area, outdoor assembly area, landscaped areas and all other areas which
are common to both the hotel and vacation ownership facilities. Currently,there is
A
Page 3 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
an existing equestrian facility on site which staff is recommending be relocated on
site or to the flood control district right-of-way.As a portion of this analysis, certain
existing hotel developments will be used as examples of common outdoor
recreational amenities.
7. Tentative Tract Map:This portion of the project is to subdivide the existing 11.41 acre
(10.67 net acres)subject site into a total of individual lots ranging in size from .35
acres to 3.23 acres and to create timeshare condominiums. The proposed
subdivision will create individual lots of record for certain buildings and open space
areas as identified on the tentative tract map..
Staff Analysis:
1. Zoning and General Plan Analysis:The subject site consists of three parcels Two ofthe
parcels are zoned R-3(Multiple Family Residential and Hotel Zone), and the third parcel is
zoned C-1(Retail Business Zone). The R-3 Zone allows multiple family dwellings and hotel
facilities as permitted uses. The C-1 Zone allows hotels and resort hotels subject to the R-3
Zone Standards.The main portion of the hotel building Is on the parcel which is zoned C-1.
Portions of the hotel and all of the time share buildings are on the parcels which are zoned
R-3.
The General Plan Land Use Element designates the C-1 zoned parcel as Resort
Commercial and the two R-3 zoned parcels as High Density Residential,. The majority of
the proposed hotel development is on file parcel designated as Resort Commercial.
Portions of the hotel and all of the time share buildings are on the parcels which are
designated as High Density Residential.
The proposed planned development and subdivision are consistentwith the adopted General
Plan designations of Resort Commercial and High Density Residential and the Zone District
designation of R-3(multiple family residential and hotel zone). Approximately 70%of the
site is zoned R-3 and the remaining 30% is zoned C-1. The purpose of the Resort
Commercial designation is to provide for resort hotels, including a broad range of
convenience and tourist commercial services principally serving resort clientele; these
services include restaurants, entertainment and retail uses. The maximum residential
density for the R-3 zone district is 43 units per net acre for hotel purposes based upon the
R-3 zone district requirement of 1,000 square feet of net lot area for each dwelling unit of a
hotel or resort hotel with surface parking, and a minimum of 800 square feet of net lot area
foreach such unitwhen all parking on the property Is provided underground. For multiple
family dwellings there shall be a minimum of 2,000 square feet of net lot area for each
dwelling unit in a multiple family complex. The project as proposed is consistent with the
density limits of the General Plan and Zoning designations. Allowable densityranges from
232 multi-family residential units to 464 resort hotel units. The proposed 374 unit resort is
within the density range of the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, J
2. Planned Development; Site and Architectural Review: The Preliminary Planned
Development proposal involves the overall project site and architectural review and would
establish the basic building and site configurations. Further, the Planned Development
application Is necessary Inasmuch as the project involves highriso buildings, which are
defined in Section 9304.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance as buildings or structures
which exceed 35 feet in height, Highrlse buildings require approval of a Conditional Use
Permit ora Planned Development District,and are Subject to the standards contalnecJwithin
Page 4 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
thatsection. This portion of the request is discussed in detail Ina subsequent portion of the
staff analysis section.
The site and architectural review for this project combines an analysis of the function and
integrity of site design with a revlewofthe proposed building theme and architecture The
proposed building design has been modified several times based upon Design Review,
Planning Commission,and staff comments. Building massing has been reduced adjacent
to South Palm Canyon Drive and Belardo Road by increasing setbacks by stepping the
building back. Proposed building materials and finishes feature natural stone,hand-troweled
plaster,and two-piece barrel tile. The Planning Commission.has recommended a condition
of approval which requires strict compliance with preliminary building design and materials.
Furthermore, a detailed on-site construction mockup is being required to show actual
workmanship prior to application of exterior materials and finishes. '
The project incorporates a number of decorative elements that contribute to the Tuscan-
themed appearance of the project. Extensive use of stone and tile, decorative tower
features,functional clock towers,balconies and trellis structures and varying roof lines and
designs all contribute to the primary architectural style which the project is attempting to
convey. The front elevation adjacentto South Palm Canyon Drive incorporates a look-out
area with a rock and stone base which conveys the fortress-like quality of the lower
elevations of the main building. Asignificant amount of rock and stone are incorporated in
the lower portion of the main building to convey the theme of the project. Extensive
landscaping is also proposed to further accentuate and define the project both in it's natural
setting and as a Tuscan-themed resort. The project landscaping plan also incorporates a
number of palm trees atthe main entryway to carry through the South Palm Canyon Drive
palm tree theme.
Section 9315.00 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the criteria for use or occupancy of land
on a time - share basis, This type of land use and occupancy require the approval of a
conditional use permit. For this particular application,the requesthas been incorporated into
the Planned Development District application in orderto streamline the application process.
Subsection 'E"states that in determining whether,and underwhat conditions to allow time-
share uses, the City Council, among other things, may consider:
a. The impact of the time-sharing project on transient or permanent rental stock,
b. The impact of time-sharing on present and future city services;
c, Nonconformity with currentzoning regulations and the General Plan,and reasonable
conditions to eliminate same;
d. Nonconformity with existing uniform building and fire codes and reasonable
conditions to eliminate same;
e. The sign program proposed for the project;
f, The landscaping proposed for the project;
g. Traffic circulation and parking;
Page 5 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
h. The applicant's description of the methods proposed to be employed to guarantee
the future adequacy, stability and continuity of a satisfactory level of management
and maintenance of the time-share project;
I. The desirability of requiring an office of the managing agent or agency be located
locally or on-site, as appropriate;
j. Any otherfactors deemed relevant and anyother information which the commission
or the applicant considers necessary or desirable to an appropriate and proper
consideration of the application.
In considering the proposed time share units and land use,the City Council should take into
consideration the above-noted factors,as well as the general acceptability of the proposed
use at the subject Site and in conjunction with the hotel development. The Planning
Commission found that the proposal is consistentwith the objectives and findings of Section
931 b.00,and thatthe City Council should approve of the time share land use and occupancy
as proposed by this application.
3. Highrise Ordinance:
Section 9304.00 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations and guidelines relative to
the development of highrise structures.
Section 9304.00 B states that"Maximum height of highrise buildings shall be sixty(60)feet.
An additional fifteen (15) feet maximum may be allowed for stairways, elevators, and
mechanical equipment on the roof,provided the bulk of the building does not appearto be
over sixty (60) feet."
Item "C" of that section states that"a highrise building shall have a minimum setback of
three(3)feetof horizontal setbackforeach one(1)foot of vertical rise of the building. This
setback requirement is to be measured from the property lines except when a site in
question abuts a street. Then It shall be measured from the riglit-of-way line on the opposite
side of the abutting street. The City's General Plan Street Plan shall be used to determine
the right-of-way line and, in no case,shall more than one hundred (100)feet of street right-
of-way be used in determining a setback distance. The minimum setback for any structure,
regardless of height, shall be as prescribed by the underlying zone."
Item V' of that section states that"Highrise buildings shall be designed to Insure that each
structure fits into the resort character of the community and blends in with the natural
surroundings." Finally, Item "G" allows for derivations based upon site specific findings.
Certain portions of the proposed highrise building structures do not comply with the
aforementioned criteria relative to required horizontal setback. Consequently, portions of
taller buildings would require a minimum setback ranging up to 180 ft. from property lines
in order to comply with the aforementioned code section. The Planning Commission and
City Council have the authority to grant certain reductions to the strict requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Subsequent to the original submittal, the applicant submitted plans
indicating certain modifications to reduce heightand increase building stepbackforthe main
hotel building adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive. A portion of the hotel building is
setback an average of40 ft.from South Palm Canyon Drive,and the majority of the building
is setback 200 to 300 feet from South Palm Canyon Drive fof
r ,alb
Page 6 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
Proposed building heights forthe five-story building are 60 ft,to the plate line and 64 ft.to 68
ft. to the peak of the tile roofs. Elevator/stairwell towers have a maximum height of 68 ft.
Projections above 60 ft,are allowed provided the mass of the building is approximately 60
ft.
The proposed hotel building at the east portion of the site has a maximum height of 64 feet.
This building is relatively narrow (76 ft.) and is visually and architecturally softened and
partially screened by the Rock Garden Caf6 and the proposed restaurant. Considering the
width of the property, relatively narrow building projection, and architectural design, the
Planning Commission found that this portion of the building is acceptable
The maximum proposed building height of 60 ft.is allowable if approved in conjunction with
a Planned Development District. The project includes seven structures with an indicated
height of five-stories,two structures with an indicated height of four-stories,two structures
with an indicated height of 3-storles, and two structures with an indicated height of two-
stories. The remaining structures are indicated as single story with maximum building
height of between 14 and 18 feet.
When considering the impact of the proposed highrise structures,it is importantto take into
account all sides of the proposed project including setbacks, building massing, existing
conditions and the effect of the proposal on all viewsheds. Therefore,the analysis of project
aesthetics will include a visual analysis from all four directions as follows:
North:The view to the projectsite from the north is across an area that has a large number
of existing developments, vacant land, and the Tahquitz Flood Control Channel. This
elevation will encompass views of the hotel(60 ft. high),as well as time share buildings B,
D, and G (all proposed at60ft. in height). The proposed buildings range in height from 20
ft.to60ft. Buildings are setback from the property line 70ft. The Highrise Ordinance uses
the right-of-way line on the opposite side of public streets as the point of measurement.
Since the RCFCWCDTahquitz Creek Channel cannot be built upon, staff recommends that
the highrise setback be measured from the apposite side of the channel. In this condition,
the buildings are set back over 350 feet from the opposite side of the Channel easement.
Additionally, Sunny Dunes Road is located just north of the channel. If the opposite side of
Sunny Dunes Road is used forsetback purposes,the building is setback approximately 445
ft. from this measurement point,The nearest developable land north of the subject property
is approximately 400 ft.
Based upon a detailed review of the north setback conditions, the Planning Commission
found that the proposed building setback conditions comply with the intent of the Highrise
Ordinance setback requirements.
South: The view to the project site from the south is across an area that is primarily
developed with a combination of commercial and residential uses. This elevation will
encompass views of the hotel(60 ft, high), restaurant(20 ft,high), ballroom(20 ft. high), as
well as time share buildings I, K, (both proposed at 60 ft, in height), and L (proposed at 40
to 50 ft, in height).
The project lies just north of Mac Magruder's Chevrolet automobile dealership. The mass
of the building is located adjacentto a property line building wall condition which includes the
main showroom and service area. The auto dealership takes no advantage of views to the
north. The.proposed buildings along this frontage range in height from 20 ft.to 60 ft. and are ��
Page 7 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
setback approximately 70 ft. Residential properties are located south of Mesquite Avenue
and are buffered by the auto.dealership, These properties, an RV park, and mobile home
park are not designed to take advantage of northerly views.
Based upon the orientation of the existing building, land use, and proposed setback,the
Planning Commission recommends that the requested setback relief is a reasonable
request that will not cause significant view impacts.The Commission is recommending
increasing landscape areas adjacentto the building to soften the mass of the building and
screen the auto dealership from guest rooms,
Past: The view to the project site from the east is across an area that is vacant with
residential uses in the distance. This elevation will encompass views of the hotel (60 ft.
high),restaurant(20 ft.high), as well as time share buildings H and G (both proposed at60
ft,in height).The main portion of the hotel is set back40 ft from South Palm Canyon Drive,
The balance of the eastside of the project is adjacentto the Rock Garden Cafe parking area.
This restaurant features outdoor dining on the South Palm Canyon frontage(opposite of the
hotel)and parking area adjacent to the proposed hotel. The building is 20 ft, in height and
setback 25 ft.from the property line and 150 ft.from the proposed hotel. Residential land
uses are separated by an 11 acre vacant site zoned C-1 and are in excess of 700 ft.away.
This relationship is reasonable and will not diminish key views from the existing restaurant
West:the view to the project site from the west is across a largely undeveloped section of
alluvial plane which slopes down from the foot of the mountains. A single family residence
and the Tahquitz Interpretive Center, which Is currently under construction, are the only
structures located to the west of the proposed development. This elevation will encompass
views of the hotel (60 ft. high),as well as time share buildings A(30-40 ft. in height), B(50-
60 ft.in height),L(40-50 ft.in height)and K(60-60 ft.in height).The applicant is requesting
relief from the highrise setbacks for limited portions of the building (Buildings I and B).
These buildings and frontage have been redesigned several times to reduce building mass,
increase setbacks and building height variations. Buildings I and B are 60 feet in height.
Other buildings range in height from 30 to 40 feet. Limited encroachments are being
requested. As shown in this building elevation, the majority of this street frontage has
buildings and/or landscape features in the 30 to 40 feet in height range. As noted in the
Environmental Assessment,the adjacent property slopes from west to east and has a grade
difference of 60 ft. Additionally,the properties are separated by Belardo Road. Based upon
proposed building design, setbacks, Belardo Road buffer, and topography of the adjacent
,property,the requested highrise setback relief is reasonable andwlll notcausea significant
effect. The environmental assessment also recommended that the landscape/waterfall
feature be reduced in height by 10 ft. Plans have been revised. Please seethe following
section regarding the Tahquitz Interpretive Center on page 12.
The applicant maintains their desire to constructthe project as submitted with the highrise
buildings as shown on the conceptual plans, The Design Review Committee, the Planning
Commission, and City staff have expressed concerns relative to building mass and
setbacks. The applicant submitted revised plans incorporating building stepback from South
Palm Canyon Drive and Belardo Road,while creating a strong identity statement on South
Palm Canyon Drive. The City Council may wish to consider the vlewshed issue from
several perspectives. First, the issue of long-term visual impacts associated with the
highrise portions of the project will affect future developments on the vacant properties
adjacent to, and within the immediate vicinity of, the subject poperty. The maximum
- &A ^�
y
Page 8 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
proposed building height of 60 feetwill,in effect,reduce certain vistas of the mountains and
the valley floor. Once constructed, this effect will be permanent. Future development
potential of vacant properties will be affected by the highrise portions of this project.
Consequently,the City Council should consider both short term and long term visual and
aesthetic impacts of this proposal. The Planning Commission has recommended that the
CityCouncil grantthe deviation from the strict application of the building setback pursuant
to.Section 9304.00.
As a comparison,the Wyndham Hotel has a maximum heightof75 feetand approximately
337,000 sq. ft. of building area. The building is setback approximately 300 feet from
Tahquitz Canyon Drive. The north-south building dimension is approximately 500 feet.
These dimensions are comparable to the subject proposal.
4. Off-Street Parking and Site Circulation:
A total of 557 parking stalls have been proposed for this project, which includes all of the
required parking for the hotel,vacation ownership units, restaurant, lounge, banquet and
office uses, as well as staff parking. Staff has done a thorough analysis of the proposed
parking relative to proposed uses and square footage of each.
PARKING ANALYSIS
Land Use Parking Required
Hotel 198 Rooms 161
Timeshare 176 Units 343
Restaurant 200 Seats plus employees 48
Observatory Lounge 200 Seats plus employees 48
Meeting Roomstballroom _ 1,000 square feet n/a (credits at 35 sf per
room)
Retaii/Spa Staff 12 employees 12
Parking Required: 612
Ten Percent Reduction -61
Total required 551
Parking Proposed 557
The required number of off-street parking stalls for this project is612. However,in the past
the Planning Commission and City Council have allowed a reduction in the number of
required parking spaces by approximately ten (10) percent for large resort hotels A ten
percent reduction would decrease the required number of parking stalls to551. Therefore,
if the City Council granted the minor modification as part of the applicant's request,then the
current proposal of 557 stalls would fall within the allowable reduction. In reviewing this
portion of the request,the Planning Commission hastaken into consideration the size and
scope of the project, the proposed uses contained within the project area and the size of
each use: Staff supports this parking reduction. Similar on-site parking reductions have
been approved in the past for comparable projects. As part of it's action on April 26, the
11A
Page 9 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
Planning Commission recommended approval of the minor modification to the required
number of parking spaces.
5. Circulation
On-site circulation consists of private driveways which provide access to all portions of the
development. The primary drive aisle system encircles the development at its perimeter and
also provides access to the majority of the off-street parking stalls. Vehicular ingress and
egress to thesite is provided bytwo driveways located off of South Palm Canyon Drive. The
northerly driveway is the primary project entrance and incorporates decorative palm tree
rows on either side to accentuate and define this main entrance. This driveway is
signalized. The proposed southerly driveway allows for right-turn-only traffic movements
in and out of the site. Finally, there is a proposed driveway on Belardo Road.
The Fire Department has requested that vehicular access for fire apparatus be provided
from the west. This would involve the construction of a portion of the right-of-way of Belardo
Road from Mesquite Drive north along the western boundary of the project. The applicant
would therefore be responsible forthe construction of Belardo Roadabutting the projectsite.
Also at issue relative to this portion of the project is the proposed Belardo Road bridge over
the Tahquitz Canyon flood control channel, located north of and abutting the project site.
There have been several discussions relative to the construction of this improvement for
purposes of completing the Belardo Road extension from its current terminus at Ramon
Road to Mesquite Drive. Completion of this portion of the Belardo Road right-of-way would
ease traffic congestion on South Palm Canyon Drive,as well as complete an importantlink
in the local circulation system. The City has maintained the position that the bridge
construction is necessary to complete the local circulation system in the area. The
applicant has been informed of the status of this project,
The Tribe and City have submitted a grant application to construct missing portions of
Belardo Road and the bridge over Tahquitz Creek. This grant has been ranked in the top
three in the state and should be funded within the next several years. Recommended
conditions of approval include dedication and construction of 661 feet of Belardo Road
adjacent to the subject property and an extension of Belardo Road to Mesquite Avenue.
Furthermore, the project will be required to pay its proportionate share of the cost to
construct the bridge. In the eventthatthe grant is approved and improvements constructed,
the project should be relieved of these conditions.
The project will be required to construct any remaining ultimate improvements to South
Palm Canyon Drive along the projectfrontage. That rig ht-of-way i s currently improved with
paving, curb, gutter and a landscaped median with mature palm trees. The Engineering
Division is recommending that South Palm Canyon Drive be widened across the property
frontage from the north property line to Mesquite Avenue, The developer has asked the
Planning Commission and City Council to defer the South Palm Canyon Drive
improvements at this time. F r
A traffic study was conducted for this project by Endo Engineering. The study was
submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer, and identifies a number of project-specific
f impacts relative to traffic both on and off-site. The circulation impact associated with the
proposed development is the generation of 4,070 daily trips,which includes 267 mid-day
peak hour trips, (152 inbound and 115 outbound) and 312 evening peak hour trips (174
inbound and 138 outbound). The identified impacts are based upon a number of
r A4 /0*49'
Page 10 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
assumptions determined as a part of the study as well as the plans as proposed by the
applicant.
Based upon the projected impacts and assumptions contained within the study,the traffic
engineer has proposed specific recommendations to mitigate the potential adverse traffic
impacts of the project both on and off site. The specific mitigations include improvements
to Belardo Road, including its connection to Mesquite Avenue to the south, project
participation inthe construction of raised median along South Palm Canyon Drive adjacent
to the site,signalization of the main projectentrance adjacentto South Palm Canyon Drive,
coordination with the local transit agency regarding the need for on-site public transit
facilities,contribution of traffic impact mitigation fees by participation in the TUMF program,
contribution on a fairshare basis to circulation improvements of area wide benefit,such as
the Belardo Road Bridge across Tahquitz Creek, and other mitigations as required by the
City Engineer upon specific review of the final development plans forthe project. In addition
to the above-recommended mitigations, the Engineering Division has provided
recommended conditions of approval for the project which include specific traffic mitigations.
6. Outdoor Recreational Areas:
The project incorporates a substantial amountof landscaped areas(55%)as well active and
passive outdoor recreational areas. Landscaping for highrise building projects is required
to meet minimum zoning code standards as specified in Section.9304,00 A. of the Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance. For highrise projects, 60%of the site area shall be developed
as useable landscape areas. This section sets only minimum standards,and the City may
request enhanced landscaping based upon a particular project scope and design. Due to
the size and scope of this project,landscaping and open areas are an important functional
part of the overall project theme and aesthetics.
The proposed development incorporates a large waterfeature in the central courtyard area
consisting of a pool, children's pool,jacuzzis, sand beaches and rock grotto areas. This
area is the recreational focal point of the project and is generally surrounded by vacation
ownership unit buildings with a gap between buildings at the west elevation in order to
preserve views to the mountains. The eastern end of the pool area incorporates an outdoor
activity area with a seating area for outdoor activities and presentations. The seating area
is located to take advantage of the aforementioned westerly building gap to maximize
mountain views.
In reviewing the landscape and common area plans submitted by the applicant, staff has
determined that 55% of the site is landscaped pursuant to the definition contained in the
highrise building section. The applicant has requested relieffrom the 60%requirement, The
Planning Commission supports this requestsince the only way to achieve 60%open space
would be to construct more underground parking, increase building height, or reduce the
number of units.
By comparison,the proposed hotel which Is the subject of this application has a maximum
height of60 feet and approximately 68,000 sq. ft. of building area.The building is setback
approximately40 feet from South Palm Canyon Drive with the bulk of the building setback
two to three hundred feet from South Palm Canyon Drive. The north-south building
dimension is approximately 500 feet. The massing of the proposed hotel structure is similar
to that of the Wyndham Hotel in that both have large primary building structures which
dominate the vlowshed from the public right-of-way and adjacent parcels.
Page 11 of 14
j Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
Currently, there Is an equestrian tie up area located on-site adjacent to the Rock Garden
Cafe. This area is used several times a year by Desert Riders and other equestrian groups.
Thistle up area Is located between the Bud FurerTrall and South and North Lykken Trails
and is used to tie horses up while riders have lunch. The Planning Commission
recommends thatthe developer either relocate this facilityto the northeast corner of the site
or work with RCFCWCD to relocate it to the Tahquitz Creek Channel. If necessary, the
developer maywantto either dedicate this area or grant an easementto the City forits on-
going use and operation. It is anticipated that one to two group rides per year would use this
facility and an occasional small group might use it. Group and private rides are usually
made up of individuals who ride on a frequent basis and are experienced riders. These trails
are not used by Smoke Tree Stables forrental rides due to location and experience needed
to ride,these specific trails. All trails are for experienced riders.
7. Tentative Tract Map:
The applicant has filed a tentative tract map in order to subdivide the existing three parcels
which comprise the subject site into a total of nine parcels and to create timeshare
condominiums. The new parcels would range in size from .35 acres to 3.23 acres.The
purpose of the subdivision is to allow property development on Individual parcels consistent
with the phasing plan described below, The largest parcel (Lot One)would be developed
with sixvacation ownership buildings,the pools and outdoor amphitheater. LotTwowould
be developed with the hotel complex,lobby, ballroom, kitchen and office facilities,lotthree
with a vacation ownership unit building and the spa,and lots fourth rough eight with vacation
ownership unit buildings. Lot nine would be developed with the restaurant/loungecomplex.
Off-street parking areas would be subdivided by the proposed map and each of the nine
proposed parcels would encompass a portion of the off-street parking areas, In order to
maintain parking and drive aisle continuity and continuing availability of all off street parking
and drive aisles, the applicant will be required to record an irrevocable,reciprocal access,
parking and drive aisle easement over all parcels created by this subdivision. This
instrument is typical in association with subdivisions of land which propose property line
divisions in parking, access and drive aisle areas, as is often the case in commercial
subdivisions. The proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements for lot area,width
and depth in both the R-3 and C-1 zone districts.
The applicant has submitted a tentative tract map for the purposes of condominium
subdivision. The condominium subdivision map is submitted for the purpose of creating
airspace for the Individual residential unit ownership. Atotal of 176 condominium units are
proposedto be created bythis subdivision. The condominium map forsubdivision purposes
Is ccnsistentwith the requirements forthis type of map as contained within the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California. The applicant has stated that the timeshare owners will
receive a 1/52Id undivided fee interest in a condominium unit which has been dedicated to
the vacation ownership project. Usage will be governed by the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions and Public Report which will provide,among other things, for 131
a fullyfloating use period,meaning that owners may be assigned anyone of the dedicated
condominiums for one week anytime during the year. It is the intent that rentals of unused
owner space and undedicated vacation ownership villas will be controlled and operated by
ithe vacation ownership owners association. Management of the project will be conducted
on-site by the vacation ownership owners association or a third party management company
to which the owners association will delegate certain of its management rights and
obligations, The applicant has stated that the proposed time share development would -
1
Page 12 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
consist of fee ownership units.
Site and Building Lighting:
The proposed development is located adjacent to the mountains and borders a largely
undeveloped area. Lighting concerns will need to be addressed in orderto protect night sky
views and generally provide for site and building lighting which Is aesthetically pleasing and
does riot cause light and glare impacts to adjacent properties and uses. Therefore, the
applicant has submitted a preliminary site and,building lighting plan in order to allow an
assessment of these potential impacts. Site and building lighting is regulated by the
provisions of Section,9306.C.4 of the Municipal Code, The goal of that section is to provide
for adequate site, building, and security lighting while protecting adjacent properties and
uses from negative light and glare impacts.
The zoning ordinance requires that light sources shall not be visible from off the property,
shall not direct light skyward,and shall be so arranged to reflect light away from adjoining
properties and the street. Light standard heights shall be as per manufacturer's
recommended photometrics,butin no case shall the height exceedthe maximum permitted
building height of the zone in which it is situated oreighteen(18)feet,whichever is less, Up-
lighting in landscaping, low level walk lights, and lighting diffused off of wall surfaces are
also Encouraged. Lighting plans shall take into account the placement and growth of
landscape materials. Light standards should be placed between parking spaces.
The applicant is aware of the requirements of the City's lighting ordinance and will be
required to submit plans and studies demonstrating compliance in the final development
plan package.
Project Phasing
As one of the recommended conditions of approval for the Planned Development, The
Planning Commission is recommending that Phases One and Two be merged into a single
first phase. This will assure construction of the hotel in conjunction with the first phase of
vacation ownership buildings. Otherwise,the City has no assurances thatthe hotel complex
will be developed in conjunction with the vacation ownership units. The applicant has been
informed of this requirement and is agreeable to merge Phases One and Two into a single
phase. The final dev7olopment plan will reflect the merger of the first two phases and the
renumbering of the subsequent phases. This will accomplish the aforementioned project
goal of unifying the first two phases into a single phase of development.
Tahquitz Interpretive Center
The Tribal Council is currently constructing an 1,800 square foot interpretive centeron Tribal
Lands approximately 1,300-1,400 feet west of the proposed resort hotel. The Tahquitz
Interpretive Center is oriented to have views to the west,south and east. Parking and entry
areas will have views in all directions. The Tahquitz Interpretive Center has an elevation of
approximately 580 ft. and the eastern edge of the property an elevation of 480 ft. or less.
The Tahquitz Interpretive Center is approximately 100 ft. above the subject property's
highestpoint. The actual pad elevations for buildings within the proposed devlopi-nent range
from 472.5 ft, to 482.5 ft. Buildings with frontage on Belardo Road range from 30 ft.to 60 I
ft. in height. Views from the Tahquitz Interpretive Center will be affected in that lower
elevation views will be reduced. However,panoramic views of the City and valley should not
• % A /1i �
r
Page 13 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
be significantly affected since the tallest proposed building will be located 38 ft. below the
natural grade surrounding the Tahquitz Interpretive Center.
There is a 19 acre Indian Trust parcel located between the Tahquitz Interpretive Center and
the proposed resort hotel. This property is zoned R-3 and has a General Plan designation
of High Density Residential(43/21). Structures ranging In height from 24 to 30 ft. in height
are allowable by right of zone. In the future,this property will affect current views from the
Tahquitz Interpretive Center to a greater extent than the proposed resort hotel. A detailed
site cross-section and building elevations will be presented at the public hearing for this
project.Building setbacks,stepped building design and architectural detail work have been
incorporated into the projectto reduce the overall mass of the building and visual effects on
adjacent properties.
Environmental Assessment:
An Environmental Assessmentwas conducted for this project pursuant to the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to the nature of this project, a
considerable portion of the assessment was directed toward the potential traffic and
circulation, drainage and aesthetic impacts of the project. Where applicable, the
Environmental Assessment contains specific mitigation measures forreducing the potential
impacts caused by the project in the above-noted as well as other applicable areas of
impact as contained within the document. A copy of the Environmental Assessment has
been included as an attachment to this report Also, the recommended conditions of
approval forthe project contain specific conditions to reduce-or eliminate certain potential
project impacts. Based upon the information and conclusions in the Environmental
Assessment,staff is recommending thata Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact be adopted for the project
Public Notice:
All property owners within a 400-footradius of the parcels which constitutethe projectsite
were notified of the public hearing by U.S.Mail. Notice of this public hearing was printed in
the Desert Sun on April 27,2000. Al correspondence received as of the writing of this report
has been attached for City Council consideration.
IT3
Page 14 of 14
Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
May 10, 2000
Planning Commission Action:
At it's meeting of April26, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended
Issuance of a mitigated negative declaration and approval of Preliminary Planned
Development No.260 and Tentative Parcel Map 29691 (6-1-1 vote, Commissioner Jurasky
voting no, Chairman Mills abstaining). At that public hearing, certain recommended
conditions of approval were modified ordeleted. Staff has Indicated these changes in bold
type within the recommended conditions or approval which are attachment 3 to this staff
report. At the public hearing there was no opposition to the project.
��
Doug as R. ns 6ti--
Planning and Building Director
❑alla Flicek
Interim City Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3, Conditions of Approval
4. Environmental Assessment
5. Executive Summary of Traffic Report
6. Draft Planning Commission minutes dated April 26, 2000,
7. Resolution
11 �
FQ
lyct
-
iR 1 -LL
`
�1
SITE PLAN
— — ----
-"" - - -_ -- SCALE 1'=30 30F 15
q
SCHEMATICS
STAR CANYON VILLAGE PALM SPRINGS n;L=� p
PALM SPRINGS NEW MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT Internat'
39-700 BOB HOPE DRIVE SUITE 300. RAP MIRAGE, CA 92270-
PHONE 17W.. VW -Ax"W'i>6-l355 .. `v
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
INITIAL STUDY
Application No(s:): No. 5.0830 Planned Development 260 and Tentative Parcel Map 29691
Date of Completed
Application: March 14, 2000
Name of Applicant: Palm Springs New Millennium Development, Inc.
Project Description: (1)A Planned Development to allow for a mixed-"se project consisting of
198 hotel rooms, 176 vacation ownership units, as well as lounge and
restaurant facilities, a spa, conference facilities and a gift shop.
(2) A Tentative Tract Map to allow for the subdivision of a single parcel
of land consisting of 11.41 acres into nine(9) parcels ranging in size from
.35 acres to 3.23 acres and for timeshare condominium purposes.
Location of project: The project site is located along the west side of South Palm Canyon
Drive, approximately 275 feet north of Mesquite Drive, east of and
abutting the future extension of Belardo Road.
General Plan
Designation(s): Resort Commercial and I3igh density Residential.
Proposed General
Plan Designation(s): No changes proposed.
Present Land Use(s): Vacant.
Existing Zoning(s): C-1 (Retail Business) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel).
Proposed Zoning(s): No changes proposed.
5.0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page I of 25 Initial study
I Is the proposed action a"project" as defined by CEQA? (See section
2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in
the same area, cumulative impact should be considered), YES
II If"yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects
listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? NO
III If"no"on II.,does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed
in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? NO
IV If"no"on III.,does the project fall under any of the Statutory Exemptions
listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? NO
V If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical
Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where
there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant
effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not
apply). NO
VI Project Description:
'Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 proposes to subdivide the 11,41 acre
site into 9 lots. The lots range in size from.35 acres to 3.23 acres. The
purpose of the proposed parcel map is to create lots which generally
correspond to the phases of development and to create timeshare
condominiums.
Planned Development No. 260 proposes a mixed use development
consisting of 198 hotel rooms, 176 vacation ownership units, lounge
and restaurant facilities,lounge and restaurant facilities,pool and spa
facilities, a ballroom, meeting rooms and a gift shop. The
development encompasses approximately 162,000 sq. ft. of building
area. Building heights range from 2 to 5 floors or 30 to 66 feet in
height as measured from pad elevation. Additionally, a parking
structure accommodating 304 vehicles in a single level is proposed
beneath the main hotel level. The total number of parking stalls
proposed is 557, which includes 244 surface parking stalls and 313
stalls within the parking structure:
The PDD is requesting modifications to City Zoning Ordinance rF' .M I
Highrise Ordinance provisions. Modifications include reductions in
hghrise building setbacks and required open space.
VII ' 7
Site Description:
5.0830—Ploruird Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 2 of 25 Initial Study
E E
The. site is currently.vacant. The vegetation is comprised of native
scrub scattered sparsely across the site. There are no trees on the site.
Curb, gutter and sidewalk'are in place along the site's South Palm
Canyon Drive frontage,including mature palm trees within the public
right-of-way. The project site's Belardo Road frontage has no public
improvements. Equestrian tie racks are located on the site adjacent
to the Rock garden Cafe.
VIII
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
North: Vacant Land, flood control channel, and restaurant
South: Automobile dealership
East: Vacant Land
West: Vacant Land
Surrounding General Plan:
North: Resort commercial and watercourse
South: Resort commercial and high density residential.
East: Resort commercial
West: High density residential
IX. Is the proposed project consistent with:
If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required)
City of Palm Springs General Plan 0 Yes ❑ No oN/A
Applicable Specific Plan OYes [-]No 0 N/A
City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance NYes O No ❑N/A
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ❑Yes [-]No 0 N/A
Airport Part 150 Noise Study ❑Yes ❑ No 0 N/A
Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ❑Yes ❑No 0 N/A
X. Are any of the following studies required?
1. Soils Report ■ Yes ONo
5.0830"Planned Development 260 and TPhf 29691 Page 3 of 25 Initial Study
2. Slope Study ❑Yes ONo
3. Geotechnical Report NYes ❑No
4. Traffic Study N Yes ■No
5. Air Quality Study ❑Yes ■No
6. Hydrology EYes ❑No
7. Sewer Study ❑ Yes ■No
8. Biological Study ❑ Yes ■No
9. Noise Study ❑Yes N No
10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes ■ No
11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes ■No
12. Archaeological Report ■ Yes ONo
13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes ENo
14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes ■No
15. Other ❑Yes N No
XI. -Incorporated herein by reference is the Final Environmental Impact Report on the
General Plan Update, as well as the following studies:
1. A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Star Canyon Development
Project, Palm Springs, California.
Volume I—Technical Report
Volume II—Confidential Site Maps and Records
ASM Affiliates, Inc., Jerry Schaefer, Ph.D., FPA, January 2000.
5,0830—Planned Development 20 and TPM 29691 Page 4 of 25 Initial Study
2. Geotechnical Engineering Report for Star Canyon Village,South Palm Canyon Drive,
Palm Springs, California.
Earth Systems Consultants Southwest,Shelton L.Stringer,GE2266,March 17,2000.
3, Star Canyon Village Palm Springs Traffic Impact Study.
Endo Engineering, Vicki Lee Endo, P.E., TR 1161,February 14, 2000.
4. Preliminary Hydrology Study for Tentative Tract Map 29691
Mainiero, Smith, & Associates, Inc., Julian A. De La Torre, P.E., March 30, 1999.
5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 26, 2000.
6. City Council Staff Report, dated May 17, 2000.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Som'ce N's) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the pi eject?
c Be incompatible with existing land use in ❑ ■ ❑
the vicinity?
d Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
established community(including a low-income
or minority community)?
5.0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 2901 Page 5 of 25 Inilral Study
A � n
I a),b),d)and e)NO IMPACT The proposed planned development and subdivision are consistent with the adopted General flan
designations of Resort Commercial and High Density Residential and the Zone District designation of R-3(multiple family residential
and hotel zone). Approximately 70% of the site is zoned R-3 and the remaining 30% is zoned C-1. The purpose of the Resort
Commercial designation is to provide for resort hotels, including a broad range of convenience and tourist commercial services
principally serving resort clientele;these services include restaurants,entertainment and retail uses. The maximum residential density
for the R-3 zone district is 43 units per net acre for hotel purposes based upon the R-3 zone district requirement of 1,000 square feet of
net lot area for each dwelling unit of a hotel or resort hotel with surface parking,and a minimum of 800 square feet of net lot area for
each such unit when all parking on the property is provided underground. For multiple family dwellings there shall be a minimum of
2,000 square feet of net lot area for each dwelling unit in amultiple family complex. The General Plan designation for the site is Resort
Commercial and High Density Residential. The Resort Commercial designation allows the development of hotels and other visitor
serving residential uses at a maximum density of 43 guest rooms per net acre. The High Density Residential Designation allowsfarthe
development of a threshold of fifteen(15) and a maximum of 21 dwelling unit per acre for multi -family apartments and similar
permanent housing. Hotels and similar types of resort housing are allowed with a threshhold of 30 and a maximum density of 43
dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use residential /commercial developments in conjunction with adjacent commercial properties may
be considered, The project as proposed is consistent with the density limits of the General Plan and Zoning designations. Allowable
density ranges from a maximum of 240 multi-family residential Units to 491 resort hotel units. The proposed 374 unit resort is within
the density range orthe City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities are closely
associated with designation, but should be designed to be compatible with neighboring development and to assure safe and adequate
access from the highway and off-street parking. Resort commercial facilities are most appropriate for the Palm Canyon Drive/Tahquitz
Canyon Drive corridors outside the downtown area where an auto-oriented scale is established.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable environmental plans,and is compatible with existing land uses in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. The project site does not encompass nor is it in the immediate vicinity of any agricultural resources or
operations. Finally,the project as proposed will not disrupt or divide any established communities,including low income or minority
communities. The subject site is adjacent to existing commercial developments which include areatiarant and an automobile dealership.
Tire development which is proposed on this site shall be subject to mitigation of any potential impacts to the adjacent commercial areas
such as noise,light, aesthetics,etc.
Ic) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed planned development is
significantly larger in scale and scope than existing commercial developments in the immediate area. However,the City has approved
proposals of similar size developments,such as the resort hotel which was approved on the east side of South Palm Canyon Drive,
immediately across the street from the subject site. Through the design review process, the development will be required to be
compatible and consistent with adjacent developed sites in the immediate vicinity in terms of site design, architecture, noise, light,
drainage and traffic issues,as well as any site-specific issues that are part of the overall project review.
The property is isolated from any sensitive land uses including single family residential development. Surrounding land use designations
allow for development of resort hotels(property to the west)and commercial development. Amore detailed analysis of surrounding
land use and site conditions is as follows:
SOUTH:Auto dealership with single story service bays, The proposed project backs up to service area for approximately one-half
of the site area. Heavy landscape screening is needed for hotel, as well as a reduction in the number of parking spaces in the
southerly parking area to create a screen between lower level hotel rooms and the auto dealership.
EAST. Vacant,previously approved for large scale resorts including highrise development. No adverse impacts identified. The
subject property has 577'of South Palm Canyon Drive frontage and the hotel building closest to the street is only 76 wide. The
building is stepped back and provides architectural relief.
WEST. Vacant, Indian land, gently sloping, views oriented across subject property will be affected by proposed buildings.
Hillside,northerly and southerly views not affected. The proposed project incorporates a range of building heights from 2,3, and
5 story buildings along the western edge. This portion of the project complies with City highrise setbacks across most of this
frontage. The northern and southern wings of the building encroach into the highrise setbacks. The adjoining property rises
approximately 44 feet from east to west. The land use and view relationship is not considered significant provided substantial
landscape is planted along the Eelardo Road frontage.
5,0830-P/mmed DevelopnieaI 260 and TPA129691 Page, 6 of 25 Initial Study
i , h 01 /
NORTH:The project abuts the Tahquitz Creek Flood Control Channel(Creek). The Creek is approximately 80'wide and it abuts
Sunny Dunes Road on the north which is a Secondary Thoroughfare(88'wide right-of-way). Based upon these conditions the
proposed resort building will have a substantial setback(approximately 500 feet)to the nearest developable property to the north.
This property has a General Plan designation of Resort and Commercial and is zoned C-2 and R-3. Additional landscaping adjacent
to the north property line would soften the appearance of the proposed building.
NORTH AND EAST:Rack Garden Cafe and associated off-street parking facility. This facility will experience no view loss as
a result of project development. Views and view reduction for restaurant customers are not considered significant This impact is
not considered significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES;
1. Extensive landscape adjacent to Belardo Road shall be provided to soften the buildings and create a soft edge.
2. The developer shall work with Riverside County Flood Control District(District)and Water Conservation District to enter into an
agreement to add landscape materials(trees)within portions of the District's right-of--way. The area between the subject property
and the District's access roadway where trees could be planted. Similar landscape agreements have been entered into in the past.
The project owner shall install and maintain this landscape buffer,
3. Reduce number of parking spaces on the southerly parking area to increase landscape screen for guest rooms which face the
automobile dealership.
2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Cumulatively exceed official regional or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
local population projections?
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated _
b Induce substantial growth in an area-either directly ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension or
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■; ,T
5.0930-Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 7 of 25 Iainal Snafy
I I vi
2. a)and c)NO IMPACT. The proposed planned development and subdivision contemplate a resort hotel and timeshare development
and do not encompass any permanent residential uses. Sufficient housing exists within the area to meet the needs of employees of the
proposed planned development,which encompasses a hotel,lounge and restaurant and vacation ownership complex. Therefore, the
project will have no impact on regional or local population projections. No extension of any major infrastructure will be required which
could induce substantial additional growth in the area. Additionally,the project will not displace any existing housing and will provide
additional employment opportunities to residents of the area.
2. b)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The development of this project has some potential relative to inducing growth in the
area either directly or indirectly,e.g.through projects in adjacent undeveloped areas or extensions of the major infrastructure that will
service this project. However,any such developments will be reviewed independently and will be required to demonstrate compliance
with applicable city ordinances and development policies.
3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Paull rupture? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
d Seiche, tsunami,or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f Erosion, changes in topography m unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading and
lilh ❑ ❑ ■ f_I
g Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
h Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
i Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
5.0830—Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 8 of 25 Initial study
// A ��
j. Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, etc.
involved? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
3. a)-c) and e)j) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A geotechnical engineering report was prepared for this
project. The subject site is located in a broad alluvial fan on the bottom of a mountain slope,and is underlain by deposits
ofalluvium. There are no known geological hazards present on the site other than groundshaking potential associatedwith
earthquakes. The subject site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo or City adopted special study zone. There are no
known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site based on review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City
of Palm Springs General Plan.
The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby
faults. A major seismic event originating on the local segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone would be the most likely
cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed development.
The report specifically notes that other geologic hazards including ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced
flooding and landslides are considered low or negligible on this site.
The planned development project will be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code which mandates
requirements for seismic safety construction. The developer will be required to submit a precise grading plan along with
a soils report for review and approval of the City prior to the issuance of any permits. The soils report will address
subsidence of the land and the possibility of expansive soils on the property, and the grading plan will be required to be
in compliance with the soils report. Therefore,there will be no geologic impacts as a result of the proposed subdivision
of land and Planned Development proposal.
d)NO IMPACT. The subject site is not subject to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard events.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Implementation of all recommendations as per the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for this project by Earth
Systems Consultants dated March 17,2000. These recommendations are incorporated by reference into this report.
4. WATER
Would the proposal result inv
Potentially Potentially 'ess'I'han No Impact
significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
a Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or rate and amount of surface
runoff"? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
5.0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 2969I Page 9 of 25 Initial Study "
IIM> > 11
b Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c Discharge into surface waters or other
alternation of surface water quality
(e,g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
of Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
f Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals,or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations,
or through substantial loss
of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
,j Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? Dyes ■No
4 a) and b) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATRD a) Grading activities and subsequent
development of the parcels created by Lhc proposed subdivision for purposes ol'implementmg the Planned development will change
the absorption rate, drainage pattern and rate and amount of surface run-off from IInS project The developer prepared a preliminary
hydrology/drainage study identifying potential impacts in these aroasand how site drainage will be dealt with,including how adjacent
properties will be protected from site run-off from this project Drainage patterns and surface run-off will increase due to new
development, and will be discharged into Tahquitz Creek by way of a system ol'subsudhce pipes.
The project site is located south of and abutting the Tahquitz Creek flood control channel.However,the site is not located in a flood
hazard zone,nor is it in a watercourse area. It is protected by the Tahquitz Debris Basin. To minimize potential impacts,the applicant
shall adhere to the following mitigation measure:
5.0830-Planned Developmenl260 and TPM 29691 Page 10 of 25 Initial Study
►r m q% IC,
Mitigation,Measures:
I. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall provide the city with detailed plans and documents which demonstrate
conclusively that buildings will be constructed outside the limits of the flood inundation area of the Tahquitz Creek flood control
channel. The existing site drainage pattern is to the southeast corner of the site. The site is proposed to drain into the flood control
channel. The applicant shall provide written verification from the Riverside County Flood Control District that this proposal is
acceptable to the district.
2. The applicant shall provide written documentation from the Riverside County Flood Control District that the proposed development
will not negatively impact any District facilities or rights-of-way. The project will be required to implement any requirements of the
District relative to improvements to its facilities,dedication of additional rights of way, ere.
4. c-j. NO IMPACT. Based upon the review of the City's General Plan and the knowledge of the Department of Planning and
Building and (he City Engineer,due to the nature of the project and its location,the project will not create a change in the course or
direction of water movements,affect the quantity of ground waters,alter the flow of ground waterand there are no wells on the subject
site. The proposed project will require water service as provided by the Desert Water Agency. The agency draws groundwatcr from
local wells in the area. Thus,the proposed project will use groundwater resources in the area The extent ofthis impact is minimal,Lind
this quantity will not significantly impact the local groundwater supply.
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
❑ Y ❑
Potentially potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b 1?xpose sensitive receptors to pollulanlsv ❑ ❑ ❑
c Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature,or cause,any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
5. a) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The project is generally consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. With the adoption of the General Plan update in 1993, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding air quality, This statement acknowledges(fiat it is not feasible to reduce city-wide growth related
impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance at this time. Also,the proposed project will be required to comply with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)CEQA Ali,Quality Handbook, However,due to future grading activities on the individual
lots which will be created by this subdivision,short term impacts to air quality could occur. Therefore,the project will need to comply
with the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance. Due to the relatively small scope of the project on a regional scale, it is
.S.0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 2901 Page ]] of 25, !nilial.ShrAy
'/ �6%
not anticipated that any significant long-term impacts relative to regional air quality will occur as a result of the development and
operation of this project which consists primarily of hotel and vacation ownership units.
5. b)-d)NO IMPACT. The project will be located on a site that has vacant land to the west,commercial uses to the north and east,and
a residential trailer park and commercial uses to the south. The size and nature of the proposed subdivision is such that sensitive
receptors will not be exposed to additional pollutants or objectionable odors and no changes in Ohmic will,occur. Therefore,no Impacts
will occur as a result of this project to sensitive receptor and the current climate.
Mitigation Measures:
Short Term Impacts:
1. The applicant shall be required to submit a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan,prepared in accordance with Chapter 8.50 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code regarding Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control,which shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building
Official prior to the issuance of a grading permit.The plan shall specify the fugitive dust control measures to be employed. The proposed
project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code which establishes minimum requirements
for construction activities to reduce fugitive dust and PM10 emissions.
2. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. In particular, SCAQMD Rule 403 shall
he adhered to, insuring the clean-up of grading related sails on approach routes to the silo Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive
dust emissions from any active storage,open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source
Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited.
3. A dust coal rot deposit in compliance with the requirements of the Building Division will be required and made prior to grading
permit issuance.
I
4. Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of grading-generated dust particulates.
5. Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour,per
the PM10 SIP.
Long-Term Impacts:
1. Comply with City Transportation Demand Ordinance.
6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Would lhe,pro'posal result in:
Potentially Potentially Less'I'han No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by the
project? (ST = 10; M.F. = 6; or from
ITE): ❑ ■ ❑ ■
The proposed development would generate 4,070
daily trips,which,includes 267 mid-day peak
hour trips and 312 evening peak hour trips,
b Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ■ ❑ ■
5.0830—Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 12 of 25 1nilial study
c I lazards to sal'ety from design features(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ■ ❑ ■
d Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses?r
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
'c Insufficient parking .capacity on-site or off-
site?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
It Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts'? ❑ ❑ CI ■
6.a)-c) . POWNTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed development is significant
in terms oh land use and building area This project encompasses 11.41 acres and approximately 162,000 sq. 11.of building area. The
proposed planned development is primarily hotel and vacation ownership units,and involves approximately 4,070 daily vehicle n ips
according to the traffic study that was prepared for this project by Endo Engineering.
According to the study,[he project appears to comply with all General Plan circulation policies and standards The project proponent
shall dedicate appropriate right-of-way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of both master planned roadways on - site In
addition, master planned circulation improvements will be made on-site in conjunction with site development,as specified by the City
Wallin Springs. LOS D or better shall be provided and maintained at the key intersections under average weekday peak hour conditions
during the peak season. The site plan includes sufficient parking spaces(557 spaces including valet parking)to meet City of Palm
Springs parking requirements. Under City Parking code,551 spaces we required. The project proponent will coordinate with SunLine
Transit Agency regarding the need for on-site public transit facilities. The project proponent will comply with City requirements
regarding the master planned bikeways adjacent to the site along Palm Canyon Drive and Belardo Road. The proposed improvements
along Palm Canyon Drive adjacent to the site shall be completed In conjunction with the proposed development. A traffic signal shall
be installed at the main site access in conjunction with on-site development. The project proponent shall participate in the construction
of a raised median along Palm Canyon Drive when the City organizes the raised median program. Roadway improvements to Belardo
Road adjacent to the site shall he completed as specified by the City of Palm Springs in conjunction with the proposed development.
The City of Palm Sp[ings has adopted a Transportation Demand Management(TDfvl) Ordinance. The project will comply with al I
applicable provisions of the City's adopted TDM ordinance.
No additional traffic lanes are required to provide acceptable levels of service.at the key intersections in the future The proposed shared
access with the existing Rock Garden Cafd will require signalization upon development of the project. The project proponent will be
required In cdnlribule to roadway improvements ol'rcgignal benefit by participating in thc'fl1Ml'progrtnn. In addition, the project
proponUtlshall contribute on a fair-share basis to circulation improvements of regional benefil,such as the Belardo Road Bridgcaver
Tahquilz Creck,as specified by the City o('Pal in Springs. It is not anticipated that the Belardo Bridge will he consh'ueled as a I'uncliun
of tlevclopment of this project.
5.0830—Planned peveloprnen{20 and TPM 29691 Page 13 of 25 Initial Study
The following are the specific recommendations from the study relative to mitigation of traffic impacts:
I. The design of the proposed parking lot layout and site driveways shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer
during the development review process to insure compliance with City access and design standards.
2. Belardo Road shall be improved to City design standards for secondary thoroughfares and the half-width constructed adjacent to
the site,as required by the City of Palm Springs,during Phase 1.
3. The project proponentshaltimplementbikelanestripingandsignageimprovementsrequiredbytheCityTrafficEngineeralongPalm
Canyon Drive and Belardo Road adjacent to the site.
d. The project proponent shall participate in the construction and landscaping/irrigation of a raised median along Palm Canyon Drive,
adjacent to the site,as specified by the City of Palm Springs.
5. Streetlights will be installed on-site,as specified by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. A traffic signal controlling traffic at the main site access on Palm Canyon Drive shall be installed in conjunction with phase one
on-site development:
7. A STOP sign will control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at the southern site driveway
on Palm Canyon Drive and at the potential access on Belardo Road(when constructed).
8. The project proponent will coordinate with SunLine Transit Agency regarding the need for on-site public transit facilities.
9. The project proponent shall contribute traffic impact mitigation fees,by participating in the TUMF program.
10. The project proponent shall contribute on a"fair-share"basis to circulation improvements of areawide benefit(such as the Belardo
Road bridge across Tahquitz Creek), as specified by the City of Palm Springs.
11. Dedicate and construct Belardo Road across the property frontage from Mesquite Avenue to the north property line of the subject
site.
The City Engineer has reviewed the study and determined that it accurately analyses the potential traffic impacts of the project.
Circulation and off-street parking within the project site will be adequate based upon lhejudgement of the City Engineer and the
Department of Planning and Building. Off-site traffic impacts as identified in the traffic study will be adequately mitigated as per the
recommendations on page ES-2 of the traffic study noted above),as approved by the City Engineer, and any other traflic mitigation
implementation programs of the City of Palm Springs.. The specific recommendations in the tod is study will be inenuporated into the
project conditions ol'approval. Compliance with these conditions will reduce ua(Tro impacts to a level ol'insigniflcance.
Future bridge construction for Belardo Road extension over TahquitzCanyon flood control channel.Therc has been considerable
discussion relative to the need to construct the Belardo Road Bridge over the Tahquitz Canyon flood control channel. Construction of
this bridge and the extension of Belardo Road from Mesquite Avenue to its current physical terminus at Ramon Road will improve the
local circulation system by providing a north-south arterial connection and thereby reducing a some traffic impacts on Palm Canyon
Drive. The possibility of grant finding for right-of-way acquisition and bridge construction has been the topic of discussion relative
to the financing of this project, The City and Tribe are seeking grant funding for this bridge. To date it has ranked high but funds have
not been appropriated. Belardo Road is designated as a secondary thoroughfare in the Circulation Elementof the Palm Springs General
Plan with all 80 to 88 ft.right-of-way.
6.d)-h)NO IMPACT. The proposed development incorporates adequate emergency vehicle access as required by the Police and Fire
departments. The final development plan will be required to demonstrate precise emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of the
Polic6 and Fire Departments. As discussed previously,the development plan incorporates a sufficient number of off-street parking stalls
so as to comply with the mquiremehts of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The plan does not present any hazards or barriers for
5,0830-Planned Developrnear 260 and TPM 296YI Page 14 of 25 Iauiat Study
pedestrians or bicyclists,nor does it conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative(ransportation(e,g, Bus turn outs,bicycle racks
will be provided). Finally, the proposed development will not have any rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts inasmuch as it is not
located adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of any transportation routes of these types.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Endangered,threatened,or rare species or their ❑ ❑ ❑
habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects,animals,and birds)?
b Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ❑
c Locally designated natural communities(e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑
d Welland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ff
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c Wildlifedispersal or migmlion corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN
The site is not within any wildlife dispersal or
mitigation corridors.
f Is consultation with the California Fish and Game
or the ' Department of Fish and Wildlife
Service,as a trustee agency,required? ❑ YES ■NO
7. -a)-0 NOIMPACT. The project would not result in a potential for a significant effect oil the environment from a loss of animal
habitat or the reduction of rare, unique, or endangered animals
The site is located on the Tahquitz Canyon alluvial cone and is approximately 1600 feet away from the hillside. Existing development
exists between the hillside and the project site(a single family residence with fenced perimeter,the Tahquitz debris basin,with fenced
perimeter, and the Tribal Interpretive Center. The project site is located approximately 1600 ft. east of the base of the San Jacinto
Mountains. Based upon existing development patterns noted above the subject property has been separated from hillside areas. 'There
5.0830'-Planned DeVelopmernl 260 and TPM 29691 page 15 0,f 25 6n4at kud
is I ittlo likel ihood that the property could be used by Peninsular Bighorn Sheep due to existing fiencing and development patterns, Based
upon a review of the site and existing development patterns the project will not result in the loss of significant biological resources. No
significant mitigation is required.
The area surrounding the project site is generally urbanized. Animal life in the area is limited to common bird,reptile and mammal
species. No rare 4 endangered species live near or on the subject site. Therefore,proposed development will have no impact on the
diversity or number of aditnafspecies. The project site is generally surrounded by development which has significantly altered the
animal community in the area. No significant new species will be introduced through development of this project.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal create:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficientmanocrt? ❑ Cl ❑ ■
1 c Result in the loss of availability ofa known mineral
resource that would be of a future value
to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
8. a)-c) NO IMPACT. Due to die relatively small size on a regional scale and nature of the proposed planned development, the
project will not conflict or interfere with an energy conservation plan. The project will not conflict with any known energy conservation
plans or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value. Therefore,this project should not result in a negative
impact on energy and mineral resources.
The project site does not contain any mineral resources. The area surrounding the project site is generally urbanized. There are no
natural resource extraction activities on or near the site. The proposed use will have no impacts upon natural resources other than the
use of construction materials for the proposed future site improvements.
9 HAZARDS
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially 1'ess'llmn No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact'
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Be a risk of accidental explosion or release of a`
5,0830—Planned Developm nii 260 and TPM 29691 Page 16 of 25 Initial Study
hazardous substances(including, but not limited
to: oil,
pesticides,chemicals,or radiation? ❑ ❑ ❑ r
b Create possible interference with an
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
c Create any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d Create exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
e Increa'se the risk of fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ ff
9. a)-c) NO IMPACT. In thejudgement of the Department of Planning and Building,there are no aspects of the proposed operation
6r of the project construction which would involve explosives,pesticides,radiation,chemicals or other hazardous substances. Nor is
there any known hazardous materials on the site. 'therefore,there would he no risk o'a release of or exposure to hazardous materials
which would result in a potential for a significant impact on the environment.
Although the site is near the base of the San Jacinto,Mountains, it is not within the boundaries ol'the high lire hazard area as Johned
by the City of Palm Springs Fire Department. Nor is it in the high fire hazard area that is illustrated on the Seismic Safety Map on the
General Plan. Therefore, high wildfire hazard would not represent a potential for a significant effect on the environment
Theproposed improvements will occur within the facility and will not block roadways of routes used by fire fighters and police officers
during emergencies. The project will not require a revision or elimination of a designated emergency evacuation route. Thus,there will
be no impact to the existing Palm Springs Disaster Preparedness Plan,
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
Potentially Potentially Loss Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ■ Ll LI
5.0830—Planned Deyelopnlenr 260 and TPM 29691 Page 17 Of 25 Initial Study
b Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ O
c Will the project be compatible with the noise
compaiibiiiIIy planmag criteria according to Table
6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal
Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility
study? N/A
10. a).POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. During construction and upon completion of
this project, existing noise levels will increase and potentially effect residents and businesses in the immediate area. The primary
development will consist of a 198 unit hotel and 176 vacation ownership units. Given the amount of vehicular traffic and outdoor
resort-oriented activities associated with a project of this size,noise impacts are potentially significant unless mitigation measures are
incorporated.
During construction activities on-site, the following short-term mitigation measures shall be complied with.
Mitigation Measures.
Short Term:
1. Construction activities shall take place only between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m to reduce noise impacts per the Palm Springs noise
ordinance section 11.74:041.
2. All construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residential land uses.
4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from adjacent residential land uses.
Long Term:
I Windows and doors in the"Star Bar"shall be closed during live and recorded amplified music events
2. project shall comply with Chapter 11.74 orthe Palm Springs Municipal Code relative to music.
h.) NO IMPACT. The size and scope of the proposed development will expose people to higher noise levels than would a no-prniccl
scenario. One to the amount and type o1'vehicular and pecosh ian traffic,as well as activities normally assacialal will]hotel, vacation
ownership,restaurant;lounge and ouldoorrecreational areas associated with these rypesnl'uses,oxposnrc of persons to increased noise
levels is unavoidable. I lowevet,in reviewing the proposed development in relation to adjacent existing land uses,staff does not believe
that persons will be subject to severe noise levels as a result of project development An evaluation by the Department ol'Plannmg and
Building has concluded that with the mitigation measures contained within Section 10 a), the noise levels the project may generate
would noL exceed the noise levels stated within the Palm Springs Municipal Code,Chapter 11.74. The project wit] be conditioned to
require limitations on hours of operations of certain outdoor activities such as the amphitheater, waterslide operations and large
gatherings for special events. This will insure that to the extent possible, adjacent land uses will be protected from unwanted noise
impacts from the operation of the hotel/timeshare complex mid its associated activities.
9,0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page IS of 25 Initial study
1 I. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a
need for new or,altered government services in any of
`the following--area�i'
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Distance to nearest fire station 7,000 FT.
b Police protection? ❑ O ❑ ■
c Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ p
11. a)-e)NO IMPACT. The distance of the site from the nearest fire station is within the 5 minute response time established by the
Palm Springs Fire Department. All buildings will be required by the Fire Department to be fire sprinklered. The developer is required
to construct the extension of Belardo Road from Mesquite Avenue tothe subject property This will provide adequate Fire Department
access to the site. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to emergency services.
The project will be adequately serviced by other public services, and school fees are required for all new construction to mitigate any
potential impacts to the school district. Palm Canyon drive is fully improved adjacent to the subject site,including existing curb,gutter
and sidewalk. Additionally,a row of mature palm trees with landscaping lights exists in the parkway adjacent to the site. Therefore,
this project is not expected to significantly impact public services. The Fire Department is requiring that an access road from Mesquite
Avenue be constructed in Phase 1 to provide for vehicular access to the property for fire suppression and other emergency equipment,
This requirement will be made a recommended condition of approval for the Planned Development and Tentative Tract applications,
as well as any other requirements of that department or any agency/department providing public services to the project.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a heed for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
Polenlislly Potentially Less'I'han No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ e
5.0830—Planned Developmenl260 and TPM29691 Page 19Of 25 Initial Study
b Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ q ■
f Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
12. a)through g)All utilities and services are currently provided to the subject area. Due to the nature and size of this project, there
should be no impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measures:The installation of significant off-site water improvement facilities shall be a requirement of this project The
extent of the said fac'lliljes shall be subject to the project's domestic/fire protection needs ors the General Plan requirements of the Desert
Water Agency. All facilities shall be provided in accordance with the Operating Rules and Regulations of the Desert Water Agency.
13. AESTHETICS
Would tho proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less'I'han No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b I-lave a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c Create light or glare? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
13. a).and b) V.L'SS'ri[AN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project site is located adjacent to the base of the mountains on an alluvial
I'm,dgwnslope from the mouth of Tahquilz Canyon. Based upon a site inspection by the Department of Planning and Building, the
proposed development lias the potential to significantly alter the scenic vista to lire mountains and'rahquilz Canyon duo to its inuhi-story
wrapunents and the large scale ol'the project.
{
5.0830—Planned Develaprnena 260 and TPM 29691 rage 20 of 25 Initial Study
The applicant has prepared design guidelines for all development within the subject site which will be implemented during the design
. review process. Additionally',the site and architectural plans for the project have been reviewed extensively by the Design Review
Committee.The applicant has incorporated the recommendations of those committees into the site and architectural design of the project.
Objectives and policies set.forth in the General Plan regarding Scenic Corridors include but are not limited to the enhancement of visual
Amenities of local and regional highway travel,the encouragement of landscape medians,the construction of bike trail links,etc. On-
site lighting will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including limiting lighting and glare
beyond the limits of the project site. In addition,future development on the subject parcels created by this subdivision will require
Design Review by staff, .any applicable advisory groups, as well as final determination of design acceptability by the Planning
Commission. Therefore,this project should not result in negative impacts relative to aesthetic issues.
The project has been designed to be sensitive to the significant natural features to the west of the property by stepping the main hotel
building back from South Palm Canyon Drive and providing for lower profile buildings at the real(west)portion of the site. Therefore,
negative aesthetic impacts of the project have been considered and mitigated to a less than significant category. Specifically, the
applicant has considered the recommendations of the Design Review Committee relative to site and building design,general design
theme and building Scale and orientation.
c). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Due to the size and scope of this project,site and
building lighting could have potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the applicant will be required to submit a detailed site and
building lighting plan which demonstrates compliance with applicable City ordinances. This will include limiting lighting and glare
beyond the limits of the project site
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would Clio proposal:
Potentially Potentially Loss'['ban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
.c Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑, ❑ ■
d I lave the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
e Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
5.0830_Planned Development 260 and TPM 2969I Page 21 of 25 Initial Stady
14.a)-e) NO IMPACT. A cultural resources survey and evaluation was prepared for this project by ASM Affiliates, Inc.
That survey provides certain recommendations and conclusions relative to the site and specific methods for dealing with
any significant cultural sites or materials that may be found on site during grading, excavation and construction activities.
b),d), e)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED
An intensive pedestrian surface survey of the 11.5-acre Star Canyon project area in the City of Palm Springs revealed a
Late Prehistoric-Ethnoliistoric period Cahuilla residential complex. The site represents a newly recorded and the eastern
most locus of the large Tahquitz Canyon site complex,CA-RIV-45. Designated as Locus O,'surface remains include a
central habitation area surrounded by 10 or more rock cluster features,a 6-m diameter rock ring that may be a pit house,
and several other rock features and inhabited sandy wash areas. Subsurface testing revealed significant archaeological
deposits in several areas. CA-RIV-45,Locus O is evaluated as eligible American heritage values. CA-RIV-45 has already
been evaluated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and portions on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation
are listed out the National Register.
Testing in the main habitation areas indicate the surface rock clusters probably represent deflated cooking features with
little subsurface aspects. However,additional buried hearth features lie preserved below the surface in the sandy alluvial
fill. Ceramics,beads,milling equipment,some stone flakes,animal bone,and charcoal were found to depths of 70-80 cm
below the surface. While artifact densities were generally low,concentrations were found at specific levels to indicate
preserved subsurface components,possibly indicating several episodes of habitation.
Most-unusual was the presence of an apparently flexed inhumation(burial) in the center of the pit house. The burial was
.made in a large pit under the floor level and then covered with large rocks. The structure appears to have then been bum Got.
A Cahuilla clay pipe was broken on top of the burial after,it was filled. While burning of the structure and property, and
the use of the clay pipe,are typical aspects of Cahuilla mortuary ritual,the practice on inhumation rather than cremation
marks a divergence from traditional practice. The practice of inhumation may result from cultural changes following
exposure to Spanish missions at the end of the 18e century. Other special circumstances may also explain the unusual
burial. While no Euro-American objects have yet been recorded anywhere at the site, the occupation is likely to date
between A.D. 1700 and 1860 based on previous research in Tahquitz Canyon.
Traces of a more traditional cremation burial were found dispersed by alluvial action during subsurface testing in a nearby
sandy wash on the property. Probably no more than one cremation is represented and integrity is expected to be low due
to erosion and redeposition in the wash channel.
Direct impacts are anticipated from the proposed hotel and time-share development. In situ preservation is not a practical
alternative given the unstable sandy context of most of the site and the high potential for indirect impacts. Data recovery
is therefore recommended to mitigate impacts tothe site, In compliance with the California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(c)and the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(1993),notification has been given to the Riverside
County Coroner who has in turn notified the Native American Heritage Commission. They have designated the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians as the nearest likely descendants. The Agua Caliente Band was also notified by the
archaeological investigators on the same day of discovery. Disturbed human remains collected from both the inhumation
and cremation area have been repatriated to the Agua Caliente Band. It is recommended that data recovery include
consultation with the Agua Caliente Band,and in particular for the scientific and respectful removal ofhumau remains and
associated grave goods for repatriation to the Agua Caliente Baud. It is also recommended that collections resulting from
the data recovery be curated at the Agua Caliente Cultural Museum.
5.0830—Planned'Development 260 arid TPM 29691 Page 22 of 25 Inika!Study
MITIGATION:
That the developer complete the data recovery program recommended in the archaeological report. Upon completion of
the recovery program archaeological impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ J
b Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑
15. a)-b) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed development has a vacation ownership component which is a
residential land use. This will increase the demand for recreational facilities and will affect existing recreational facilities. However,
this demand is not expected to be significant due to the seasonal nature of the vacation ownership units,as well as the proposed on-site
recreational facilities which are proposed in conjunction with development of the project(pool,spa,common outdoor recreational areas,
etc.). Therefore, impact on off-site recreational facilities is expected to be less than significant. ,
16. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a Is the proposed project or action environmentally
controversial in nature or can it reasonably be
expected to become controversial upon disclosure
to the public?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
16. NO IMPACT. The prgi ect,which consists of Planned Development 260 and Tentative Parcel Map No 29691.wilI be considered
during public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition,the proposed project has been designed to minimize
the poterfiial for public concern in the area. All property owners within a 400 ft, radius will be notified of the public hearing for the
tentative parcel map and planned development applications. Thus,in the judgement of the Department of Planning and Building,the
project is not known to be environmentally controversial,nor is it reasonably expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the
public.
5.0830-Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 23 of 25 !ni(inl S(udy
1.7. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
_ Mitigation
Incorporated
a Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tens, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Potentially Potentially Less Thar No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
[ Incorporated
c Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other curreht projects, and effects of
probable
future projects.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c' Affect environment-(General description of
area. Provide more detailed information on "
environmental factors likely to be affected by the
proposal.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f Hnvironmeutal Consequences - I. Summary of
impacts(Include a Label summarizing the potential
impacts by alternative. As much as possible,
quantify the immpacts. All of the 111,M "critical
Pa e 24 0 2$
5.0930—Planned Development 2b0 run!7PM 296F7 �' f Initial Study
elements" must be addressed whether or not they
❑rc affected by the proposal.Affected elemun(s wi l l
be discussed in further detail in the following
section.
17.. a)-0 NO IMPACT:This conclusion is based upon the responses in I through 16 of this environmental assessment. Therefore,
there should be no potential for a significant impact with the proposed mitigation measures as a result of this project.
18. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE
PREPARATION OR THE INITIAL STUDY:
Douglas R.Evans,Director of Planning and Building
Steve Hayes,A'ICP,Principal Planner
Brad Weekley,Associate Planner
19. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
El I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on:
Date:DouglaJFvanrs "I�"
Director of Planning & Building
5,0830—Planned Development 260 and TPM 29691 Page 25 Of 25 Initial Study
//� qt>
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
STAR CANYON VILLAGE PALM SPRINGS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
FEBRUARY 14, 2000
Prepared For:
Palm Springs New Millennium Development
39-700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 300
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
(619) 776-8350
Prepared By:
Endo Engineering
28811 Woodcock Drive
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
(949) 362-0020
I�
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a. Project Location,
The vacant project site is a 11.41-acre parcel, generally located in the southwest portion of
the City of Palm Springs.
b..'Project Description
The proposed project is a hotel/vacation ownership resort, as shown in the Site Plan,
Figure 1-3. It could be built and fully occupied by the year 2007. The project, as
proposed, would include a 198-room hotel, a timeshare project consisting of 264 units
(176 two-bedroom lockoffs of which half will be sold as individual one bedroom units), a
200-seat quality restaurant, a 200-seat nightclub, and a 7,000 square-foot spa.
The project site is currently vacant. The project site is designated for resort commercial and
high density residential uses in the Palm Springs General Plan. The site is zoned WC-1
(commercial zone with a watercourse overlay) and WR-3 (multi-family residential with a
watercourse overlay). The proposed project includes an application for a Planned
Development District.
Site access is proposed via'two driveways on Palm Canyon Drive, and one potential
driveway on Belardo Drive. The northern driveway is a shared access with the existing
Rock Garden Cafe, and is planned for signalization in conjunction with the project. The
southern driveway proposed on Palm Canyon Drive will be restricted to right-turn ingress
and egress only.
c . Project Study Area
The study area includes four existing signalized key intersections and the signalized main
access as shown in Figure 1-2. In addition, the traffic study provides future traffic
volumes at the southern driveway which will be restricted to right-turn ingress and egress
only.
d. Existing Traffic Conditions
All of the key signalized intersections currently operate at level of service B (LOS B) during
the mid-day and evening peak hours.
e . Traffic Impacts
The following are the circulation impacts associated with the proposed project:
1 . The proposed development would generate 4,070 daily trips, which includes 267
mid-day peak hour trips (152 inbound and 115 outbound) and 312 evening peak
hour trips (174 inbound and 138 outbound).
2. The proposed project includes two driveways on Palm Canyon Drive, and one
potential driveway on Belardo Drive.
3. The northern driveway on Palm Canyon Drive is a shared access with the existing
Rock Garden Cafe, and will meet signal warrants upon development of the
proposed project.
4., The southern driveway proposed on Palm Canyon Drive will be restricted to right-
turn ingress and egress only.
5. All four key intersections and the project driveways are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service under year 2007+project conditions with existing lane
geometries, except lane modifications proposed at the project driveways.
.6. All of the key intersections will operate at the same level of service with or without
the addition of project-related traffic.
7. All four key intersections and the project driveways are projected to operate at
acceptable levels of service under year 2020+project conditions with existing lane
geometries, except lane modifications proposed at the project driveways,
8. The proposed development with 551 parking spaces, will meet the Palm Springs
Municipal Code parking requirement for the proposed uses.
f. Recommendations
1 . The design of the proposed parking lot layout and site driveways shall be subject
to the review and approval of.the City Traffic Engineer during the development
review:process, to insure compliance with City access and design standards.
2. Belardo Road shall be improved to City design standards for secondary
thoroughfares and the half-width constructed adjacent to the site, as required by the
City of Palm Springs.
3. The project proponent shall implement bike lane striping and signage
improvements required by the City Traffic Engineer along Palm Canyon Drive and
Belardo Road adjacent to the site.
4. The project proponent shall participate in the construction of a raised median along
Palm Canyon Drive, adjacent to the site, as specified by the City of Palm Springs,
5. Streetlights will be installed on-site,,as specified by the City Traffic Engineer.
6. A traffrc'signal controlling traffic at the main site access on Palm Canyon Drive
shall be installed in conjunction with on-site development.
7. A STOP sign will control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances
shall,be provided at the southern site driveway on Palm Canyon Drive and at the
potential access on Belardo Road (when constructed).
8. The project proponent will coordinate with SunLine Transit Agency regarding the
need for on-site public transit facilities.
9. The project proponent shall contribute traffic impact mitigation fees, by
participating in the TUMF program.
10. The project proponent shall contribute on a "fair-share" basis to circulation
improvements of areawide benefit (such as the Belardo Road bridge across
Tahquitz Creek), as specified by the City of Palm Springs.
ES-2 11AV3
1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. ,Project Location
The vacant project site is a 11.41-acre parcel, generally located in the southwest portion of
the City of Palm Springs. Figure 14 depicts the project site in its regional context.
The project site is more precisely located west of Palm Canyon Drive, and south of
Tahquitz Creek. Figure 1-2 illustrates the study area as well as the key intersections and
proposed site access points to be evaluated.
b . Project Description
The proposed project is a hotel/vacation ownership resort, as shown in the Site Plan,
Figure 1-3. It could be built and fully occupied by the year 2007. The project, as
proposed, would include a 198-room hotel, a timeshare project consisting of 264 units
(176 two-bedroom lockoffs of which half will be sold as individual one bedroom units), a
200-seat quality restaurant, a 200-seat nightclub, and a 7,000 square-foot spa.
As shown in Figure 1-3, the proposed project includes two driveways on Palm Canyon
Drive, and one potential driveway on Belardo Drive. The northern driveway is a shared
access with the existing Rock Garden Cafe, and is planned for signalization in conjunction
with the project. The southern driveway proposed on Palm Canyon Drive will be restricted
to right-turn ingress and egress only.
c. Project Study Area
The study area includes four existing signalized key intersections and the signalized main
access (as shown in Figure 1-2) that were analyzed with 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) methodologies as implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). The
proposed exclusive right-turn driveway on Palm Canyon Drive and the existing access to
the Rock Garden Cafe (a shared access with the proposed project) are restricted to right-
tum.egress, carry low volumes and provide acceptable levels of service during peak hours
and therefore were not analyzed with the Highway Capacity Software. Future traffic
volumes at these driveways were projected, however, to ensure that appropriate approach
lanes were provided in the project design,
1-1
Figure 1-1
Regional Location
1
10 w_•�—_—._--------------_-_--._-_San Bernardino Count/
— Riverside County
62
'— — —' • Desert
Riversides Banning Cabazon Hot Springs
91 Moreno —`• Cathedral
Valley 11 i City
Rancho
Palm Mirage
Springs Indian
is 74 Pro ect . Wells
I__ • Hemet Site Palm • Indio so
Sun Desert
City 21 •La 111
Lake 74 Quinta-.
Elsinore s Q 371
j Murrieta Salton
/ Temecula• Hot S rings Sea
79
....................San Diego County �j zx::;::- ::_::---:-
21
. Endo Engineering Scale: 1"= 13.3 Miles
Figure 1-2 -
Vicinity Map
o C: c
N O 0
C N r N
E EO
m
m °' S
Ramon Road
Sunny
Dunes
Road
— i Rock- Tahquitz Creek
Garden
Cafe
Project �.--
i Site
Gar
Dealer
Mesquite Avenue
Legend C o `i"'�
Project Site y�
• Key Intersection UAW
'� I C—T-7
i
a x
_ I Allow I/ ghlIv CHANNtI Figure 1-3
�(1TE11 f t>~!1 W>,� I Ti;f l 1111 Fl I f'(�17171T�i1'lii(��j, Site Plan
l..Ll 7-' LI��J1(��p• t I I k>I ! r "
ROCK GAPDEN CAFE
TIT
Sca1e:1' =120'�
EXHIBIT A
CASE NO. 6.0830
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 260
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29691
STAR CANYON MIXED - USE PROJECT
PALM SPRINGS NEW MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT, INC.
APRIL 26, 2000
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, 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.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
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. 5.0830/ PD 260 / TPM 29691. 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 the matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause
a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
3. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711 A, a filing fee of$78,00 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 be in the form of a money order of cashier's check payable to RiverOB76-j
County.
4. The mitigation measures of the environmental assessment shall apply. The applicant
shall submit a signed agreement that the mitigation measures outlines as part of the
negative declaration or EIR will be included in the plans prior to City Council
consideration of the environmental assessment.
5. The final development plans shall be submitted accordance with Section 9403.00 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, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, 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. Final landscape plans
shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to
submittal. Final plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission
prior to issuance of building permits.
6. 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 and Building for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements.
7. 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.
8. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all out and fill materials. Limits of site
disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped.
9. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - T wide and 6"
deep. The irrigation system shall be field tested prior to final approval of the project.
Section 14,24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from entering the
public streets, roadways or gutters.
10. 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 Engineering specifications.
11. In accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 1503, dated November 18,
1970, the developer is required to plant Palm trees (14 feet from ground to fronds in
height) 60 feet apart along the entire frontage of Palm Canyon Drive (replace or relocate
as necessary).
12, The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and
Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior
to issuance of occupancy permits. 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 in accordance with all ordinances and conditions of approval contained
herein.
The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), for the review of the CC&R's, by the City Attorney.
13, Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed
sign program shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the final development
plans.
14. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color.
15. 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 buildings(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the
buildings shall indicated 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.
16. 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.
17. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained compliance with the corner
cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D.
18. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
19. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
20. Construction of any hotel and/or residential unit shall meet minimum soundproofing
requirements prescribed pursuant to Section 1092 and related sections of Title 25 of the
California Administrative Code. Compliance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Director of Building and Safety prior to issuance of building permits.
21. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with the lighting ordinance in effect at the time
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior
to the issuance of building permits. A photometric study and manufacturer's cut sheets
of all exterior lighting on the building, in the landscaping, and in the parking lot shall be
submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be
rnounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized.
22. Illumination levels in the parking area shall be an average of one-foot candle with a
ration of average light to minimum light of four to one (4:1).
23. Parking lot light fixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to three
feet from curb face.
24, Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable
materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit. r jT^fix
25. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2,224 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 projects or 1/4% for residential projects with the 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 review and approved by the
Director of Planning and Building 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.
26. Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with
final landscape plan:
27. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved
alarm systems.
28. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the
proposed plan.
29. Vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed development including company
vehicles, employees' vehicles ( hotel and timeshare) shall not be permitted to park off
the proposed building site unless a parking management plan has been approved.
30. Priorto 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.
31. Loading space facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 9307.00 if the
Zoning Ordinance. Said facilities shall be indicated on the site plan and approved prior
to issuance of building permits.
32. 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 in # 33 below.
33. 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.
34. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double strip-hairpin or elongated "U"
design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall
provide wheel stops.
35. 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.
36. Tree wells shall be proved within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of six feet
in diameter/width. - ° ) `�.
37. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide; compact sized spaces
1
shall be IS feet deep by 8 feet wide, Handicap parking spaces shall be 18 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".
38. 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.
39. Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per
Section 9306.000OC 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
40. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) 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 buildings adjoining
driveways.
41. All awnings (if any) shall be maintained and periodically cleaned.
42. The project shall comply with the City of Palm Springs Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Ordinance which establishes transportation demand management
requirements for the City of Palm Springs. Refer to Chapter 8.4 of the Municipal Code
for specific requirements. The draft plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits and approved prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I.
43. That the developer either dedicate or grant an easement to the City for the relocation
and operation of an equestrian tie up area in the northeast corner of the site or
alternatively work with the City and Riverside County Flood Control District
and Water Conservation District to relocate existing on-site facilities to the
Tahquitz Creek Flood Control facility immediately adjacent to the subject property,
Pedestrian access to the Rock Garden Cafe shall also be provided for and constructed,
44, That the applicant shall work with Mac Magruder Chevrolet to create adequate sight
distance across the subject property to maintain reasonable sight access to existing
signs and the applicant shall work to develop a mutually agreeable site plan for the area
adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive between the southerly site driveways and the
automobile dealership. These issues shall be resolved prior to approval of final
development plans, and detailed site improvement plans shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
45. That the developer shall work with the City to prepare a South Palm Canyon Drive street
Improvement program (between Sunny Dunes and Mesquite Avenue). This program
shall include median islands and landscaping thereof, decorative light fixtures, castle
banners, and entry statement(at Mesquite Avenue) and other streetscape amenities.
The plan shall be submitted as pant of Final Planned Development District and the
applicant shall be responsible for constructing improvements adjacent to its property and
for required share of off- site improvements. (See Engineering Division - Median Island
requirements).
46. aj That the approval of this project is based upon the specific architectural design of the
buildings, site plan, building materials, landscape and other design elements. Final
development plans and construction documents shall contain the same level of detail
and high quality building materials. The City reserves the right to disapprove final
development plans and/or construction plans and specifications if architectural or
building materials are proposed to be changed.
b)That prior to installation of exterior materials to the building, the Contractor shall
construct a full scale sample exterior material and finish sample on site construction
materials, showing all workmanship and finishes. Said exterior material and finish
sample shall be approved by the Design Review Committee (changed by the Planning
Commission at its 4/26/00 meeting).
47. No time-share units shall be offered for sale or sold until there is a valid final subdivision
public report for the sale of such timeshare rights or entitlement issued by the
Department of Real Estate of the State of California. A copy of the final public report
shall be provided to the City by the applicant.
48. That prior to approval of the final Planned Development District, the applicant shall
provide a detailed time-share management program, including, but not limited to all
methods to guarantee adequacy, stability, and continuity of a first class level of
management (including sales/marketing) and maintenance of the time-share component
of the project. This detailed program shall be submitted to and approved by the Director
of Planning and Building.
49. That a land use permit shall be required for the proposed free-standing restaurant and
for any proposed outdoor entertainment on the subject property.
50. That all employees of the hotel and timeshare project, including but not limited to time-
share sales staff and restaurant staff, shall be required to park on-site and shall not be
directed or encouraged to park off-site, unless a parking management plan is approved
or off-site parking is approved as an element of the Transportation Demand
Management Program.
51. On-site driveways shall meet City code requirements for width and design.
52, That the applicant/owner may proceed with Phase I prior to proceeding with Phase II
provided the following terms and conditions are complied with:
A. Complete Phase I final Planned Development Plans are submitted and approved
by the Planning Commission.
B. That construction plans for Phase II have been submitted to the Planning
Commission for a progress evaluation, and that construction plans show
substantial progress (60% - 80% complete), such that a complete plan check
submittal can be made within 120 days of the Phase I building permit issuance.
C. That the entire site grading plan shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of Phase I building permits. '
D. That proof of financing the entire project shall be submitted by the project lender
for review and approval of the Director of Planning and Building and Director of
Finance.
E, That all required covenants, security and/or bonds shall be completed, approved
and accepted by the City Engineer and City Attorney (as ncessary).
53. That the proposed architectural detail be approved subject to review of final
development plans and incorporation of specific details and materials as proposed.
Prior to submittal of full final development plans, the applicant shall submit progress
architectural plans for Design Review Committee review and approval.
54. That the perimeter landscape areas (Belardo Road, Tahquitz Creek, and south area) be
increased where possible and that large size and scale trees be utilized.
55. That pedestrian access facilities be added along the Belardo Road frontage, Tahquitz
Creek, and along South Palm Canyon Drive, Decorative paving, walk lights, and other
amenities shall be incorporated into the design. Design features of the Heritage Trail
project should be added along Belardo Road. Specific details shall be incorporated into
final development plans.
56. That decorative paving shall be added at project entries and pedestrian access points.
57. That the southerly portion of the proposed restaurant adjacent to South Palm Canyon
Drive shall be re-designed,
58. That the required CC&R's for the project shall include a provision that day use of on-site
pool and recreation areas by timeshare owners and other individuals not currently
staying at the facility shall be prohibited.
59, That the main entry driveway shall have one median island break to allow egress from
the Rock Garden Cafe parking lot.
POLICE DEPARTMENT;
60. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code.
61. Developer shall consult with the Chief of Police regarding final design of the project
regarding public safety and security issues. Recommendation of the Chief of Police
shall be incorporated into the final design of the project and if necessary project CC&R's.
WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES:
62.. The location of the trash enclosures is acceptable subject to approved construction
details approved by the Director of Planning and Building with approved City details.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
63. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
64, Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, 1998 California
Building Code, 1996 National Electrical Code, City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570,
Desert Water Agency requirements plus NFPA 13, 14 and 24.
65. Fire Department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the
1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902. Fire apparatus access roads shall
have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 14'6". Cul-de-sac streets or curves shall be designed with a
minimum turning radius of 43 feet on center.
66, Construction site fencing required per City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
67. Construction site fire department access gates shall be at least 14 ft. in width and
equipped with a frangible chain and padlock.
68. A construction site guard is required for combustible construction per City of Palm
Springs Ordinance 1570. The guard shall remain intact until buildings are stuccoed or
covered and secured with lockable doors and windows.
69. The guard must be on duty at the construction site during all normal non-working hours
or as the Fire Marshall deems necessary.
70. Where underground water mains are to be provided, they shall be installed, completed
and in service with fire hydrants or standpipes located as directed by the fire department,
but not later than the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction
site.
71. Free access from the street to fire hydrants and to outside connections for standpipes,
sprinklers or other fire extinguishing equipment, whether permanent or temporary, shall
be provided and maintained at all times.,
72. Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start
of construction and maintained until all construction is complete.
73. Complex fire apparatus access gates are required and shall be an unobstructed 14 ft. in
width. Gates shall be equipped with a KNOX locking device /switch or key box per
California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902.4. Contact this office for KNOX application
form.
74. The KNOX fire / police / ambulance / rapid entry system is the only lock box, lock vault,
key cabinet, key switch, padlock, FDC cap, or decal approved for use by the City of
Palm Springs Fire Department.
76. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code,
Article 9, Section 903, and Desert Water Agency Specifications.
76. A complete automatic fire extinguishing system equipped with 24 hour monitoring is
required in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 10, Sec. 1003, 199 C VJQa�
California Building Code, Chapters 3,4,5,9,10, City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570 plus
NFPA 13 and 24.
77. The design and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system shall only be done by a
licensed C-16 Fire Sprinkler Contractor in accordance with the 1998 California Fire code,
1998 California Building Code and NFPA Pamphlet 13.
78. Fire sprinkler contractor to submit detailed plans directly to this office as soon as
possible.
79. Submittal to include manufacturers data /cut sheets and listings with expiration dates on
all equipment and materials used. Include hydraulic calculations with submittal.
80, Sprinkler heads shall be new, UL listed and California State Fire marshal.approved.
81. Monitoring and alarms shall be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code and NFPA
71 and 72.
82. Class III standpipes required and shall be installed in accordance with 1998 Uniform Fire
Code, Article 10, Section 1004, and 1998 California Building Code Chapter 9, Standard
9-2 and NFPA 14. Contact Building Official.
83. All fire service underground piping shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24.
84. All fire service underground pipe and thrust blocks to be inspected by the Fire
Department before backfilling.
85. Contact the Fire Department at least 24 hours in advance for all inspections and tests.
86. Fire alarm system is required. Installation and maintenance of a fire alarm system shall
be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 10, Section 1007, NFPA 12.
Pamphlets 71, 72 and 760. A complete test of system shall be made by the Fire
Department. Contact the Fire Department to schedule testing.
87. Fire alarm contractor to submit detailed plans directly to the Fire Department for review
as soon as possible. Submittal to include manufacturers data / cut sheets and listings
with expiration dates on all equipment and materials used. Include battery calculations
with submittal.
88. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with 1998 California Code,
Article 10, Standard 10. Provide one 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher for every 75 feet of
floor or grade travel distance. Machine rooms require a minimum of a 10-B:C
extinguisher. Cooking lines require a minimum of a 2-A:1-B C:K i1�e bktinguisher per
NFPA Pamphlet 96 and UL-300. Final determination of the type of extinguishers and
spacing to be determined by field inspector.
89. A ventilating hood and duct system shall be installed in all restaurant kitchens in
accordance with the 199E California Fire Code, 1998 California Building Code, NFPA 96
and UL-300.
90. An approved automatic hood and duct fire extinguishing system shall be provided for the
protection of commercial -type cooking equipment in accordance with the 1998
California Fire Code, Article 10, Section 1006, Systems shall be installed in accordance
with the NFPA 96 and UL-300.
91. Fire dampers shall be provided where air ducts penetrate fire-rated walls or ceilings.
Contact Building Official for requirements and testing.
92, Smoke dampers and activating smoke and / or heat detectors shall be in accordance
with the 1998 California Building Code and must be installed separately from the Fire
Alarm System. The signals for these devices shall not be included with any fire alarm or
waterflow signal. Contact Building Official for requirements and testing.
03. Exit doors, corridors , assemblies, gates, barriers, stairways and ramps shall be in
accordance with 1998 California Building Code. Contact Building Official.
94. Exit illumination and exit signs shall be in accordance with 1998 California Building Code
and shall be electrically illuminated..Contact Building Official.
95. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with 1998 California Code,
Article 10, Standard 10. Provide one 2-A:10-B:C: fire extinguisher for every 75 feet of
floor or grade travel distance. Machine rooms require a minimum of a 10:B:C
extinguisher. Cooking lines require a minimum of a 2-A:1•B:C:K fire extinguisher per
NFPA Pamphlet 96 and UL-300. Final location and type are to be determined by the
field inspector.
96. Low level exit signs where required by 1994 California Building Code, Chapter 10 and
Building Official shall be nuclear type as approved by the Fire Department.
97. Flame retardant treatment and standards shall be in accordance with 1998 California
Fire Code. Submit certificates directly to the Fire Department as soon as possible.
93. Submit critical flux data for floor covering per 1998 California Building Code directly to
the Fire Department for file as soon as possible. Contact Building Official for further
information.
99. Occupancy classification shall be in accordance with 1998 California Building Code,
Chapter 3. Contact Building Official.
100. Occupant load / room capacity shall be in accordance with 1998 California Building
Code, Chapter 10, Section 1002. Contact building official for calculation.
101. Posting of occupancy or room capacity shall be in accordance with 1998 California
Building Code, Chapter 10, Section 1002.3. Contact Building Official,
102. Provide the Fire Department with an 8 1/2' by 11" site plan.
103. A Fire Department access road providing access from Mesquite Avenue is required at
the western perimeter of this project. Fire Department access roads shall be provided
and maintained in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code. They shall have an
unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not
less than 14' 6". Construction shall be all weather capable, able to support a fire truck
C 01Gob
weighing 67,000 pounds. The minimum turning radius shall be 43 feet from centerline.
104. A Fire Department access gate is required and shall be at least 14' in width and
equipped with a KNOX locking device.
105. Further comments as conditions warrant.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
The Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is
subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and
ordinances.
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit. Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950-
Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares.
2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the
Engineering Department.The plan(s)shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable:
A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF
applicable.
C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment
agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required
by these conditions.
PALM CANYON DRIVE SOUTH
3. Dedicate an additional right-of-way of 10 feet to provide the ultimate half street
width of 50 feet along the entire property frontage of the subject property in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105.
4. Easements shall be granted for the portions of the bicycle path that leave the public
right-of-way.
5. The property owner shall enter into a reciprocal access agreement with the
owner(s), master lease and all sub-leases of the ingress and egress easement and
provide a copy of same to the City Engineer prior to issuance of building perinit.
6. Construct an 8 inch curb and gutter, 38 feet WEST of centerline along the entire
� (1UGIgC
frontage of the subject property to the existing bus turn out per City of,Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 200.
7. Construct BOTH sides of an 8 foot cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of
PALM CANYON DRIVE SOUTH and MAIN ENTRANCE AND SOUTH DRIVEWAY
with a flow line parallel to the centerline of PALM CANYON DRIVE SOUTH in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206.
&. The south driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standards and have minimum width of 24 feet. It shall be constructed to
accommodate right turn in and right turn out turning movements only.
The north driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 205 and have a maximum ingress and egress lane
widths of 16 feet(minimum width 14 feet).
9. Construct an 8 foot wide meandering sidewalk along the entire PALM CANYON
DRIVE SOUTH frontage. 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 Department. The concrete shall receive a
broom finish.
10. Construct a curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards both
sides of the north and south driveways per City of Palm Springs Std, Dwg. Nos.
212 and 212A.
11. Construct a 14-foot wide landscaped, raised median island as specified by the City
Engineer from Mesquite Avenue West to the north property line. Provide a left turn
pocket on the north side of the Mesquite Avenue West at Palm Canyon Drive
South intersection and on the south side of the Palm Canyon Drive South,at Main
Driveway intersection. The nose width shall be 4 feet wide and shall have stone
cobbles to the point where the desertscape can begin. The length of the turn
pockets shall be determined per Caltrans Highway Design Manual Sec. 405 and be
approved by the City Engineer. Developer shall enter into a reimbursement
agreement with the City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of the grading permit.
12. Construct AC pavement with a minimum pavement section of 5 inch asphalt
concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24
inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to
clean saw cut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance with City
of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 340. The pavement section shall
be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the
City Engineer for approval,
BELARDO ROAD SOUTH
13. Dedicate right-of-way of 40 feet to provide the ultimate half street width along the
entire property frontage of the subject property in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 105,
14. Off-site ''/z street improvements on Belardo Road South from Mesquite Avenue to
-C UG-90
the project site shall be,constructed and the developer may enter into the
reimbursement agreement with the City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
15. Construct an 8 inch curb and gutter, 32 feet EAST of centerline from Mesquite
Avenue to the north side of the proposed driveway,with a 35 foot radius curb
return at the intersection of Mesquite Avenue and Belardo Road per City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
16. The driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have minimum width of 24 feet.
17. Reconstruct the curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards
at the intersection of Mesquite Avenue and Belardo Road per City of Palm Springs
Std. Dwg. Nos. 212 and 212A.
18. Construct AC pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt
concrete pavement over 6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24
inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to
centerline from Mesquite Avenue to the north side of the driveway approach in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 325. The
pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer
and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Construct redwood headers along
the west side of the proposed pavement
19. The developer shall pay his proportionate share of the cost of the Belardo Road
Bridge prior to issuance of building permits. The proportionate share of the cost
shall be based on the project's estimated percent of traffic on Belardo Road as
approved by the City Engineer.
20. The Engineering Department recommends deferral of off-site improvement ITEMS
21 thru 23 at this time due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The
developer shall provide bonds or other security and agree to construct all
mentioned improvements along the entire frontage upon the request of the City of
Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The security shall
.be submitted with the Grading Plan, The Grading Permit will not be issued until
completion of the security.
21. Construct an 8 inch curb and gutter, 32 feet EAST of centerline from the north side
of the proposed driveway to the north property line per City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 200.
22. Construct a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210,
( Note: See Planning Condition No.55 regarding Heritage Trail.)
23. Construct ac pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt
concrete pavement over 6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24
inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to
centerline from the north side of the proposed driveway to the north property to the
E.C uc-q ,
north property along the entire frontage In accordance with City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 110 and 325. The pavement section shall be designed,
using 'R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer
for approval.
SANITARY SEWER
24. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be
connected at manhole.
GRADING
25. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of
record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of
the Grading Plan.
26. Submit a grading plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering
Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for comments prior to submittal to the Engineering Department. The
Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal includes the following:
A. Copy of final Planning Department comments.
B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning
Department.
D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months.
E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions.
F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions.
G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the
City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
27. The geotechnical engineer shall review the site design, development, grading and
foundation construction phases of the work to assure compliance with design
.concepts, specifications and recommendations and allow design changes if it is
found that subsurface conditions differ from the geotechnical report.
28. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - T wide
and 6" deep -to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or
gutters,
29: Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from
C( V,VC9`
the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687)and provide
a copy of same, when executed,to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
(This permit is required where construction activity results in land disturbance of 5
Ac. or more OR less than 5 Ac., but part of a larger common plan of development
or sale.)
30. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the
developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00)
per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and
development.
31, Contact the Building Department to get PM10 requirements prior to request for
grading permit.
DRAINAGE
32. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these
flows to an approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other
measures approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are
determined to be unable to handle the increased flows generated by the
development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if the developed Q
exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers.
33. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The
acreage drainage fee at the present time is $7,271.00 per acre per Resolution No.
15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
ON-SITE
34. The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets/parking areas shall be 2-1/2
inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement
section shall be designed, using "R" values, determined by a licensed Soils
Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City Engineer for
approval.
35. The on-site parking lot shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance, Section 9306.00.
GENERAL
36. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall
receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one
additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement
shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface.
37. All existing and proposed utility lines that are less than 35 kV on/or adjacent to this
project shall be undergrounded. The location and size of the existing overhead
facilities shall be provided to the Engineering Department along with written C ua,q
confirmation from the involved utility company(s)that the required deposit to
underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
38. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and
proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.
The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City
of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
39. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements
for this project at the earliest possible date.
40. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway
which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight
distance per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203.
41. 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 Engineering specifications.
42. In accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 1503, dated November
18, 1970, the developer is required to plant palm trees (14 feet from ground to
fronds in height) 60 feet apart along the entire frontage of Palm Canyon Drive.
MAP
43. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the
traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies
of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering
Department.
44, The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property and
the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all areas of right-of-way or
easement dedication shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval with the Grant Deed.
45. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil
Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall
be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
TRAFFIC
46. The final traffic study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to
issuance of the grading permit.
47. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around
all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap
accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional
C ( ucq/�
right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation
of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all
appurtenances located on the PALM CANYON DRIVE SOUTH and BELARDO
ROAD SOUTH frontages of the subject property.
48. The developer shall replace all damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement
legends and striping that is required by the City Engineer on the PALM CANYON
DRIVE SOUTH frontage prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
49. Separate striping plans are to be prepared and submitted along with street
improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
50. A 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR"and "STOP LEGEND"shall be
installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620-626 at the
following locations;
Palm Canyon Drive South @ South Driveway
Belardo Road South @ Driveway
51. The developer shall install a 3-phase traffic signal at PALM CANYON DRIVE
SOUTH and MAIN ENTRANCE. The controller shall be designed for an 8-phase
signal. A reimbursement agreement for 50 % of the cost of the installation shall
be entered into by the developer and the City. The agreement shall be executed
and submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the building
permit.
52. 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.
53. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on
the LODGING ITE Code C land use.
C U09S
p AL/d S� City of Palm Springs
4� May
Planning & Building Department
/ wr r'
.
W0RN r MEMORANDUM
Lf \
P
Date: April 26, 2000
To: Planning Commission V
From: Director of Planning& Building
Subject: Case 5.0830 - PD 260 - Design Review Committee Report
The Design Review Committee reviewed the revised plans for the proposed resort hotel/timeshare
project. The meeting lasted approximately two hours and was well-attended by both architects and
landscape architects. Discussion focused on the scale, mass, site design, and building detailing.
Individual members expressed concerns that the project needed to be lowered and units eliminated.
This would allow for more open space, reduced view disruption, and increased perimeter setbacks
and landscaped areas. After lengthy discussion, the Design Review Committee recommended the
following:
1. That the proposed architectural detail be approved subject to review of final development
plans and incorporation of specific details and materials as proposed. Prior to submittal of
full final development plans, the applicant shall submit progress architectural plans for
Design Review Committee review and approval
2. That the perimeter landscape areas (Belardo Road, Tahquitz Creek, and south area) be
increased where possible and that large size and scale trees be utilized.
3. That pedestrian access facilities be added along the Belardo Road frontage, Tahquitz Creek,
and along South Palm Canyon Drive. Decorative paving, walls lights, and other amenities
shall be incorporated into the design. Design features of the Heritage Trail project should
be added along Belardo Road. Specific details shall be.incorporated into final development
plans.
4. That decorative paving shall be added at project entries and pedestrian access points.
Page 1 of 2 �J9
1`
9"
5. That the southerly portion of the proposed restaurant adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive
shall be re-designed.
Staff recommends that the following conditions be added:
6. That the required CC&R's for the project shall include a provision that day use of on-site
pool and recreation areas bytimeshare owners and other individuals not staying atthe facility
shall be prohibited.
7. That the main entry driveway shall have one median island break to allow egress from the
Rock Garden Caf6 parking lot.
Page 2 of 2
97
N. T.S.
FAl10N ROAD
GAMINO PAROGELA
SUNNY U DUNES ROAD
%/ � RNERSIDE DRNE
q / J
ME50UIrE AVENUE
Pp0J/fcr
ry 7 r7R
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
�� �.0830 lPD ZGO�
CASE , NO. 7r 121%9/ DESCRIPTION APPLIGArION Foe�jrt� �,�
APPLICANT PALM SPRINGS NEw PLANNED 0E�IVELOPMENr AND A rpAGr
MAP 7-0 ALLoW Pop A RE50Rr 110rEL
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT, WC LOGArED NEAR 7-11E GORNEp OP 50Ur11
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING J�
April 26, 2000, 1:30.p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
FY 99-00
ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences
This Meetinq To Date To Date
Chris Mills, Chr. X 19 2
Michael,Fontana, V Chr. X 17 4
Ralph Raya X 19 2
Jeffrey Jurasky X 18 3
Philip Klatchko X 21 0
Jon.Caffery X 21 0
Mark Matthews X 16 5
Staff Present
Doug Evans, Director of Planning & Building
Steve Hayes, Principal Planner
Hope Sullivan, Principal Planner
David Barakian, City Engineer
Michele Boyd, Planning Secretary
Chairman Mills called the meeting to order at 1:40 p,m.
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The April 26,2000 agenda was available for public access
at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning& Building counter by 4:00
p.m., Friday, April 21, 2000.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S/C (Jurasky/Caffery) 6-0, 1 abstained — Commissioner Mills abstained as he was not
present at the subject meeting. To approve minutes of April 12,2000 as presented, but with
the "Present This Meeting" tick removed from Commissioner Mills' name on the Roll Call,
U,9
untreated building area behind it, it was determined t/issioner
well-constructed. He
stated that all items must be legalized to meet code.
It was ve by Commissioner Fontana and secondeya to approve subject
to cgndRi s in staff report and with the following reNowin ws allowed on the.north side of th
Kitchen fa 'ities must be removed from t guesthouse;
3 ft. setback 'quired for the guesthou ;
The garage mu be returned to its i ended purpose;
The carport/trellis ucture will b Ilowed to remain.
Commissioner Matthews move n ommissioner Jurasky move to amend the above motion to
remove the requirement to retur a garage to its intended purposed. After discussion, the
motion to amend was rescinde and a original motion was modified to the following:
M/S/C (Fontana/Raya) 4- , Caffery, Klat ko, and Mills dissenting. To approve subject to
conditions; and
A, That ere be no openings in the n h property wall;
a. R nquishing condition#9 regarding rage conversion; however,requiring
at any existing gas lines be removed d not replaced;
C. Removing condition#5; thereby, allowing trellis/patio cover to remain;
D. Establishing property line setbacks as follows.
3 Ft. setback requirement for garage.
3 Ft. setback requirement for guesthouse.
3 Ft, setback requirement for carport/trellis.
8 Ft. setback requirement for main house.
TTM 29691 - PD260: Application by Palm Springs New Millennium(Star Canyon Villas) for
a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 11.41 acres into 9 lots for a resort development at South
Palm Canyon Dr. between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue to the south,
Random Road to the east and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3 Zones,
Sections 22123.
Chairman Mills stated that he would abstain from considering this agenda item because he is a
consultant on this project.
Director explained that this is a mixed use proposal with several components. He referenced the
staff report and conditions of approval which address issues such as the Zoning and General Plan,
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map, parking analysis, off-site circulation issues, common
outdoor recreational area, and Highrise Ordinance considerations. Key issues for the review
include high density residential areas, hotel zoning, multi-family residences, and timeshare units.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2000 Page 7 of 1 r
Director stated that the proposal jnciudes`a request for setback and open space reductions and
that other.highris,e buildings have been granted similar considerations. "He also stated that,
although the applicant has proposed that the project be developed in two phases(1,timeshare and
recreation amenities and 2, hotel core) he recommends that both phases be developed
concurrently. He stated that the parking calculations confirm that the number of spaces proposed
is reasonable and sufficient. In addition to the proposal, staff is asking for an increase in
landscaping that will utilize an area equal to 8-10 parking spaces. Director submitted a report to
the Planning Commission which outlines the Design Review Committee's recommendations and
additional staff recommendations. He stated that the Design Review Committee did recommend
approval of the project based upon a commitment by the developer to the quality of materials and
workmanship. Director described the height, scale, and setbacks as similar to the Wyndam Hotel
although the interior courtyards are bigger than that property. Director reported that hotel rooms
are currently planned to be 15 ft. x 26 ft. and that the developer is currently doing value
engineering which may result in floor plan modifications.
Director reviewed posted plans for the Planning Commission. He stated that the Tahquitz Bridge
on Belardo Road will likely be funded next year. He pointed out the Riverside County Flood
Control District's 41 ft. easement and the nearest developable property which is over 400 ft, from
the property line. Director reported that a site visit confirmed that neighboring properties on the
eastside of South Palm Canyon Drive may lose up to 113 of their mountain view. He also stated
that the vacant land across the street from the subject property can also support this type and
intensity ofdand use. He stated that Parkview Mobile Estates, located on Mesquite Avenue, does
not take advantage of the northeast.view and has a good landscape barrier.
Director reported that, in keeping with the project design's Old World Italian feel,the exterior finish
of the building will be a hand-troweled smooth plaster finish, antiqued and washed, and will
incorporate substantial stonework. The entire first level of the building exterior will be stone.
Director passed a sample of the material to the Commissioners. He also stated that the pad
elevations of the hotel and of the Rock Garden Cafe will be roughly the same at their closest
points. He stated that the existing palm trees are in the 50 ft. range. He reported that the
developer's intent is to hide, as much as possible,the mechanical and trash areas of the project
and he pointed the area out on the plans which has been designated for this use. He also stated
that the City has a written agreement with the Tribal Council for proportionate share funding forthe
Belardo Road Bridge regarding new developments in this area.
Vice Chairman Fontana called the developer to the podium. Mr. J.B. Gold stated that he first
brought his project to the City only five months ago and thanked the Planning Commission and
staff for their intent review of his project. He stated that his team's objective for the design has
been to pull the synergy of Old World Italy into the project and create a beautiful frontage for Palm
Canyon Drive. He pointed out the small Radisson sign recently added to the plans and assured
the Planning Commission that all signage would be unobtrusive. He asked the Planning
Commission to consider relieving him of the requirement for an eight ft, sidewalk on Belardo Road
as he considers the width excessive forthat location. If that relief was granted, he stated, he could
increase the soft landscaping as requested by the Director. He reviewed elevation drawings for
the Planning Commission,explaining that the view from the Tribal Interpretive Center will be pretty
elevations and softscape. He stated that he would like to use extra boulders from excavation for
lining the flood control channel area in addition to landscaping it. He stated that he has deleted
Planning Commission Minutes of April26, 200D Page 8 of 1OJLo J..
/" o470
( V
units from the'project in responsetb'concerns regarding setbacks and massing. He further stated
that he does not want to hide the building and wishes to keep the tower as it is currently proposed.
He pointed out another focal point—the clock towers at the entry drive. As another focal point, he
stated that the 23 ft. rock outcropping will be 'a combination of real and artificial rock to maximize
safety and aesthetics. Mr. Gold reported to the Planning Commission that his studies suggest that
the economic impact to the City could increase the transient'occupancy tax by $12.5 million over
the next decade. He summarized the peripheral economic benefits for the community; including
shopping, restaurant dining, and grocery purchases. He stated that no major hotel has been built
in the City in the past 12 years.
Vice Chairman Fontana opened the hearing to Public Comment:
Mr. Phil Tedesco, sub-chairman of the Palm Springs Coalition of Neighborhoods, thanked the
Directorand the developerfor assuring thatthe project complementedthe residential quality of the
City.
Ms.Kathy Pollus,owner ofthe Rock Garden Cafe, addressed the Planning Commission and stated
that, as a neighboring business owner, she is happy and proud to have this project next door.
Mr. Marvin Roos, Maineiro, Smith and Associates, reported that he had just received revised
engineering conditions and would like to briefly address them. He asked that engineering condition
#6 (South Palm Canyon Drive curb and gutter) be deferred until the rest of the curb is built. He
stated that he would like to be able to work with City Engineer to determine the turn pockets rather
than have them determined by Caltrans'manual as proposed in condition#11. He stated that he
concurs with the deletion of condition #12. He asked that the Planning Commission consider
allowing a five ft.sidewalk on Belardo Road,rather than the eight ft. sidewalk required by condition
#19. He stated that he had questions regarding condition#22 and about the proportionate share
of the Belardo Road Bridge and payment of Tumf fees. Mr. Roos also stated that the main drive
under the portico share will be lined with pavers.
Mr.Christopher Mills, architectural consultant, reported to the Planning Commission that the focal
point of the project had been reworked and resculpted to create the dramatic visual from South
Palm Canyon Drive to the north, using the rock sculpture, tower,and skyline. He asked that the
Planning Commission not require that the tower be lowered. He asked the Commissioners to
consider the setbacks, .height, ,and visual impact of the Hyatt downtown and described its
dimensions (e.g. he stated that the north wall of the Hyatt rises 65 ft, above the sidewalk and has
a 6 ft.setback from that sidewalk). He stated that he felt the comparison to the Wyndam Hotel was
not an accurate visualization due to this project's architecturally mitigated verticality. He stated
that the developer is only asking for a minor variance from City code for the west side of the
property which will exclude Mac Magruder's Chevrolet dealership. He stated that his studies
conclude that no other adjacent property meets the open space requirements. He further stated
that the interior space of this project will be unique beyond any other in the entire valley. He
concluded by endorsing this product to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mac Magruder addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he is completely in
agreement that this project should be developed at this site. He stated that he still has unresolved
Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2000 Page 9 of 11
property line issues With the developer but that they are working together'to determine an
appropriate solution,:
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed for comments.
In response to Com miss iohers'questions, Director stated that the extension of the Heritage Trail
was designed down to Ramon Road and conceptually to East Palm Canyon Drive on Belardo. He
stated that the current grant .application's intent is to continue Heritage Trail to the Tribal
Interpretive Center. In addition, he stated that the Tribal Planning Commission is currently working
on establishing an access roadway along Tahquitz Creek.
Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the excellent quality of the project, but expressed
the following areas of concern:
Possible need for a secondary entrance at the southern side of the site
Scale of building
Pedestrian and bike paths
Belardo entrance
Water retention
Applicant explained that access on Belardo Road is minimal due to the need for the depth of the
,site design. He stated there will be a small Radisson sign at the Belardo Road entrance.
City Engineer explained that 85%of the property's drainage will be directed to the channel and that
Riverside County Flood Control District has responded with a written conceptual agreement to
allow that use. The remaining,15%will be routed to a designated retention area in the parking lot.
Director reported that the City's Manager of Government Affairs and Grants has expressed his
opinion that this development will present an opportunity for a series of co-authored grant
applications for transportation issues, Heritage Trail improvements, and improvements to the
Tahquitz Creek Corridor.
M/S/C(Jurasky/Raga)5-1; 1 abstain,Jurasky dissenting. To approve subject to conditions
in staff report and Lin report from Director dated April 26, 2000; and deleting mitigation
measure regarding tower; and that City Engineer will work with planning staff to re-draft
engineering condition #16 to include a reimbursement agreement forportions of Belardo
Road south of the subject property.
CONSENT AGENDA: None
COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS/REQUESTS (continued):
Chairman Mills reopened this agenda item as it was tabled earlier to begin Public Hearings.
Commissioners discussed the potential problems that the advertising and sales of wooden
Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2000 Page 10 of 11� �{
/� J. g+
Ai!;1;���
May 10, 2000.
YY
SI HUMORED Via Facsimile and
Hand Delivered
E9T MHOUirz cnnvoH MY Mayor William Kleindienst and
City Council
C/o Doug Evans, Directof of Planning and Building
PALM SPRIHGS 3200 E,.,Tahquitz Canyon Way
City of Palm Springs CA 92262
cnur-oPMA Re: Case No. 50830-Preliminary Planned Development No. 260
(Star Canyon Resort)
92262
Dear Mayor Kleindienst and City Council:
TcLEPH6Nc The Tribal Council, at its meeting of May 9, 2000, reviewed the project
(760) 325-3400 proposal and considered the recommendations from the Indian
Planning Commission and Tribal membership regarding the project. It
was noted that, this proposal was scheduled for review by the Indian
Fex Planning Commission for April 24, 2000, prior to the April 26, 2000,
(760) 325-0593 City Planning Commission hearing. It was also noted that the Tribal
Planning Department did not have accurate or complete exhibits at that
time and the applicant was unable to make their appointed
presentation at that time. The Indian Planning Commission did review
and received a presentation by the applicant at their meeting of May 8.
It is further recognized the project proposal is on fee land within the
Agua Caliente Indian Reservation and the project may affect views
from adjoining allotted Trust property to the west, as well as, views of
Tahquitz Canyon from the east.
Therefore, the Tribal Council, upon recommendation of the Indian
Planning Commission requests the following condition of approval be
added to the Preliminary Planned Development:
Prior to the review and approval of the Final Development
Plan, the applicant shall redesign the project to comply with
Section 9304.0 of the City Zoning Ordinance (high rise
buildings) and re-distribute the taller structures to the north
side of the project. The re-design shall be submitted to the
Indian Planning Commission for review and comment prior
to consideration by the City Planning Commission.( C 0104
�cAHUl1.�A
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above.
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincer
7ho as J. Davis, AICP
Tribal %tinning Director
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAMILLA INDIANS
TJD/cm
C; Tribal Council
Dallas Flicek
J.B. Gold
PALEI-TERS-TJDWAllam Klelndienst 5-10-OO.doc l V :LOS
, 6
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS STATED, CASE NO, 5.0830
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 260) AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 29691 TO PALM SPRINGS
NEW MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR A
PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-PHASED,MIXED
USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF A 198-ROOM HOTEL
FACILITY, A 176-UNIT VACATION OWNERSHIP
FACILITY,RESTAURANTS,A 200-SEAT OBSERVATORY
LOUNGE, A 7,000 SQUARE-FOOT SPA AND OTHER
ASSOCIATED RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 168,049 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING
AREA ON 11.41 GROSS ACRES OF LAND, AND THE
SUBDIVISION OF THE 11.41 GROSS ACRE SITE INTO
NINE (9) PARCELS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.35
ACRES TO 3.23 ACRES,AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION
OF THE SITE FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PALM
CANYON DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 275 FEET NORTH
OF MESQUITE DRIVE AND EAST OF THE FUTURE
EXTENSION OF BELARDO ROAD, C-1 AND R-3 ZONES,
SECTIONS 22 AND 23, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF,
WHEREAS, Palm Springs (the"Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant
to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Case No. 5.0830 (Preliminary Planned
Development District No. 260) and pursuant to Section 9.60 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code, Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 for the development of a multi-phased, mixed use
project consisting of a 198-room hotel facility, a 176-unit vacation ownership facility,
restaurants, a 200-seat observatory lounge, a 7,000 square-foot spa and other associated
recreational amenities, totaling approximately 168,049 square feet of building area on
11.41 gross acres of land, and the subdivision of the 11.41 gross acre site into nine (9)
parcels, ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 3.23 acres, as well as the subdivision of the site
for condominium proposes, located on the west side of South Palm Canyon Drive,
approximately 275 feet north of Mesquite Avenue and east of the future extension of
Belardo Road,C-1 and R-3 zones, Sections 22 and 23; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Applicant's application for Case No. 5,0830 - Preliminary Planned
Development 260 (PD 260) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 were given in accordance
with applicable law; and
"WHEREAS, on April26, 2000, a duly noticed public hearing on the application for Case No.
5.0830 (PD 260) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 was held by the Planning
Commissioh in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval 5-1-1 to
the City Council of Case No, 5.0830 (PD 260) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 subject
to the conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4690; and '
WHEREAS, notice of a_public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Applicant's application for Preliminary Planned Development 260 (PD 260) and
Te fative Tract Map No:29691 were given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 17,2600., a duly noticed public hearing on the application for Case No.
5,0830 (PD 260) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has
considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 29691, on the
housing needs.of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these
needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources; the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance
of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation
pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
,WHEREAS, the proposed project (PD 260 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691), is
considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has
been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in.connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff
report, all environmental data including the initial study, the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
The final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA procedures contained in
the City's CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission has previously reviewed
and considered and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered
the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds that it
adequately discusses the significant environmental effects of the proposed project,
which includes mitigation measures for traffic and circulation such as, the payment
of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF) fees upon issuance of building
permits, the contribution of intersection improvements at project entrance on South
Palm Canyon Drive, the dedication of the full half street right-of-way on Belardo
Road from Mesquite Avenue to the north project boundary, a roadway extension of
Belardo Road from Mesquite Drive to the westerly frontage of the project, mitigation
measures for water such as the construction of buildings outside the limits of the
flood innundation area of the Tahquitz Creek Flood Control Channel, mitigation
measures for aesthetics including, but not limited to, stepping the building massing
back from South Palm Canyon Drive and providing lower profile buildings along the
western perimeter of the site, and requiring a detailed site and building lighting plan
that demonstrates compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements and mitigation
measures for Cultural Resources (completion of a data recovery program) and that,
on the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review r
process, there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse
environmental effects as a result of the approval of this Project. The City Council
further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent
judgment.
y
Section 2: Pursuant to Government Code Section66473.5, the City Council finds that
the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement
are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and
programs provided in the City's General Plan and any applicable specific
plan; and
Section 3: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the City Council finds that
the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and
improvements are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land
use provided in the City's local open space plan; and
Section 4: Pursuant to Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) Section 66474, the
City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in
Exhibit A:
a. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
The application entails subdividing 11.41 gross acres (10.67 net acres) into nine
(9) lots, generally corresponding with the phase lines proposed by the applicant,
for the development of a multiple-phased mixed use resort. In addition, the
application contemplates the subdivision of the property for condominium
purposes for the timeshare component of the project. The subject property is
designated as "RC" (Resort.Commercial) and"H" (Residential High) on the City's
General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1" (Central Retail Business Zone) and "R-3"
(Multi-Family and Hotel Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map consistent with the
existing General Plan designations. The purpose of the Resort Commercial
General Plan designation is to promote large-scale resort hotel complexes and
major commercial recreation attractions integrated with retail and entertainment
facilities, in areas outside the downtown area where automobile-oriented access
is most appropriate. Hotels and similar types of resort housing are also specified
as a recommended land use pursuant to the High Density Residential designation
in the General Plan. The project complies with the General Plan, in that the
development and uses proposed (resort hotel with related amenities, the
residential timeshare component and proposed restaurant) are consistent with
the intended uses within the applicable General Plan designations and, with the
Mitigation measures recommended in the Environmental Assessment, will not
have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.
The subject site is designated"RC"(Resort Commercial) and"H" (Residential High)
pursuant to the General Plan Land Use, Map and "C-1" (Central Retail Business
Zone) and "R-3" (Multi-Family and Hotel Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The
project has been designed to be consistent with General Plan Policies 3.8.1 and
3.8.2 relative to High Density Residential development and General Plan Policies
3.22,1 through 3.22.5 relative to Resort Commercial development. The design and
improvement of the proposed subdivision and related mixed use project will.also be
compatible with the existing General Plan designations as described above in
Section 4(a)and will be compatible with existing land use designations to the north,
where a restaurant currently exists and with the automotive dealership to the south. g�f
South Palm Canyon Drive will serve as a significant buffer from any land use(s) to
the east, where a Resort Commercial land use is contemplated per the General
Plan. Adjacent to the balance of the north property line is the Tahquitz Creek Flood
�nf
Control Channel, and lands on the north:side of the channel are designated Resort
Commercial pursuant to the General Plan, consistent with the designation of the
project site. Properties immediately west of the site are vacant and designated
High Density Residential per the General Plan. Belardo Road, which is designated
as a Secondary Thoroughfare on the General Plan Land Use Map, will serve as a
significant buffer between the project site and the property to the west, even though
the site designation is consistent with the westernmost portion of the property and
could be developed with a similar residential density to that of the proposed project.
Thus, the subdivision and related planned development should be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by
the proposed subdivision.
The project is located on approximately 11.41 acres of vacant land that is
predominately covered with native scrub vegetation and rock outcroppings. Curb,
gutter, sidewalk and mature palms currently exist along the South Palm Canyon
frontage. The site slopes generally from northwest to southeast with approximately
35 feet of fall across the project site. The project falls within the range of allowable
densities permitted in the"C-1" and"R-3"zones, and has been designed to comply
with all property development and/or performance standards of these zones, as
required by the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the proposed building
height, landscape coverage, minimum lot sizes of the master plan and required
parking, all of which have been considered pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Planned Development District). The proposed subdivision is
consistent with all applicable environmental plans, and is compatible with existing
land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Adequate street frontage
exists to allow for smooth and efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site
and to minimize interference with traffic flows on existing or planned thoroughfares
adjacent to the project site. Thus, the site is physically suitable for the type of
development contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision
As described above, the site slopes generally from northwest to southeast with
approximately 35 feet of fall across the project site. The project falls within the
range of allowable densities permitted in the "C-1" and "R-3"zones, and has been
designed to comply with all property development and/or performance standards of
these zones, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the
proposed building height, landscape coverage, minimum lot sizes of the master
plan and required parking, all of which have been considered pursuant to Section
9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned Development District). The proposed
subdivision and related mixed use project contemplated under Planned
Development District No, 260 will be compatible with existing General Plan land use
and zoning designations to the north, east and west, based on the proposed
density contemplated under the proposed development. Although there are lots
within the proposed subdivision that do not meet the minimum tot size of 20,000
square feet, as contemplated per the Planned Development District, the design of
the integrated, master-planned project will not give the appearance that lots do not
minimum lot size criteria. The project is consistent with the proposed density of
development previouslyeontemplated but never completed on property immediately
east of the site, across South Palm Canyon Drive. Along the south property line,
Where an automotive dealership currently exists, it will be required through the final
development plan process that a sufficient landscape buffer from the existing a r
automotive dealership to' the south be incorporated into the project design to
mitigate any land use compatibility concerns. Thus, the density of the proposed
subdivision and related planned development will be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood.
e. The design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Conditions of this subdivision and related planned development will require full
public improvements along South Palm Canyon Drive and Belardo Road to be
completed to the satisfaction of the City, with the development. The project site is
on the fringe of the urbanized area of the City with existing development in three
direction and has not been identified to be within an area of biological concern or an
area that would have any substantial impacts on fish or wildlife or their habitat.
With the required street improvements and other mitigations recommended
pursuant to conditions of approval for this project, the design of the proposed
subdivision and the proposed improvements contemplated under the proposed
planned development are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and
safety including, but not limited to, the requirements for traffic signalization and a
landscaped median island on South Palm Canyon Drive, street widening and re-
striping (where applicable) on perimeter streets, and, a combination screen
wall/landscape buffer to minimize the potential noise and aesthetic impacts
between the proposed subdivision from the adjacent automotive dealership to the
south.
g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The off-site improvements,which are required bythe Zoning Ordinance, are related
to the project since patrons and employees of the project must use South Palm
Canyon Drive and Belardo Road to access the site. Currently, the subject property
is vacant and therefore little or no usage of surrounding roads, sidewalks and
utilities is due to the subject property at this time. However, the future property
owner will benefit from any improvements made to the above streets such as street
widening, traffic signalization and other traffic controls and aesthetic features, such
as landscaped median islands.
Section 5: Pursuant to Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A:
a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one f �l'
for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
01 The proposed Planned Development District will allow for a mixed of commercial
and residential uses, including a 198-unit hotel facility, a 176-unit vacation
ownership facility, restaurants, a 200-seat observatory lounge, a 7,000 square-foot
spa and other associated recreational amenities, totaling approximately 168,049
square feet of building area, is permitted pursuant to Section 9403.00 (Planned
Development District).
b. The proposed Planned Development District is consistent with the
applicable general and specific plans.
The subject property is designated as "RC" (Resort Commercial) and "H 43/21"
(High Density Residential) on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and "C-
1"(Central Retail Business Zone) and "R-3" (Multi-Family and Hotel Zone)
pursuant to the Zoning Map. The purpose of the Resort Commercial General
Plan designation is to promote large-scale resort hotel complexes and major
commercial recreation attractions integrated with retail and entertainment
facilities, in areas outside the downtown area where automobile-oriented access
is most appropriate. Hotels and similar types of resort housing are also
specified as a recommended land use pursuant to the High Density Residential
designation in the General Plan. The project complies with the General Plan, in
that the development and uses proposed (resort hotel with related amenities, the
residential timeshare component and proposed restaurant) are consistent with
the intended uses within the applicable General Plan designations and supports
its goals and policies.
C. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the
General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses
specifically permitted in the zones in which the proposed use is to be
located.
The proposed Preliminary Planned Development District application for a mixed use
project, consisting of a 198-unit hotel facility, a 176-unit vacation ownership facility,
restaurants, a 200-seat observatory lounge, a 7,000 square-foot spa and other
associated recreational amenities, totaling approximately 168,049 square feet of
building area will provide resort commercial services geared toward tourists of the
community, consistent with the objectives of the Resort Commercial and High
Density Residential components of the General Plan and the zones in which the
site is located (i.e. the site is zoned "C-1" and "R-3" with a Resort Overlay zone).
The planned development will provide additional tourist opportunities and
associated conveniences as well as an additional restaurant amenity for tourists
and residents alike, in a location within the City's Resort Overlay District along
South Palm Canyon Drive, outside of the immediate downtown area, where the
type of development proposed under this application is most appropriate to handle
the projected amount of automotive traffic and related on-site parking. The subject
project incorporates upgraded architectural styles and landscaping in order to blend
in aesthetically with surrounding developments. Additionally, driveways have been
located on the South Palm Canyon Drive and Belardo Road street frontages in a
manner that will provide safety and aesthetic benefits and is consistent with
policies of the General Plan.
d. The design or improvements of the proposed planned development are
consistent with the.General Plan.
The subject site is designated"RC" (Resort Commercial) and"Id"(Residential High) At
pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Map and "C-1" (Central Retail Business
Zone) and "R-3" (Multi-Family and Hotel Zone) pursuant to the Zoning Map. The
project has been designed to be consistent with General Plan Policies 3 8.1 and
3.8.2 relative to High Density Residential development and General Plan Policies
3.2;2 J through;3.22.5 relative to Resort Commercial development. The design and
improvement of the proposed subdivision and related mixed use project will also be
compatible with the existing General Plan designations as described above in
Section 4(a) and (b) and will be compatible with existing land use designations to
the north, where a restaurant currently exists and with the automotive dealership to
the south, South Palm Canyon Drive will serve as a significant buffer from any land
use(s) to the east, where a Resort Commercial land use is contemplated per the
General Plan. Adjacent to the balance of the north property line is the Tahquitz
Creek Flood Control Channel, and lands on the north side of the channel are
designated Resort Commercial pursuant to the General Plan, consistent with the
designation of the project site. Properties immediately west of the site are vacant
and designated High Density Residential per the General Plan. Belardo Road,
which is designated as a Secondary Thoroughfare on the General Plan Land Use
Map, will serve as a significant buffer between the project site and the property to
the west, even though the site designation is consistent with the westernmost
portion of the property and could be developed with a similar residential density to
that of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed planned development should be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
e. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences,
landscaping, and other features required in order to adjust said use to those
existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood(i.e. the site is
physically suitable forthe type of development contemplated by the planned
development).
The project is located on approximately 11.41 acres of vacant land that is
predominately covered with native scrub vegetation and rock outcroppings. The
project falls within the range of allowable densities permitted in the"C-1" and"R-3"
zones, and has been designed to comply with all property development and/or
performance standards of these zones, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, with
the exception of the proposed building height, landscape coverage, minimum lot
sizes of the master plan and required parking, all of which have been considered
pursuant to Section 9403,00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned Development
District). The purpose of the Planned Development'District is to provide for various
types of land uses which can be combined to create a compatible relationship with
each other while following good zoning practices and the General Plan and allow
desirable departures from the strict provisions of the specific zone classifications
where desirable. The Immediately to the east of the project site, across South
Palm Canyon Drive, a large-scale resort planned development was approved but
never built that encompassed pursuant to Section 9304.00 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Highrise Buildings). Adequate street frontage exists to allow for smooth and
efficient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and to minimize interference
with traffic flows on existing or planned thoroughfares adjacent to the project site.
Thus, the proposed planned development is compatible with existing land uses in
the immediate vicinity of the project site and is physically suitable for the type of
development contemplated by the proposed planned development.
f. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed planned development.
r As described above, the site slopes generally from northwest to southeast with
approximately 35 feet of fall across the project site. The project falls within the !1
range of allowable densities permitted in the "C-1" and "R-3"zones, and has been
designed to comply with all property development and/or performance standards of
i
these zones, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the
proposed building height, landscape coverage, minimum lot sizes of the master
plan and required parking, all of which have been considered pursuant to Section
9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Planned Development District). The proposed
mixed use project contemplated under Planned Development District No. 260 will
be compatible with existing General Plan land use and zoning designations to the
north, east and west, based on the proposed density contemplated under the
proposed development. As referenced above, the project is also consistent with
the proposed density of development previously contemplated but never completed
on property immediately east of the site, across South Palm Canyon Drive. The
project site is separated from existing land uses to the north by the Tahquitz Creek
Flood Control Channel, to the east and West by existing or future streets. Along the
south property line, where an automotive dealership currently exists, it will be
required through the final development plan process that a sufficient landscape
buffer from the existing automotive dealership to the south be incorporated into the
project design to mitigate any land use compatibility concerns. Thus, the density of
the proposed planned development will be compatible with surrounding
neighborhood.
g. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be
generated by the proposed use.
The proposed Planned Development is bordered on two sides (east and west) by
existing or future roadways, one of which is a major thoroughfare (South Palm
Canyon Drive) and one of which is a secondary thoroughfare (Belardo Road). A
traffic report was conducted for the planned development which concluded that,
based on the estimate of 4,070 project related trips per day, no additional traffic
lanes will be required to provide acceptable levels of service at key surrounding
intersections in the future. However, the proposed shared access with the existing
restaurant to the north and east of the site will require signalization upon
development of the project. In addition, the project proponent will be required to
contribute to roadway improvements of regional benefit by participating in the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund(TUMF)program and comply with the City's
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) Ordinance. All of these items, as well
as other secondary transportation related items, have been incorporated into the
recommended Conditions of Approval for the project (Exhibit A). With these
conditions in place, the vehicular circulation system will not be negatively impacted
by trips generated from this project.
h. The conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare,
including any minor modifications of the zone's property development
standards
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and
safety including, but not limited to, the requirements for traffic signal installation,
street dedication, widening and/or construction, provisions for delivery truck access,
new curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and a landscape/wall buffer between the project
and the adjacent automotive dealership.
i. A nexus and rough proportionality have been established for requirement of
dedication of the additional right-of-way to the City and the off-site
improvements as related to the Planned Development District.
The conditions requiring off-site improvements which are required by City
ordinances are related to the proper function of the project in the proposed location.
Patrons and employees will utilize the three surrounding streets to access the site.
Conditions of approval require additional street dedication and widening, installation
of a traffic signal, and the construction of a raised, landscaped median island, the
installation of street lights along South Palm Canyon Drive, as well as the
installation of public improvements such as, but not limited to, pavement, striping,
curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and street lights on Belardo Road. All of the required
off-site improvements will provide direct and immediate safety benefits to the
patrons and owners of.the proposed project and the requirements will provide for
an aesthetically pleasing site for its users to enjoy. The required improvements are
in rights-of-way immediately adjacent to the site, which must be utilized by those
accessing the subject site. These improvements and/or mitigation include the
payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF) fees upon issuance of
building permits of all phases of the project, the installation of a bus bay turnout
along the South Palm Canyon Drive frontage, as well as the required improvements
mentioned above. Without the proposed project, which will provide for
approximately 168,049 square feet of resort-oriented commercial uses, generating
traffic and site users, these improvements would not be warranted since the site is
currently vacant and not currently impacting any City rights-of-way.
Section 6: Pursuant to Section 9315.00 of the Zoning Ordinance,the City Council finds
that:
a. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 9315.00 B,the use or occupancy
of land on a timeshare basis is authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance
within the "C-1" and "R-3" zones, subject to the provisions of Section
9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Use Permit);
b. The use or occupancy of land on a "time-share" basis is being considered
pursuant to the provisions of Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Planned Development District)whereby the Planning Commission and City
Council shall find that the proposed uses as shown on the preliminary
development plan are in conformity with said section as well as Section
9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Use Permits) the General
Plan and sound community development. The findings for said planned
development are outlined above in Section 5 of this Resolution;
C. The "time-share" component of the project will require the applicant to
comply with the applicable provisions Section 9315.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance referenced above and Chapter 3,28 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code (Time-Share Occupancy Tax), and the review of the
Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (C,C and R's) by the City;
d. The time-sharing project will not have a significant impact on transient or
permanent rental stock;
e. The time-sharing project does not create a nonconformity with current
zoning regulations and the General Plan; and
f. The time-sharing project does not create a nonconformity with existing
uniform building and fire codes.
NOWj THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby issues a mitigated negative declaration and approves Case No. 5,0830 (Planned
Development'District No. 260) and Tentative Tract Map No. 29691 subject to those
conditions set forth in the in Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy unless other specified.
ADOPTED this_ day of 12000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Interim City Manager City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: _
113 /0
DATE: July 17, 2002
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning & Building
CASE NO. 5.0830-B-PD-260,ANAPPLICATION BY PALM SPRINGS NEW MILLENNIUM,STAR
CANYON VILLAS, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691,TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM HOTELAND TIMESHARE
TO ALL TIMESHARE, WITH 198 HOTEL ROOMS BECOMING 79 TIMESHARE UNITS, AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS, AT THE STAR CANYON RESORT, LOCATED AT
SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, BETWEEN THE TAHQUITZ CANYON WASH TO THE NORTH,
MESQUITE AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, SOUTH PALMS CANYON DRIVE TO THE EAST AND
SOUTH BELARDO ROAD TO THE WEST, ZONE W-C-1 AND W -R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Planned Development District# 260
and Tentative Tract Map 29691, to change the land uses from hotel and timeshare to all
timeshare„ .with 198 hotel rooms becoming 79 time share units, and other miscellaneous
amendments, at the Star Canyon Resort.
SUMMARY
Under the Zoning Ordinance, a planned development district is designed to provide various types
of land uses which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally
planned development. It is the intent of this district to insure compliance with the general plan and
good zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of
specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application of
the planned development district are to be insured by the adoption of a precise development plan
with a specific time limit for commencement of construction.
Planned Development District No. 260 consists of a proposed mixed use facility which includes and
198 room hotel, 176 timeshare units, banquet and meeting facilities, restaurant and lounge
facilities, pool, spa and other associated amenities for a combined total of 374 hotel rooms and
timeshare units on an 11.41 acre site. The Tentative Tract Map includes the subdivision of an
11,41 acre parcel, into nine lots, ranging in area for 0.35 acres to 3.23 acres, for timeshare
condominiums purposes.
Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance,the applicanthas submitted an amendment
to the Planned Development District. The amendments include the elimination of the resort hotel
and conversion of the project into a timeshare resort. The applicant is Palm Springs New
Millennium (Star Canyon Villas), and the owner is J. B. Gold.
(10116
I
" � 1
- f
Case 5.0830 - PD 260 and TTM 29691
July 17, 2002
Page 2 of 3
The proposed amendments to Planned Development District No. 260 include:
• Elimination of the ballroom and large kitchen;
• Relocation of recreation facilities, meeting rooms and spa to former.ballroom location;
• The addition of nine timeshare units in the former spa location; and
• Conversion of 198 hotel rooms into 70 timeshare units.
The existing 176 timeshare units would remain unchanged. A total of 255 timeshare units would
be developed. The original proposal included 198 hotel rooms and 176 timeshare units, for a total
of 374 rooms. Therefore, the proposed amendment would result in a reduction in the intensity of
use on the site.
BACKGROUND:
On April 26, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve
Case No. 5.0830 (Planned Development District 260 and Tentative Tract Map 29691) for the
development of a hotel and timeshare resort on a vacant 11.41 acre parcel.
On May 17, 2000, the City Council voted to approve the project.
On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve
a one year extension of Case No. 5.0830,
On May 15, 2002, the City Council voted to approve a one year extension of the project.
Subsequent to the writing of this report, the Planning Commission will have reviewed this project
at its meeting of July 10, 2002. The City Council will be briefed of any action taken on this project
by the Planning Commission.
The developers request is due to their inability to secure financing for a conventional hotel project.
The change in land use will reduce the amount of transient occupancy tax generated by the project.
The developer is proposing, via the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), payment of
a development fee to ensure adequate funds to cover the cost of services to be provided by the
City. The Redevelopment Agency has initiated negotiations related to the DDA. The City Council
may want to conditionally approve this change, subject to negotiating an agreement which creates
a funding mechanism to cover the cost of services to be provided by the City.
Timeshare are similar in use to hotels. Guests change weekly and occupancy is higher year round
for timeshares that for hotels. Project impacts are equal to or less that the originally proposed
project.
y
■
Case 5.0830 - PD 260"and TTM 29691
July 17, 2002
Page 3 of 3
Staff recommends the imposition of the following new condition in which day use of the timeshare
by the owners would be prohibited.
• That the project owners and operators shall not allow, market or promise timeshare owners
or prospective owners, day use of the on-site amenities including, but not limited to, pool
areas, water slides and other recreational amenities, when said timeshare owner is not
registered and staying in an on-site timeshare units.
Staff is concerned that day use of the facility by owners would result in a number of problems. Day
use occurs when owners, who are not registered guests staying overnight at the facility, visit the
resort for the day, use the pools and other facilities and leave at the end of the day. Day users can
lead to overcrowded amenities such as pool areas and recreation rooms and may cause parking
congestion.
( W )m
Director of Olanning and Iding
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Planning Commission report of April 26, 2000
3. Planning Commission minutes of April 26, 2000
4. City Council report of May 17, 2000
5. City Council minutes of May 17, 2000
6. Resolution
Council Minutes
65-17-00, Page 6
aunty property tax rolls, to allow a more efficient means of,collecting delinq t
acc ts.
Director of Fin e & Treasurer reviewed the staff report, no fu r report was
given.
Councilmember Jones state at the only thing th ould appear on property
tax bills is property tax.
Mayor declared the hearing open, a no appearances the hearing was
closed.
Resolution 19788 ecommended was presented; aft hich, it was moved by
Hodges, se ad by Oden and carried by the following a that R19766 be -
adopted
ES: Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Kleindienst
NO: Jones.
11. CS.5.0830/PD260/TTM29691 - NEW MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMEN
Recommendation: That the Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve Cs.5.0830, Preliminary Planned Development District 260 and Tentative
Parcel Map 29691 for the development of a mixed use facility consisting of hotel
and vacation ownership units, as well as the subdivision of the 11.41 acre project '
site into 9 parcels, subject to conditions. Project is located on the west side of
South Palm Canyon Drive, north of Mesquite Drive and south of Sunny Dunes
Drive, R-3 and C-1 zones, Section 22 and 23.
Director of Planning & Building reviewed the staff report and reviewed visual site
plans; and in answer to question by Council stated that the reimbursement
agreement will allow when development is underway across the street from the
property reimbursement for its fair share of the median costs.
Mayor declared the hearing open.
Tom Davis, stated the Tribal Council does support the project; that there will be
improvements to the neighborhood; that there is one concern of the Council, and
that is since the project is on the fast track process, there has not been
information to determine the full impact of vehicular encroachment; that it seemed
that greater mass would be better on the Southside of the property; and that if a
redesign could happen, it would be appreciated.
Marvin Roos, Manlero, Smith & Associates, stated that this is one of the major
projects that has happened in this City for 10 years; that Mr. Gold is passionate
about the project; that there are some concerns with conditions of approval; that
item 6, regarding the curb & gutter, it would be better to wait until the entire curb
is moved rather than require the developer to move its portion, then the rest of
the area be out of line; that Condition 9, sidewalk, it would be recommended that
the sidewalk be moved back from the curb and that landscaping be in-between;
that Condition 22 should be narrowed to 5 feet, and expanded in the future; that
Council Minutes
05-17-00, Page 7
there was a high-rise analysis done for the project;that setback requirements are
being adhered to; and that if there is any encroachment it would be located on a
corner of the building adjacent to vacant Indian land.
J.B. Gold, developer, stated that on a project of this size all gray areas can not be
addressed; that the architecture style has been addressed; that the theme will be
carried out throughout the building process; that the building will be a signature
for the City; that the land allows for a lot of rock and waterfalls; that the building
will look like a castle rising from boulders; that the architecture will stand the
passage of time; that Phase I should have the plans completed within 90-120
days; that then the working plans will start; that the parking structure will not be a
focal point; that the economic value to the City is tremendous; that property tax
and TOT will Increase; and that the figures do not include all that the tourist will
spend in the downtown area.
Frank Tysen, 175 Cahuilla, stated that it is appreciated the City included the
neighborhoods in the involvement of the project; that the major concern was the
mass of the building; that it is clear that this project will be something special; that
the concerns of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians can be addressed;
and that he is pleased with the work done by the developer.
There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Jones requested the developer address the concerns of the
' Indians.
J,B. Gold, stated that the only resident is west of the project; that the elevation of
the residence does allow a view of the back of a waterfall; that the setback is not
encroached; that on the west side the view is 40 feet over the building; that to
rework the architecture would encroach on the proposed height; that the
consensus is that the project really works as it is presented; and that the
adjustments made did allow for turnouts in the back of the building.
Councilmember Hodges stated that she has no concerns with the project; that the
project is deserving of compliments for all parties involved; that the City has not
seen a project of this magnitude for years; that the architecture is beautiful; and
that she looks forward to the addition to the City.
Director of Planning & Building stated that if the Council desired, it coyld change
Condition 20 to a bond or some other type of security; and that a covenant may
not be the best method to be used.
Councilmember Jones concurred with Councilmember Hodges; and added that it
has been a long time since the City has had a project like this one; and that the
project is a good one.
Councilmember Oden stated that he likewise endorses the project; that hats
impressed with the inclusion of the neighborhood; and that the completion of the
project will be a welcome addition to the City.
Council Minutes
05-17-00, Page 8
Councilmember Reller-Spurgln stated that she contacted McGruder Chevrolet;
that it is favorable to the project; that the thought was that it will enhance South
Palm Canyon; that that there is some concern with the comer piece of property
between the two projects and requested the developer be sensitive to this
concern.
Mayor questioned If the project addresses full and complete recycling priorities.
Director of Planning& Building stated that at this stage, that level has not been
reached; that there are two areas set aside for recycling and serni-truck access.
Mayor questioned the impact of lighting on the project from McGruder Chevrolet.
Director of Planning & Building stated that the goal is to have part of the lights
very distinct on its own property; that an agreement will need to be worked out;
that when the automobile dealership closes, only the security lighting should
remain on; that the primary focus of the Planning Commission was on the
proposed architecture and landscaping and In answer to questions by Council
stated, that condition 52 does require both Phases to break ground concurrently,
but that the condition could be modified to allow the developer to submit fencing
plans for Phase II when Phase I starts; that the developer does agree to redesign
the proposed restaurant located adjacent to South Palm Canyon; that it
recommended that the centerline along the frontage be based of 38 feet, rather
than 32; that the street traffic will be enhanced and will tie in with the bus turnout; ,
that the widening does comply with the General Plan; that the plan is an off-set;
that the entire needed land can not be taken from the opposite of the street; that
to lake the property across the street would be eminent domain; that the property
owner may feel that the value of their property is lessened; that if the bridge is
considered the controlling point the widening could be deferred with security until
that portion is reached; that it is better to determine the situation now, rather than
when the timeshares come in; that an example would be the widening completed
on Sunrise and Ramon, that has the driveway and bus turnout; that in that case
only one property owner was effected, that this case all property owners will be
affected; that the sidewalk meandering through rocks can be worked out between
the developer and the Planning department; that the Heritage Trail was a
consideration in the designing of the sidewalk; and that the 8 foot sidewalk is
considered safer and does follow the nature curve of the area.
Mayor questioned the timeline security of the Phases.
City Attomey stated that the Planning Director had been given the proper
language; that usually the land is the security; and that the attorney's office will
work with the developer and the Planning Department to obtain agreement; that
bonding could cause a problem in later years.
Director of Planning & Building stated that the requirement could be secured by
CC & R's; and that it may be a long time until the bridge is started.
Councilmember Hodges stated that if a vehicle is not set in place that will trigger '
an expiration, it is possible the bond could expire without anything being done;
and that a covenant may be best.
I 101
council Minutes
05-17-00, Page 9
' Coundlmember Jones concurred,
Director of Planning & Building stated that condition 21, recommended Belardo
Road South be secured by bond.
Council concurred.
Mayor stated that with the revisions and working in consideration of the Heritage
Trail,the project is a bold, dramatic statement for the City.
Resolution 19789 as revised was presented; after which, it was moved by Oden,
seconded by Hodges, and unanimously carried that R19789 be adopted.
GISiATIVE ACTION:
12, AIRPORT RENTAL AGREEMENT-WAS/ER TR MENT PLANT
R ommendation: That the Council ape al agreement between the
Airp rt and the Wastewater Treatment P .t3 acres at a rental rate based
onIan value of$3,71 per square foot fo $321,634. A4222.
Assistant ity Manager-Special Projects he staff report,
Resolution 19 90 as recommended was ; after which, it was moved by
Hodges, secon d by Reller-Spurgin, ously carried that R19790 be
adopted.
13, WASTEWATER TREA ENT Pt A EXPANSION
Recommendation: That e C uncil direct staff to commence discussions with
US Filter Operating Servi (USFOS) on the expansion of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, including itrification facilities, and direct the City Attorney to
evaluate design/build oppo un 'es at the plant.
Assistant City Manager- pecial Pr 'ects reviewed the staff report and added that
both items will come b ck to Council or approval.
Councilmember Jo es stated that he es have a conflict of interest, due to a
financial interest th US Filter.
Resolution 197 1 as recommended was pros nted;after which, it was moved by
Hodges, sec nded by Reller-Spurgin, and c riled by the following vote that
R19791 be dopted.
AYES: Hodges, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Kle dlenst
NO: None
ABS T N: Jones
DATE: July 17, 2002
TO: ' City Council
.FROM: Director of Planning & Building
CASE NO.5.0830-B-PD-260,AN APPLICATION BY PALM SPRINGS NEW MILLENNIUM, .
STAR CANYON VILLAS, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT 260 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
FROM HOTEL AND TIMESHARE TO ALL TIMESHARE, WITH 198 HOTEL ROOMS
BECOMING 79 TIMESHARE UNITS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS,
AT THE STAR CANYON RESORT, LOCATED AT SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE,
BETWEEN THE TAHQUITZ CANYON WASH TO THE NORTH,MESQUITE AVENUE TO
THE SOUTH, SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE TO THE EAST AND SOUTH BELARDO
ROAD TO THE WEST, ZONE W-C-1 AND W -R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the mendment to Case
5.0830 — PD 260 and Tentative Tract Map 29691LgA
to ange the land from hotel and
timeshare to all timeshare and minor revisid sit2en,
The Planning
Commission further recommends that the Cto anent to provide
funds to offset the fiscal impacts ofthe pro'SUMMARY: ��The Planning Commission, at its July 10, 2 6-0- tz abstained)
vote, recommended approval of the proposct to revised Conditions
of Approval. Revised Conditions of Approval are provided in Attachment A. Revised
conditions include a prohibition of day use by non-resort guests and several updates to the
Engineering Division Conditions of Approval.
At the public hearing the owner of the Rock Garden Cafd and the applicant spoke in favor
of the project.
Planning Commission discussion included review of the timeshare company, financial
effects of a hotel vs timeshare, building height and design, community benefits of a
timeshare project, and overall project design. The Planning Commission felt strongly that
the approval of this project should include a financial agreement with the operator,
developer, and City. L p
BACKGROUND: ( v
See the following staff report and background materials.
Director of nning and Zoning
—�
nager
.�HMENT: Revised Conditions of Approval
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 10, 2002
Council Chamber, City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
ROLL CALL resent Present FY 02-03
s Meeting to Date Excused Absences
Philip Klatchko, Chairman 1 0
Mark Matthews 1 0
Jon Caffery X 1 0
Jon Shoenberger X 1 0
Jerry Grence X 1 0
Dianne Marantz X 1 0
Tracy Conrad X 1 0
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Zoning
Sky Warden, Assistant Planner
Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator
Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m.
The July 10, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall terior bulletin board
and the Department of Planning & Zoning counter by 4:00 p.m., July 05, 200 .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S/C(Caffery/Matthews 5-0, 2 abstentions)to approve the minutes of May 22,2002 as presented.
M/S/C (Caffery/Grence 5-0, 2 abstentions)to approve the minutes of June 12, 2002 as am\tided.
Page 2 of 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
Chairman Klatchko welcomed the two new Planning Commissioners — Ms. Marantz and Ms.
Conrad.
Chairman Klatchko o• ned the meeting for Public Comments. There being no appearances,
Public Comments was 4Qsed.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL:
Case 3.0296 —Application by Ginger Ntdgway for an Architectural Approval for window graphics
at the Agua Caliente Cultural Museum lo`oated in the Village Green shop area at 219 South Palm
Canyon Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15.
Sky Warden, Assistant Planner, reported that t e applicant is proposing the use of "translight" —
a one-way, see-through film for the windows of�tye museum to portray photography of the Ague
Caliente people and artifacts. She stated that the hotos will be colored with variations of sepia.
She reported that the applicant intends that the wind�j graphics unify the two separate structures
so that the public is more aware of the larger size of th \museum than the current entrance makes
it appear. She also reported that the translight film will provide UV protection for artifacts displayed
close to the windows and that it will also relieve the building of heat and glare. She reported that
staff has concerns regarding the application of film to the exterior of the windows due to pedestrian
traffic; however,the applicant stated that access to the window\ from inside the museum is difficult
and assured staff that the museum strives to maintain the quality of the exterior of the building and
that any possible damage would be repaired immediately.
Commissioner Conrad asked whether or not the photographs woulA;e rotated. Staff reported that
the film is guaranteed for a period of seven years and that the applicant does not intend to change
the photographs during that time.
Chairman Klatchko called any interested parties to the podium.. None present.
M/S/C (Grence/Matthews 7-0) to approve as submitted.
Case 3.082913—Application by the City of Palm Springs for the Palm Springs International Airport
for an Architectural Approval for a ready-return rental car lot located at 3400 East Tahquitz Canyon
Way, A Zone, Section 18.
Director reported that the subject application is in response to Federal requirements for increased
security and that creating this dedicated entry for rental return, separated from the rest of the
airport, is one of the many improvements that the City will be making to airport security. He
Page 3 of 9
nning Commission Minutes
July 2002
reported that irty" cars (those returned cars which have not been cleaned and readied again for
rental) will be co aimed in a secure and separate area from the ready to rent"clean" car area. He
reported that the la scaping will be the same specific and unique design as exists at the airport
so as to maintain the b4aracter of the airport. He reviewed the planting palette for the Planning
Commission. He confir d that the proposed covered walkway will feature the same canvas as
existing elsewhere at the ai port which is the highest quality material available. He stated that, due
to Federal mandates, the protb�t is on a very tight time frame. He reported that comprehensive,
directional signage will be integrated with the entire airport and serve to keep travelers from being
misdirected into secure areas.
Mike Williams, Assistant Director of Ai ort Operations, reported that this "Phase 1" step is in
response to newly announced Federal s curity regulations which require that no unattended
vehicles be allowed within 300 feet of the ter inal building. He explained that, currently, physical
vehicle inspections are being conducted for ose vehicles which do approach the terminal;
however,this system is very labor intensive. Her orted that the recently completed blast analysis
showed that a blast wall of a height of ten feet talle\than the airport building would be required if
the proposed roadway and operational changes were not done.
Mr. Michael Buccino, project landscape architect, reporte that he is working with airport staff and
with Gensler & Associates for the security plans. He state that the landscape plan is critical to
supporting the overall theme of the airport and described cru 'al check points as being identified
by boulders, Washingtonia Filifera palm trees, and mounding.
Commissioner Conrad stated that she applauds the creative solutio as presented as opposed to
a blast wall.
To Commissioner Conrad's questions, Mr. Buccino stated that one carob e was able to be saved
—that they do not typically transplant well—and others will be replaced with 0"box standards. He
confirmed that the olive tree, all of the Washingtonia Filifera palm trees, acids veral Washingtonia
Robusta palm trees are being relocated.
Commissioner Marantz stated that she was concerned that people unfamiliar wit the area may
have trouble with the narrowed, single-lane entrance. Mr. Williams commented tha the purpose
of having one lane is to minimize traffic conflicts. He reported that the overall Sign ogram will
be directional (through the City and down valley) but that it is not a part of the subject a lication.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he felt the proposed changes are an imaginative s lution
to a difficult problem and complimented staff and the project team for the job well done. \
M/S/C,(SbaembergerfMarantz-7=0)to approve subject.to_min_or revisions to the landscape plan
simpfify plant palette and group like plants.
Case No 5.0830-PD-260 —Application by Palm Springs New Millennium (Star Canyon Villas�d2!
Page 4 of 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
an amendment to Planned Development District#260, and the related Tentative Tract Map 29691,
to change the land uses from hotel and timeshare to all timeshare, with 198 hotel rooms becoming
79 time share units, and other miscellaneous amendments, at the Star Canyon Resort, located at
South Palm Canyon Drive between the Tahquitz Canyon Wash to the north, Mesquite Avenue to
the south, South Palm Canyon Drive to the east, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and
W-R-3 Zones, Sections 22 and 23.
Commissioner Marantz abstained due to a conflict of interest.
Director reported that the City Council approved the hotel and timeshare land use on May 17,2000
and that the project was granted a one-year time extension on May 15, 2002. He reported that the
developer has sought financing for the project as approved; however, due to changes in the hotel
marketplace, has been unsuccessful. He reported that the applicant has progressed with
negotiations with a timeshare resort company to a significant level and reports that, if the change
of primary land use is approved, the project can move forward almost immediately. He clarified the
that primary change being requested is that 198 hotel rooms would be remodeled into 79 timeshare
units with the ability for modulization and that the intensity of land use would be less than hotel
rooms at the equivalent occupancy. He reported that [successful] hotel occupancy rates range
from 55% - 70% and that a timeshare resort with a strong amenity package can average 90%
occupancy year round. He reported that there could be some overnight stays of units rented as
hotel rooms. He reported that the proposed onsite amenities and parking program have not
changed from as originally approved, that the infrastructure will, overall, have less impact with the
conversion of the hotel rooms. He reported that the proposed Conditions of Approval prohibit day-
use of timeshare units or amenities and explained that another timeshare resort(operated by Trend
West) allows day use and the impact has caused problems in the neighborhood.
He reported that the City relies on Transient Occupancy Tax(TOT) to a great extent and that the
relatively-low population base of Palm Springs is challenged to maintain resort city standards
(including all emergency and support services)year-round and that timeshare units do not generate
TOT when occupied by the timeshare owner (although TOT is collected when that unit is rented).
He stated that staff will work with the developer to craft a legal financial agreement for City Council
review to ameliorate the project's financial benefit to the City despite the loss of TOT from the
proposed change in land use.
Chairman Klatchko called John Raymond, Director of Community and Economic Development, to
the podium to report on the project's progress with financing. Mr. Raymond reported that the City
has been working with the developer for more than two years and that the market for hotels has
changed due to world events. He stated that a Development Agreement to address the estimated
$550k per year of TOT which would be lost when converting from hotel to timeshare use will be
recommended to the City Council.
Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Kathy Pollus, owner of the Rock Garden Cafe, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that she supports the project and the increase in sales tax that timeshare occupants will bring to
U12
Page 5 of 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
the City.
Mr. J. Burton Gold, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to give his appreciation to the
Planning Commission and staff. He stated that it has been a two-year struggle to obtain financing
and that he has tried to save the overall design of the approved project when making the necessary
adjustments for the conversion to timeshare use. He estimated that the yearly financial benefit to
the City, (e.g. expenditures on entertainment, gasoline, food, and beverages) would be
approximately $230,000 and that the project will beautify the south end of town. He urged the
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the conversion.
To Commissioner Conrad's questions, Director reported that the Tennis Club was originally a hotel
which was converted to timeshare and seems to be doing well, as does the timeshare project
located on South Palm Canyon Drive (which was originally part of the Canyon Hotel). He reported
that enforcement of the day-use issue is part of the existing Community Preservation function. He
reported that the height issue was a key element of debate and discussion by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council for the project's approval in 2000 even though the proposed
height is within Code requirements.
Mr. Gold reported that Fairfield Communities,which is a fully-owned subsidiary of Sendant Resorts
Worldwide, has agreed to develop the project as designed, but that he believes (due to lowered
plate heights)that the building height may be reduced by as much as three feet. He reported that
redesigning the tower element as per Planning Commission and City Council direction took more
than one year and $100,000 but that the tower element is crucial to the overall design ofthe 86-
million dollar project. He stated that the Sendant Corporation feels that this property would be a
flagship for them. He stated that Sendant is the largest timeshare company in the world (larger
than Marriot, for example) with hundreds of properties and sales offices all over the country. He
reported that, when he visited 30 days ago, Fairfield (the Sendant subsidiary) was building a 12-
story property in Las Vegas near the Hard Rock Cafe and that, by now, they are scheduled to
constructing a 15-story tower next door to that property.
Chairman Klatchko confirmed with staff that the architecture of the project has remained as was
approved with the minor differences and some upgrades and that the overall building height has
not changed. He commented that the Planning Commission and City Council did deliberate
extensively over the design and height of the project.
Commissioner Matthews commented that, at the time of original Planning Commission approval,
he feitthe extensive amenities for the communitywere sufficient trade-off forthe density and height
issues of the project. He called Mr. Burton to the podium.
To Commissioner Matthews questions, Mr. Burton reported that there are three issues remaining
before a contract with the timeshare company can be executed which consist of Planning
Commission approval fortimeshare use; City Council approval; and successful completion of due
diligence (a 60-90 day period).
Commissioner Shoenberger commented that the South Palm Canyon Drive timeshare project is
Page 6 of 9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2002
a great improvement over the previous hotel and apartment uses and that it has greatly improved
and benefltted the neighborhood as, he feels, will the subject project.
Director confirmed to Commissioner Conrad that if, at the time of Final Planned Development
application, design and quality standards are not as presented today, the Planning Commission
could deny the application.
Commissioner Conrad stated that she had followed the original application very closely and
appreciates the considerable review the Planning Commission and City Council gave the project
at that time.
M/S/C (Matthews/Grence 6-0, 1 abstention)to approve subject to revised Conditions of Approval
and that the City have a Development Agreement in place with the developer prior to approval by
City Council.
CONSENT AGENDA: None
Case 3, —Application by the City of Palm Springs for the North Indian Canyon Drive Street
Improvement am for street and landscape improvements in the area bound by Granvia
Valmonte to the north—JAdian Canyon Drive to the east, Alejo Road to the south and Pa anyon
Drive to the west, to revise traffic circulation around the Francis Stevens Par mplex, where
Indian Canyon Drive and Palm you Drive switch From one-way to two- traffic circulation.
Currently, the one way/two-way traffi irculation conversion occurs at nvia Valmonte, a local
street. Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15.
Director reported that this application is part of th City's tinuing North Indian Canyon Drive
Improvement Program(which includes the area of the per Tree Inn, Indian Manor, Spanish Inn,
and the recently completed Corridor project). Her ieww plans and exhibits for the Planning
Commission. He reported that the street comp ent has twb�n edians with no canopy trees in
order to preserve the view of the park. He repo ed that the street ar' be narrowed and 12 diagonal
parking spaces will be added, similar to Are, as Road. He reported that the improvements could
be bid soon and built during this summerXie reported that moving the co let down to Alejo Road
will provide less incentive for people t e misdirected down Granvia Valmo He also reported
that the recent results received by e City regarding the Movie Colony survey sup its the concept
of these improvements. He re rted that additional neighborhood meetings will be onducted in
the future. He confirmed t t the Historic Site Preservation Board endorsed the chart,ges to the
park area in order to c e in parking spaces but made a separate motion to express c cern
regarding median d ign —stating that its preference is for no trees to be in the median in or
to preserve the v' w from Alejo Road. He confirmed that staff is comfortable that palm trees and
ground co/ot not block views.
{o�ep�Msp� CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
4<IFo N MEMORANDUM
Date: March 15, 2005
To: City Clerk m
From: Jing Yeo, Principal Planner '
Subject: Case 5.0830/ Star Canyon Appeal - ACBCI Letter
Attached is a letter from the Tribe requesting that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's decision that that final plans are not in substantial conformance with the
preliminary plans.
03/dC
c
Ibi,,A,�_ r a r �I�bLS
3200 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
TEL: (760) 323-8245 FAX: (760) 322-8360 E-MAIL: JINGY@CI.PALM-SPRINGS.CA.US
TRIBAL PLANNING, BUILDING 8i ENGINEERING
.g
March 11 , 2005
Via Facsimile and
Hand Delivered
Mayor Ronald Oden and
City Council
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: Case 5.0830, PD-260, Star Canyon Resort by Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
Dear Mayor Oden and City Council,
On May 10, 2000, after review of preliminary development plans for the above project,
the Tribal Council requested re-design of the project to comply with the Palm Springs
Zoning Ordinance high-rise standards, redistribution of the taller structures to the north
side of the project and requested any re-design be submitted to the Indian Planning
Commission for review and comment prior to City Planning Commission consideration.
A copy of that correspondence is attached.
Communication with City Director of Strategic Planning, Doug Evans, on September 23,
2004, verified that the May 2000 Tribal Council requested plan revisions were not
considered in the Preliminary Planned Development District City Council hearing
approval. On December 22, 2004, the City Planning Commission denied the Final
Development Plan application in that the submitted plans are not in substantial
conformance with the Preliminary Development Plans.
Tribal staff was not informed of the most recent City reviews, nor received plans to that
effect. City staff has indicated that the changes were architectural in nature and did not
affect the height, setbacks or overall mass and scale of the project.
Based upon inaction to the foregoing requests for plan modifications and the lack of
opportunity for Tribal staff and Council to review plan re-design and Tribal staff's
AAR 11 201
650 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS, CA 0-2262
7 760/325/3400 F 760/325/6952 AGUACALIENTE.ORG
March 11, 2005 ,
Re: Case 50830 PD 260
concurrence with the findings of the City's Planning Commission, the Tribal Council
respectfully requests denial of Case 5.0830, PD-260.
V r truly ours,
--'Th m s J. D�AICP
Chi f Planning Officer
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
/km
Attachment
C: Tribal Council
Margaret Park, Director of Planning
Gary Wayne, Interim Director of Planning Services, City of Palm Springs
Jing Yeo, Principal Planner, City of Palm Springs
P:\PrivatelLtr-TJD103110 ti r Q,anYP°F�tcl�"I'��° B A H D OF C A H U I L L A I N D I A N S
�t AG UACALI E NTE. ORG
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stantp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
No. 1320
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Appeal of Planning Commission's decision that
the final development plans are not in substantial
conformance with the preliminary planned devel-
opment district for the Star Canyon Resort
Case No. 5.0630 - PD 260
Applicant: Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEggN that the City,Council
County of Riverside 'opublic hearing at it of Palm s area Ing of(March 16, 2005.
The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 pp.m. In
the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 b. Tali-
- -'I 6any.-Way, ralm-a ge.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an ap-
peal by Fairfield Resorts, Inc of the Planning
Commission's decision that the final development
plans for the Star Canyon Resort are not In sub-
stantial conformance with the prellmmary planned
development district for the Star Canyon Resort
located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones
W-C-1 AND W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen p""..` "+'
years,and not a party to or interested in the m
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, —�-'_
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been
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
L�
u
Number 191236•>that the notice,of which the il' + c a ^rv„-�Tr�7,j-1_1 -P.I
I
annexed Is a printed copy(set in type not smaller *"
than non pariel,has been published in each regular _
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an
Y The Planning Commission found that the final de-
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: velopment plans were not consistent with the pre-
liminary planned development district because of the revised architecture, landscaping and walls
March 5d' and deficiencies In amenities, balcony space,
building articulation, building footprint, exterior
-----------___---------__-----------____--------
______ materials,trellises,ratio of undergrountl to surface
parking,-strong bulldinq connect ens, and coinpa-
rable window size.At the public hearing,the Clty
Council may uphold,override,or modify the Plan-
------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ning Commissions decision.
All in the year 2005 A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact was ppreviously approved by City Council
on May 17,20g0, In conjunction with the approval
I certify(or declare)corder penalty of perjury that the of the StarCan Resort. Pursuant to Section
15162 of the Callfornia Environmental Quality Aci
foregoing is true and Collect. (CEQA), the preparation of a Subsequent Nega-
tive Declaration, Addendum Negative Declaration,
or further documentation is not necessary be-
Dated at Palm Springs,California this----11ro----day cause the changed circumstances of the will not result in new significant envies project
mental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously Identified significant effects. These
cif------1MRrdI-------2005 changes could not result in any new environmen-
tal impacts beyond those already assessed in the
adopted adds
a tad negative declaration. The pre-
viously mat adopted MNDble f appeal, and related a cu-
City
merits are available for public review at the
___ of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services
counter, Monday to Friday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.
Signature
If any group challenges the action in court, issues III
V 9 raised may be limited to only those issues raised
k� at the public nearly described in this notice or in
prioreto the CirynCouncll hea to ring
CityClerk, at or
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all
a 4:7 interested persons to be heard.Questions ragard-
'" mg this case mayy be directed to ding Yes, Princi-
pal Planner, (76u) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con seta Carta,perfavor Ilame a
Is Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede habiar con
Nadine Pager telefono (7 0) 323-8245.
JAMES THOMSPON, City Clerk
PUB:3/5/2005
1 \ el
City of Palm Springs
k � A/ P
Office of the City Cleric
hu)pxJA.AY+UKa�p q
� 3200 E.Tahqui[z Canyon Way •,Palm Springs, California 92262
{,J.", R' 14 i Tel: (760)323-8204 • Fax:(760)322-8332 • Web:www.ci.palm-springs.caus
J
December 6, 2004
Ms. Elyse Lewis
MSA Consulting, Inc.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Ms. Lewis:
RE: Request to Appeal Planning Commission's Decision to City Council
Application by Fairfield Resorts for Star Canyon Resort
Located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA
This letter is to confirm receipt of the above referenced request accompanied by a
payment of$475.00, the fee to file for an appeal. This office will contact you with the
meeting date it shall be presented to the City Council for consideration.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathie Hart, CMC
Acting City Clerk
/kdh
w/ attach.
c: Mayor and Councilmembers, w/ attach.
David H. Ready, City Manager, w/ attach.
David Aleshire, City Attorney, w/ attach.
John S. Raymond, Director of Community & Economic Development, w/ attach.
Doug Evans, Director of Strategic Planning, w/ attach.
Jay Wiser, Fairfield Resorts, Inc., w/ attach.
Fernando Villa, Greeberg Traurig, LLC, w/ attach
Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
Page 1 of 1
Kathie Hart
From: Doug Evans
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:51 AM
To: Kathie Hart
Subject: FW: Fairfield Star Canyon City Council appeal date
FYI. We are working with Anthony Taylor on this as well as the appellant. Doug
From: Jing Yeo
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 4:57 PM
To: Doug Evans; John Raymond
Subject: Fairfield Star Canyon City Council appeal date
FYI. I spoke rth Scott Devon b cause Gary Olmeim is on vacation until January 5. He indicated that they would like
to have an rly February date r their appeal to be heard by City Council and will be sending us written notification
of that.
Jing
12/22/2004
REVISED: Case 5.0830 PD-260 -- Appeal by Fairfield Resorts re Its Application for Fina... Page 1 of 2
f 0,,4
Y p
Jay Thompson
&/ 2 i
From: Velma Burnell
t^ice � �
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:11 AM
To: Jay Thompson
Subject: FW: REVISED: Case 5.0830 PD-260 --Appeal by Fairfield Resorts re Its Application for Final Devel
Plan for Star Canyon Resort
From: DeLeon Ma@GTLAW.com [mailto:DeLeon Ma@GTLAW.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:04 PM
To: dch@wss-law.com; douglash@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; garyw@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; JohnR@ci.palm-
springs.ca.us; CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; jingy@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: VillaF@GTLAW.com; JaimeK@gtlaw.com
Subject: REVISED: Case 5.0830 PD-260 --Appeal by Fairfield Resorts re Its Application for Final Devel Plan for
Star Canyon Resort
Pursuant to the request of Fernando Villa, attached please find a copy of his letter to the City Council of the City
of Palm Springs dated March 16, 2005. This letter has been revised to correct one minor error.
<<Ltr to City Council of Palm Springs 3-16-05.pdf>>
-----Original Message-----
From: De Lean,Marta(Secy-LA-RE)
Sent: Wednesday,March 16,2005 4:51 PM
To: Douglas C. Holland(dch@wss-law.com); Douglas C. Holland(douglash@ci.palm-springs.ca.us);Gary Wayne(garyw@ci.palm-springs.ca.us);
John S. Raymond(JohnR@ci.palm-springs.ca.us);James Thompson(CityClerk@ci.palm-springs.ca.us);ling Yee dingy@cn.palm-springs.ca.us)
Cc: Villa,Fernando(Shld-LA-RE);Jaime, Kimberly M.
Subject: Case 5.0830 PD-260--Appeal by Fairfield Resorts re Its Application for Final Devel Plan for Star Canyon Resort
Pursuant to the request of Fernando Villa, attached please find a copy of his letter to the City Council of the City
of Palm Springs dated March 16, 2005.
Marta Be Leon
Assistant to Fernando Villa
P:(310)586-7855 1 F:(310)586-7800
deleonma@gtlaw.com I www GTLaw.com
Greenberg Traung,LLP 1 2450 Colorado Avenue Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404
i
Greenberg
Traurig
Albany I Amsterdam I Atlanta I Boca Raton I Boston I Chicago I Dallas I Delaware I Denver I Fort Lauderdale I Los Angeles I Miami I Now Jersey
New York I Orange County I Orlando I Philadelphia I Phoenix I Silicon Valley I Tallahassee I Tysons Corner I Washington D C. I West Palm
3/17/2005
REVISED: Case 5.0830 PD-260 -- Appeal by Fairfield Resorts re Its Application for Fina... Page 2 of 2
Beach I Zurich
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is
intended only for the use of the person(s)named above.If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited.If
you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to posun kEtei Vgl_law_con.
3/17/2005
March 16, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE,EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
The City Council of the
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Re: Case 5.0830 PD-260--Appeal By Fairfield Resorts Regarding Its Application for
Final Development Plan for the Star Canyon Resort Located at 961 South Palm
Canyon Drive, Zones W-Gl and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23
.,1b41VI
Dear Honorable Mayor Oden and Councilmembers:
f ins*rortaA
We represent Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield")in connection with the referenced
appeal from the Planning Commission's (the "Commission") denial of our client's application 10CA RATON
for the Final Development Plan for its 254-timeshare unit resort development(the "Project").
We submit this letter, along with the Final Development Plan and related materials Fairfield is
submitting concurrently, in support of Fairfield's appeal.
Gnchti
h
ulr.vrx
SUMMARY OF APPEAL
I (QRT iAUDFWAO
As addressed below,Fairfield's right to develop the Project has vested, and its Final
Development Plan substantially conforms to the Project's Preliminary Plan and its
modifications which the Commission and the City Council previously approved. As detailed
in Fairfield's appeal, the Commission thus acted wrongfully in denying the application and in
N:'i4 V:YRk
failing to provide Fairfield with any findings in support of this decision. Moreover, although
the Final Development Plan previously submitted to the Commission substantially conforms onarmr ceulvn.u,
to the Preliminary Plan, Fairfield has proposed to further modify its Final Development Plan
in satisfaction of each of the sixteen conditions which the Interim Director of Planning >„•Rn= „•.A
Services recommends the City Council attach to this entitlement in his March 16, 2005
Memorandum to the City Council. Fairfield has agreed to do so to demonstrate its
commitment to develop a first-class resort which meets or exceeds the design standards
reflected in the approved Preliminary Plan. The City Council has the power to consider and
approve the Final Development Plan even though it may differ from the version presented to rsoN r.oRNrF
the Commission for, as the City's attached Notice of City Council Meeting accurately states,
LT-FS I1ViIleN2B06]v01G'ISI0514695 0105W _
Grr-enbug Traurig,G!P I Aacrneys ar avv 1+.os.4ogele5 Office 1 2a.`•C Colorado Avenue I Su4e 40,F 1 San*a Monica,CA 40404 ww.v gaew,,um
Tel '310,58677001 Fax 910 S36.7&00
i
Page 2
"the City Council may uphold, override, or modify the Planning Commission's decision".
(Emphasis added.) Accordingly,we respectfully submit that since the Final Development
Plan is in substantial conformance, it must be approved.
II.
BACKGROUND
I. Evolution of the Project
For more than four years Fairfield and its predecessor, SCHLPS, LLC ("SCHLP"),
have worked closely and collaboratively with the City,the City's Community Redevelopment
Agency(the "Agency"), the Commission and City staff to produce a high-quality resort
development. The Project will match or strive to exceed these high standards, and will be
comprised of 254 timeshare units with pools, spas,other recreational facilities, elaborate
building, landscape and waterfall features, inner courtyards and on-site parking. The Tuscan
and Southern]European architecture of the Project will evoke images of a magnificent
European castle with such features as battered stone walls and a stone tower rising from the
boulders and landscape. The Project also features two-piece,mudded clay tile, luxury villas,
interwoven courtyards, blossom-covered wooden trellises and sun-bleached,hand-plastered
stone walls.
The Project has evolved significantly since the City Council first approved it on May
17, 2000 when SCHLPS was the Project's proponent. As originally conceived and approved,
the Project included a 198-unit hotel, 176 timeshare traits, banquet and meeting facilities,
restaurant and lounge facilities, a pool,inter courtyards and related elements. The City
Council and Planning Commission had approved SCHLPS' Preliminary Plan for the Project
which encompassed these original elements and land uses. Through a series of actions,
however, the City's various bodies have approved several modifications to the Project, the
most prominent of which was to change the Project to all timeshare use, eliminating the 198-
unit hotel, and reducing the overall intensity of use from a total of 374 combined hotel and
timeshare units to a current total of 255 timeshare units only. These approved modifications
also include, among others, eliminating the restaurant, ballroom and large kitchen, relocating
recreational facilities, meeting rooms and the spa to the former ballroom location and adding
nine timeshare units to the former spa location.
The City approved the Project's modifications in a manner which has vested
Fairfield's right to develop the Project as approved. On July 17,2002 the City Council
approved an amendment to Planned Development District 260("PD-260") which
accomplished the changes to the Project from a combined hotel and thneshare resort to a
timeshare development only as described above. On November 6,2002 the Agency amended
its Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA") with Fairfield's predecessor,
SCHLPS,to reflect these approved changes. Finally, and critically, on January 21,2004 the
LA-HIMI MM063v01W15/05W5]5 D105M
GREENBERG TRALIRIG, LLP
Page 3
City Council approved and entered into the Development Agreement with Fairfield which, in
addition to imposing fees to compensate for the loss of transient occupancy tax revenues from
the original hotel use,provides as follows:
"Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Site in accordance with, and
to the extent of, the Development Plan(including any Subsequent Development
Approvals),the Existing Land Use Regulations, and this Agreement."
The Development Agreement, § 3.1.
On April 7,2003 Fairfield purchased the Project's site and all the rights to develop the
Project from SCHLPS. As a consequence, Fairfield, in addition to its vested rights under the
Development Agreement, has succeeded in interest to all of SCHLPS' rights under the DDA
and the First Amendment thereto, PD-260, Tentative Tract Map 29692 ("TTM 29692")and
all other approvals and entitlements related to the Project.
2. Fairfreld's Final Development Plan
As the Project's current owner and proponent, Fairfield spent over a year working
closely with the City's Design Review Committee (the "DRC") and City planners to develop
and refine its Final Development Plan for the Project which would conform to the City's
approved Preliminary Plan and Project modifications. In June 2004, the DRC and Planning
Commission approved the site plan,allowing Fairfield to proceed with site engineering and
submit the Project for permits. In September 2004 the DRC reviewed the Final Development
Plan, as revised as a result of this collaborative process, and recommended that the Project
move forward for approval of the Final Development Plan.
This Plan conforms to the essential elements of the Preliminary Plan, as the City
has modified it, by:
remaining true to the original design's inspiration of a European castle, with
the main building, towers and timeshare villas maintaining their mass, scale
and height and relationship to one another built around elaborately landscaped
courtyards with pools and waterfalls, and surrounded by onsite, well-
landscaped parking areas;
• maintaining the essential architectural design and features of the original
building concept, including the wall and window design, the balconies and
trellises, the relationship of the buildings to one another and their general
locations, and the tower and battered wall elements to reinforce the Southern
European design concept; and
LA-FS IMIN M23a63 WN11%5%465]5 005 W
GRF.[iI EW;TRAURIG,LLP
Page 4
• using the same high-quality building materials as the original conceptual
design, including hand-plastered walls, stone walls, wooden trellises, two-
piece, mudded clay tile roofing, extensive use of wrought iron and window
treatments throughout the complex.
In the course of its collaborative effort with the DRC and City staff, Fairfield revised
or augmented the design and features of the Preliminary Plan: a) in cooperation with the
DRC members and City planning and engineering staff, such as increasing the setback of
Building 10,the front entry wing, from 20 feet to 60 feet from South Palm Canyon Drive,
relocating the secondary driveway approach off of Belardo Road and deleting the secondary
driveway at South Palm Drive;b)to provide the detail lacking in the Preliminary Plan, which
was essentially a conceptual plan,as a natural, more final evolution of that concept; and c) to
reflect the approved change in use from a combined hotel and timeshare rise to an exclusive
timeshare resort.
The latter revisions were necessitated by the City's approved change in the Project's
use from hotelAimeshare mixed-use to timeshare use only. This change in use requires some
modifications to building exteriors and related elements, as described below:
As Allen Thatcher of Fairfield explained at the October 11, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting,the design, flow and layout of the interior space of a timeshare unit
vary fundamentally from that of the interior space of a hotel room consistent with the resort
industry's building standards. A timeshare unit is essentially a residence, and must contain
the living space elements of a residence, including separate bedrooms, closets, kitchen, living
room and bathrooms. In sharp contrast, a typical hotel room flows directly from the unit's
entrance to its exterior wall, has no separation between the sleeping quarters and the
remainder of the unit, except for a closet and bathroom, and is much smaller than a timeshare
unit. As a consequence, most ofa hotel room's exterior wall consists of either Arindows or
glass doors and often, a balcony. By contrast, as a residence, a timeshare bedroom will have
a window only,allowing for furniture arrangement, and may also include a door to a balcony
off the living room. Moreover,the differing floor plans of a hotel room and timeshare unit,
which has a much larger square footage requirement than a hotel room, also affect the
exterior design, form and footprint of the building. Finally,timeshare units and hotel rooms
have different access and common area standards, with hotel rooms generally having
enclosed hallways and connections between buildings, and timeshare units having exposed
hallways and building connectors. In summary, the sharply contrasting interior design
requirements of timeshare units and hotel rooms greatly influence: a) a building's exterior
design, such as the size, number and treatment of windows and use of balconies; b)the
design, shape and footprint of a building; and c)and the design and look of common areas,
including hallways and building connectors.
LA8511Vd1aF 2S063v01Ul15/05',465501050p
GitL,EN13RRc Te.raare, T,LP
Page 5
In other words, form truly follows function when it comes to designing timeshare and
hotel traits in the resort industry. Fairfield has in its Final Development Plan followed this
principle to the extent this Plan reflects modifications to the Preliminary Plan's exterior
building design, articulation, building shape, footprint and layout and the buildings' hallways
and connectors necessitated by the Project's exclusive time share use, without changing the
design intent of the original design. As can be seen, since the Project now only has a
timeshare use, the Final Development Plan could not, functionally and architecturally,
identically conform to the Preliminary Plan's original combined hotel and timeshare use
concept. Since the City Council,the Commission and the Agency have each approved the
change to a timeshare use only from a hotel and timeshare mixed-use, with the hotel use
predominating the original concept, Fairfield's changes conform to the letter and spirit of the
Preliminary Plan and the approved change in use. The Final Development Plan substantially
conforms to the Preliminary Plan, as modified by the City, and it must thus be approved.
Between September 8, 2004 and November 22, 2004, the Commission held four
meetings to consider the Final Development 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 Development Plan to incorporate the City's
comments. Nevertheless, the Commission on November 22, 2004 denied the Final
Development Plan. On December 6, 2005 Fairfield appealed the Commission's decision to
the City Council. Fairfield requested the Commission to provide findings of fact which
support this decision. Our client, however,has yet to receive any such findings or any
information as to the reasons for the Commission's wrongful decision.
III.
DISCUSSION
I. The Final Development Plan Must Be Approved If It Substantially
Conforms to and Logically Evolves From the Project's Preliminary Plan
As Modified
The City's own Zoning Code, consistent with California law, requires the approval of
Fairfield's Final Development Plan so long as it substantially conforms to the modified
Preliminary Plan. Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Code, which governs Planted
Development Districts, including PD-260 here, requires the submittal of a final development
plan to the Commission for approval, and states that the final plan "shall be in substantial
conformance"with the approved preliminary plan, and shall incorporate "all modifications
and conditions to the preliminary plan"made by the Commission and the City Council. In
circumstances similar to the matter here, California Courts have held that where an agency's
orily role is to determine whether a final map is in"substantial compliance" with an approved
tentative map,the agency's approval becomes ministerial, leaving that agency little, if any,
LA-F51\VJIaN26003�0 U/15IOS9695,0105W
GRI,F,NBrtRG TH ATAUG, LLP
Page 6
room for discretion or judgment. Findleton v. El Dorado Co. Board of Supervisors, 12
Cal.App. 4'h 709 (1993). That result is especially compelled where, as here, an applicant's
right to develop the project is vested, and the applicant has complied with every requirement
for project approval, as Fairfield and its predecessor have done in obtaining: (a) the City's
approval of the Preliminary Plan, the Project's change in use and the Development
Agreement, and (b)the DRC's approval of the site plan and recommendation of approval of
the Final Development Plan. See California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5;see
also the Development Agreement, Section 3.1.
Likewise, the Final Development Plan must be approved if it represents a "logical
evolution" of the previously approved Preliminary Plan and Project changes. In establishing
the procedure for approval of"preliminary and final drawings", Section 5.16(b) of the
parties' DDA states that"plans . . . ivill be approved if[they are] a logical evolution of plans,
drawings or specifications previously approved". (Emphasis added).
As demonstrated below,the Final Development Plan not only substantially conforms
to the Preliminary Plan and its modifications which the City Council and Commission
previously approved, it represents a logical evolution of the Preliminary Plan. Accordingly,
the Final Development Plan must be approved.
2. The Final Development Plan Must be Approved Because it Substantially
Conforms to and Logically Evolves From the Modified Preliminary Plan
a) The Final Development Plan Submitted to the Commission
Fairfield's Final Development Plan, as presented to and considered by the
Commission, substantially conforms to the modified Preliminary Plan by:
• remaining true to the original design's inspiration of a European castle, with
the main building,towers and timeshare villas maintaining their mass, scale
and height and relationship to one another built around elaborately landscaped
courtyards with pools and waterfalls, and surrotmded by onsite, well-
landscaped parking areas;
• maintaining the essential architectural design and features of the original
building concept, including the wall and window design, the balconies and
trellises, the relationship of the buildings to one another and their general
locations, and the tower and battered wall elements to reinforce the Southern
European design concept; and
• using the same high-quality building materials as the original conceptual
design,including hand-plastered walls, stone walls, wooden trellises, two-
LA-FS AV d1aF3as063wWfl 905K4075 010500
GRFFNRMI c TRAUAIG, LLP
Page 7
piece, mudded barrel tile roofing, extensive use of wrought iron and window
treatments throughout the complex.
Moreover, the Final Development Plan signifies a logical evolution of the
modified Preliminary Plan in that the former Plan, including all its drawings, site plan,
and building elevations, is a permit-ready document providing exact improvement
specifications,building materials and finishes, and precise landscape, grading, parking,
public infrastructure and utility plans and drawings. The modified Preliminary Plan, by
contrast, was conceptual in nature and lacked such details. The Final Development
Plan's more detailed,permit-ready drawings nevertheless embody the principal
architectural concept and features, site plan design and building materials presented in
the modified Preliminary Plan, as discussed above.
Accordingly, as it substantially conforms to the modified Preliminary Plan and
logically evolves from that Plan, the Final Development Plan should have been
approved by the Commission, and it was reversible error for that body's failure to do
so. See the City's Zoning Code Section 94,03.00;Findleton v. El Dorado Co. Board of
Supervisors, supra; the DDA, Section 5.16(b).
What differences lie between the Final Development Plan and the modified
Preliminary Plan do not undermine the substantial conformity between the two plans.
As stated earlier,these differences,none material, arise from three principal sources: a)
the Project's revisions made with the input and cooperation of the DRC and City
planning and engineering staff; b) added details lacking in the conceptual Preliminary
Plan but required to be included in the Final Development Plan; and c) modifications
necessitated by the City-approved change in the Project's use from a combined hotel
and timeshare use to timeshare use only. The above discussion in this Section
addresses those Project details which the Final Development Plan was required to add
but which the conceptual Preliminary Plan lacked. The following analysis
demonstrates why changes resulting from the City's direction or the approved change
in use reinforce,not compromise, the Final Development Plan's conformity with the
modified Preliminary Plan.
The DRC and City staff worked with Fairfield to make the following changes,
which are reflected in the Final Development Plan submitted to the Commission:
1. Bringing the buildings closer together in the east/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.
LA-FS[lV,11.PJ28063,,DIW15N5 6505 O10500
GREENBkBG Txn MG, LLP
Page 8
2. Replacement of the out-parcel restaurant, the deletion of which the City
has approved, with concealed parking and an increase in landscaped
open space, an increase which the then Director of Planning requested.
3. Deletion of the secondary driveway approach from South Palm Canyon
Drive, which the City's traffic engineer considered an improved
condition.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
All of these changes are in substantial conformity with the modified
Preliminary Plan and were made with the input and cooperation of the DRC and City
staff.
Fairfield also made other modifications primarily to reflect the City-approved
change in use to an.exclusive timeshare use. These include the following:
1. Minor changes were made to building exteriors and elevations,
including a reduction in some window spaces, slightly different window
and wall features, building layout and building connectors. Fairfield
made these changes to design building exteriors, layout and connectors
to accommodate the interior design requirements of timeshares,which
vary greatly from those of hotel mots, as detailed above. Since the City
has approved this change in use, and since these changes are necessary
to accommodate this change in use, these changes are in substantial
LA.F$I\VillaN28063%-0I\L15/05146595 01050
Ga,F,NBrRG TaAuaCG, LLP
Page 9
conformity with the Preliminary Plan as the City has modified it to
accommodate the Project's exclusive timeshare use.
2. The pool areas have been changed, but they remain in substantial
conformance with the pool's original design. The pool was redesigned
in part to reflect the exclusive timeshare use and the pool design which
works harmoniously with such a use versus a hotel-driven pool design.
Finally, a small number of 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, do not materially affect the original
Project's overall design and concept. Indeed,the DRC reviewed and agreed to these
revisions.
Since the Final Development Plan presented to the Commission substantially
conforms to and logically evolves from the modified Preliminary Plan, and because the
changes made do not undermine this conformity, the Commission should have
approved Fairfield's Plan. It was an abuse of discretion and reversible error for the
Commission not to have done so.
b) The Revised Final Development Plan Before the City Council
Although the Final Development Plan acted upon by the Commission is in
substantial conformance, Fairfield proposes to modify its entitlement to incorporate
each of the sixteen conditions which the Interim Planning Director recommends
including in this Plan. Fairfield does so to demonstrate its commitment to develop a
first-class resort which meets or exceeds the design standards reflected in the approved
Preliminary Plan, and to working in good faith and collaboratively with the City.
On December 16,2004 and again in February and March 2005, Fairfield
representatives discussed with City staff issues which the City may have with any of
the Plan's features. Fairfield did so with the intent of identifying and resolving any
remaining concerns the City may have, especially because the Commission did not
identify in what fashion that body believed the Final Development Plan was wanting,
either during any of the Commission hearings held on the Final Development Plan, or
in any findings provided since. As stated above, Fairfield to date has not received any
such Commission findings.
These Fairfield/City discussions produced a framework of conditions which
City staff stated addressed the City's remaining concerns with the Final Development
Plan. The Interim Planning Director's March 16th memorandum to the City Council
L.bF5I1VilIaF532806Jv01�31tl1O51A45]5010500
GREEMraG TRAU RIG,LLP
Page 10
memorializes (at page 1)those conditions, which he "recommends that Council include
[in] the modified final development plans".
Fairfield proposes to incorporate each of these conditions into its Final
Development Plan as follows (the numbers below correspond to the condition numbers
in the March 16a' memorandum):
1. Fairfield will leave two lanes as originally designed. If the City desires
to have a single lane to increase landscape space,Fairfield would have a modified
traffic study prepared to show whether one exit lane could accommodate the vehicle
stacking requirements for the Project's traffic volume.
2. Fairfield agrees to include a building mass south of the entry wing and
make it appear as a real building rather than a facade consistent with the terms of this
condition.
3. Fairfield agrees to redesign the referenced arches as stated in this
condition. Our client has confirmed with the City's Fire Marshall that this redesign
would not hinder or block fire tracks driving under the arches, Fairfield's principal
concern with this proposed redesign.
4. Fairfield agrees to continue the articulation of the building mass
throughout the Project in a manner architecturally compatible with Building 10.
5., 6. and 7. Fairfield agrees to comply with the terms of each of these
conditions.
8. Fairfield agrees to strengthen and restudy the connections at each phase.
9. and 10. Fairfield agrees to comply with the terms of each of these conditions.
11. Fairfield agrees to add this condition.
12. Fairfield agrees to provide the wrought iron railings as presented and
accepted at the November 10,2004 Commission hearing on its Final Development
Plan.
13. Fairfield agrees to the terms of this condition.
14, Fairfield agrees to provide the stone described in this condition, and to
provide a mock-tip on-site for approval.
15. Fairfield agrees to add this condition.
�-,�-rSiwHiarareorawiuns!osaesis mason
Gaet m;exG TRAURIG,LL,P
Page 11 y
16. Fairfield agrees to provide the pad elevations as delineated on the
approved site plan.
Thus, while the Final Development Plan before the Commission is itself in
substantial conformance, Fairfield nevertheless agrees to incorporate all sixteen of the
above conditions. Our client does so to show its unequivocal commitment to produce a
bigh-quality timeshare resort which meets or exceeds the design elements of the
approved Preliminary Plan and PDD. Having surpassed the "substantial conformance"
standard and undertaken extraordinary effort to meet the City's goals for the Project,
Fairfield respectfully requests that the City Council approve the Final Development
Plan.
Fairfield looks forward to working with the City to successfully complete its
Project,provide the community with a first-class resort, expand employment
opportunities and generate City revenues in the form of fees and tax increments.
Sincerely,
Fernando Villa
Enclosure
cc: Douglas H. Holland,Esq. (via e-mail only w/encl.)
Mr. Gary Wayne (via e-mail only w/encl.)
Mr. John Raymond(via e-mail only w/encl.)
Mr. James Thompson (via e-mail and facsimile w/encl.)
Ms. Jing Yeo (via e-mail only w/encl.)
LA-f51lViIlaN29063wN/li/OSWfi5t5 010500
Giir,FNBEi(c TnAURIG, LLP