Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/16/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (10) DATE: February 16, 2005 TO: City Council FROM: Interim Director of Planning Services CASE NO. 5.0830 PD260 TTM29691 - APPLICATION BY FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC. FOR A TIME EXTENSION FROM JANUARY 30, 2005 TO JANUARY 30, 2006 FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691, AN APPLICATION FOR 254 TIMESHARE UNITS LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve a ninety-day time extension from January 30, 2005 to April 30, 2006 for the Star Canyon Resort, Planned Development District 260 (PD 260) and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691), subject to the original conditions of approval adopted May 17, 2000. The subject property is located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23, SUMMARY At their January 26, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 (1 abstention)to extend TTM 29691 and PD-260 for 90 days to April 30, 2005 in order to allow the applicant time to prepare exhibits for the appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the final development plans. Staff's recommendation was for a one-year time extension to January 30, 2006 in order to allow the applicant adequate time to potentially revise plans and to complete the final map process. At this time, it is staffs understanding that the applicant is continuing to request that the City Council not accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and consider extending TTM 29691 and PD- 260 for one year to January 30, 2006. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a third time extension of Case No. 5.0830- Planned Development District 260 and Tentative Tract Map 29691. The reasons for the time extension are detailed in the request for time extension submitted by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts. Although the applicant's original written request was for a two-year time extension, Section 9.63.110(c) of the Palm Springs Municipal Code states that, "any extension(s) of tentative map approval or conditional approval shall not exceed a total of twelve months". Therefore, the maximum time that the City Council could approve with this time extension would be one year to January 30, 2006. The project is located west of South Palm Canyon Drive between the Rock Garden restaurant and the Tahquitz Creek Channel to the north, unimproved Belardo Road to the west, and Mac McGruder Chevrolet to the south. The 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, f E:�A 2• J5 ' 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. On November 6, 2002 the DDA between the Agency and developer was amended to reflect the operational changes in the project and several of the deal points. On January 29, 2003, the City Council voted to approve the second time extension of PD-260 and TTM 29691 to January 30, 2005. The additional time was needed in order for the applicant to continue negotiations regarding financing and construction of the project. The decline in hotel occupancy and in average daily room rates over the past two years had made the financing of the hotel portion of the project increasingly difficult. The 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. Subsequent to that approval, the final development plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee several times before the architecture was denied by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2004. Fairfield Resorts filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on December 6, 2004. Fairfield Resorts last met with City staff in December 2004 and have been working towards some possible revisions to the plans in preparation for a City Council meeting where their appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be heard. At this time, the time extension is being requested in order for Fairfield Resorts to continue working through the process for approval of the final subdivision map and final development plans. 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. Inter7irec or—of Plan 'ng Services City Manager ' r ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Request for time extension by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts 3. Draft Resolution Greenberg Traurig January 7, 2005 Fernando Villa (310) 586-7848 villaf@gtlaw.com VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Vice Chairman Jon Shoenberger Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Taliquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Re: Case 5,0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") Planned Development District# 260 Tentative Tract Map # 29691 Dear Vice Chainnan Shoenberger: On November 22, 2004, I submitted a letter requesting a two (2) year time extension for Planned Development District 9260 and for Tentative Tract Map # 29691 for the above referenced Project on behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"). Please see the attached November 22"d letter request and its attachments. As of the date of this letter, neither Fairfield nor Greenberg Traurig has received notice of any action taken, including any hearing set, in response to this request. An associate from my office contacted Jing Yeo shortly after we submitted the request to confirm receipt of the request and the required fee, and Jing confirmed receipt of both. In addition, Jing informed us that the Plamring Department would be meeting on Thursday, December 16ti to internally discuss the status of the Project and that the request would be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda shortly thereafter. My office has made several recent attempts to have the matter heard and acted upon by the Planning Commission as soon as practicable, but we have yet to receive any response. As I explained in the initial request, immediate action by the Planning Commission is required in order to protect Fairfield's entitlements, to afford our client due process and to comply with applicable law. We request that the extension request be added to the Planning Commission's hearing agenda as soon as possible, but in no event later than January 13, 2005. If the Planning Commission fails to set Fairfield's request for a hearing and to act on this request before January 13, 2005, Fairfield would have no choice but to ryry Goo �i'C R E C F V JAN HUS LA-FS1\316067v01\46575.010500 ,, `}G y Greenberg Traurig,LIP I Attorneys at Lava I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 1 Tel 310586%700 ax S 10 58h"/SOOT tvAwgllaw.com Vice Chairman Jon Shoenberger Planning Commission January 7, 2005 Page 2 pursue all available legal remedies to preserve its vested rights, including, but not limited to, seeking immediate City Council action and filing an action in court. Fairfield looks forward to the Planning Commission's prompt response and appropriate action. VFernando Villa cc: Mr. Jolur Raymond (via Email and Facsimile w/encls.) Mr. David Aleshire, Esq. (via Email and Facsimile w/enels.) LA-PS1\316067v01\46575.010500 GBLCNBLRG TBAUBIG, LLP vlaSbo Greenberg � COPY i 9 November 22, 2004 Fernando Villa (310)586-7846 villaf(Mptlaw.com VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs 3200 F. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attention: Vice Chairman Shoenberger Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort (the "Project") Planned Development District # 260 Tentative Tract Map# 29691 Dear Vice Chairman Shoenberger: On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"), we hereby request a two (2) year time extension of Planned Development District# 260 (the "PDD") and Tentative Tract Map# 29691 (the "Tentative Map"). As detailed, below, good cause exists for granting this extension, in view of Fairfield's diligent, extensive efforts to prepare its final development plans (collectively, the "Final Plan") and to seek approval of the Final Plan for the Project from the City of Palm Springs (the "City"). Accordingly, the Commission must grant this request. Please note that on January 29, 2003 the City's City Council (the "City Council') previously approved an extension of time for the PDD and the Tentative Map up to and including January 30, 2005. Please see the attached copy of the City Council's Resolution No. 20537 evidencing this extension. For nearly two years, Fairfield has worked diligently with the City's engineering and planning staff, with the Design Review Committee (the "DRC") and with the City's Planning Commission(the "Commission"), in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan for the Star Canyon Resort. Despite Fairfield's diligent, good faith efforts,the Final Plan has not yet been approved by the Commission, and the January 30, 2005 expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map, as reflected in the enclosed Resolution, is quickly approaching. This expiration date is superseded by the City's own Zoning Code, which provides that the PDD must remain in effect coextensively with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City's Community Redevelopment Agency and Fairfield (the "DDA"). See Section 94.030.00(I)(3) of the City's Zoning Code. Nevertheless, Fairfield requests an extension of this expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map as stated in the attached LA-FSI\309720v03 Greenberg Trau rig,LLP I Attorneys a Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 904041 Tel 310 586 7700 1 Fax 310.S86.7800 I www.gtlaw.com Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 2 Resolution to avoid any confusion or uncertainty concerning this matter, and does so without waiver of any of its vested and other rights under the DDA,the Development Agreement between the City and Fairfield and all other applicable agreements, laws and regulations. I. Good Cause Exists to Grant this Re nest in That Fairfield has Dili .nth,Sou ht to Finalize and Obtain A royal of the Final Plan Prior to the PDD Ex iration Date. On April 7, 2003, Fairfield acquired the Project site, along with all interests in the related approvals and entitlements, from SCHLPS, LLC, the original Project proponent. Even before that date, representatives from Fairfield were in contact with City staff, with an eye towards moving forward with the Project as soon as practicable. Since that time, Fairfield has continued to work closely with the City planning staff and Commission in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan. In furtherance of this goal, Fairfield has, among other things: • Met in person with planning and engineering staff and the DRC on a regular basis to present and discuss plans and design issues and respond to staff and DRC comments and concerns, including meetings in June, August, September, November and December of 2003, and February, March, April,May, June, July and August of 2004. • Met with other City staff, including meetings in March, April, and July of 2004, to discuss various planning and design issues. • Submitted proposed plans and drawings to planning staff and DRC on a regular basis, including submittals made in June,August, September, November and December of 2003, and March, May, June, July and August of 2004. Many refinements and modifications were made to the Final Plan in direct response to the guidance and suggestions of the planning staff and the DRC after review of Fairfield's submittals. On more than one occasion Fairfield was told that the design was on track and that Fairfield should continue in the same direction. • Coordinated with planning staff to submit site plan to Commission, which site plan was approved by the Commission at the June 23, 2004 Commission meeting. • After obtaining planning staff and DRC endorsement of the Final Plan, attended Commission meetings on September 8, 2004, October 13, 2004 and November 10, 2004. In response to the Commission's questions and concerns, and in the spirit of cooperation, Fairfield has prepared and submitted supplemental materials above and beyond the normal scope of Final Plans. Additionally, Fairfield representatives have traveled from Florida to attend each of these Commission meetings in order to ensure that any issues raised by the Commission may be addressed promptly and in person. LA•FS 1130972Dv03 Greenberg Traung,LLP �Q Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 3 II. An Extension of the PDD and Tentative Mau is Necessary at This Time to Protect Fairfield's Entitlements. As the above discussion demonstrates, Fairfield has undertaken extensive efforts and incurred significant expense in diligently pursuing completion and approval of the Final Plan in cooperation with the City. The collaborative process with the City staff, the DRC and the Commission has been a much lengthier and involved process than anticipated. As detailed in our November 10, 2004 letter to the Commission and in our presentation to the Commission at its November I O'h hearing, this collaborative process with the City has yielded a Final Plan which not only substantially conforms with the Preliminary Plan the Commission and City Council previously approved for the Project, it is truer to the original Southern European castle design than was the Preliminary Plan, and reflects an improvement over the former plan. Fairfield seeks to protect its vested rights during the time the Commission deliberates and acts upon the Final Plan and avoid any uncertainty over the period of vesting by requesting this extension in view of the fast-approaching January 30, 2005 expiration date stated in the attached Resolution. In addition, Fairfield requests a concurrent extension of Tentative Tract Map #29691 for a period of two (2) additional years. Fairfield intended to submit the Final Subdivision Map to the City's Engineer following the Commission's approval of the Final Plan to coordinate with obtaining the Project's building plans, which Fairfield understands is the City's custom and practice. Because Fairfield is still working with the City staff and the Commission in obtaining Final Plan approval, the Final Subdivision Map has not been submitted. While Fairfield is in a position to submit the map within the next few weeks, it is unlikely that the Map approval process would be completed prior to the January 30, 2005 expiration. For all the foregoing reasons, good cause exists to grant this request for an extension of the PDD and the Tentative Map. The request should thus be granted. Sincerely, Fernando Villa cc: John Raymond Doug Evans David Aleshire LA-FS 1\309720V03 Gq Greenberg Traurig,LLP � r a RESOLUTION! NO, 20537 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME;EXTENSION FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT, CASE NO. 5.0830-PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260(PD-260)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691 (TTM 29691), FROM MAY 17, 2003 TO JANUARY 30,2005, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, BETWEEN SUNNY DUNES ROAD TO THE NORTH, MESQUITE AVENUE TO THE SOUTH,AND SOUTH BELARDO ROAD TO THE WEST,W-C-1 AND W-R-3 ZONES, SECTIONS 22 AND 23. WHEREAS,Palm Springs New Millennium(Star Canyon Villas),(the"Appllcanr)request approval of a time extension for Case No.5.0830-Planned Development District 260(PD-260)and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691) for property located west of South Palm Canyon Drive, between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue:to the south, and South Belardc Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3 zones, Sections 22 and 23.; and WHEREAS,the Applicant has requested additional time to May 17,2004,to continue negotiations with Interested parties regarding financing and construction of the project; and WHEREAS,on April 24,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and , WHEREAS, on May 18 2002, the City Council voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and WHEREAS,on July 10,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Planned Development District, to change the land uses from hotel and time share to all timeshare; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, the City Council voted to approve an amendment to the Planned Development District, to change the land uses from hotel and time share to all timeshare; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council grant a time extension on from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2003, a public meeting on the request for a time extension from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004 for PD-260 and!TTM 29691 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council carefully reviewed ar(d considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, includirig but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. l qL3 Resolution 20537 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, after considering the evidence provided at the meeting, does hereby approve a time extension from May 17, 2003 to January 30, 2005,for Case No. 5.0830-PD-260 and TTM 29691. ADOPTED this 29th day of January, 2003. AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Kleindienst NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRlNqGqSfdALIF0RNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: I HERE$Y CERTIFY T�FOREGOING IS A TRUE COFY OF RESOLUTION No. " �7"7 DULYADOFTEDBYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS INA 7�3 THEREOF HELD ON THE. ._DAY OF,�.�f DATED A'C PALM SFRIN qS'gALIFORNIA LJ UM F� � DAY OI1tiG-u<after ,b DEPUTYCITYCLERK OF CAUPORMA �I Page 3 ------- IC �� N.T.S. 2 RNMON MAD GN7/NU Piik''OWI-A 4�c SLINKY DUNCE ROvfO tj IPAiCR5/OC DRAlC ne ' M 50U11'C MCNUC P�o.�cr • trf �+ CITY - OF PALM; SPRING10200, 1 CASE .N O. �A830(PD 260� An arnat« nant b Plarxtad dawloPn ant rrhl 2%91 a,a Iha Mated Tantauw n K zuea>I,o coewtt APPLICANT usehai IN b7Yl�► unlbaaaotharmluathuNoue PALM 5PR/NG5 NCW arnMtd�anb,at uw Stu C== loaibd at South Palm MILLCNNit/M DCVCLOPMCNr,OvG, Ca"Y0"'�"bat""'n p"'Tahqulf;�'ny°n Wash b uN north, /Z Mapuib Awnua b Nn toulh Saufh Palm Canyon Odw to the Greenberg Traurig February 16, 2005 Fernando Villa (310)586-7848 villaf@gtlaw.com VIA HAND DELIVERY The City Council of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort (the "Project"): Planned Development District# 260; Tentative Tract Map# 29691 —City Council Meeting Agenda Item 2.13. ALRANY AMSTERDAM Dear Honorable Councilmembers: ATLANTA On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"), we reiterate Fairfield's request to BOCA RATON extend the time for the referenced Planned Development District(the "PDD") and Tentative ROSTON Tract Map (the "TTM") for two years up to and including January 30, 2007. As set forth in CHICAGO Fairfield's original request for this extension submitted November 22, 2004, good cause DALLAS exists for granting this request for all the reasons set forth in that original request and in the DENVER February 16, 2005 report to the City Council from the Interim Director of Planning Services (the "Report") for this agenda item. Please find attached copies of the November 22, 2004 FORT LAUDERDALE extension request and related correspondence dated January 7 and 27, 2005. LOS ANGELES MIAMI In requesting a two-year extension we respectfully disagree with the Planning NEW JERSEY Commission's recommendation of a 90-day extension for the following reasons: NEW YORX ORANGE COUNTY,CA First, good cause—the legal standard which pertains to this request—exists in view of Fairfield's diligent efforts to prepare and seek approval of its final development plan. ORLANDO Please see Section 94.03.00 of the City's Zoning Code and the enclosed November 22, 2004 PHILADELPHIA letter. PHOENIX SILICON VALLEY Second, the referenced 90-day period would be an insufficient amount of time to TALLAHASSEE enable Fairfield to "revise plans and complete the final map process", as the Report (at page TYSONS CORNER 1) describes. Indeed, the City's Planning staff had recommended a one-year extension"in order to allow the applicant adequate time"to undertake this process. The Report at page 1. WASHINGTON,DC. We agree with the planning staff s conclusions. Fairfield would not have enough time WEST PALM REACH within 90-days to meet with staff to evaluate and revise the final development plans, present WILMINGTON ZURICH LA-FSl\323782v01\99971,158424 :E-r-um 0.6 Creenberg Traurig,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 www.gtlaw corn Tel 310.586,7700 1 Fax 310.586.7800 The City Council of the City of Palm Springs February 16, 2005 Page 2 its case to the City Council on its appeal, obtain building permits pursuant to the final development plans if the City Council approves them, and commence construction. Armed with only a 90-day reprieve, Fairfield in all likelihood would need to submit another request to the City Council. Accordingly, we ask the City Council provide a two-year extension, or alternatively, a minimum of a one-year extension. Third, the City Council has the power to provide up to a five-year extension of the TTM and PDD under Government Code Section 66452.6(a)(1) and(e), which enables the City Council to extend the time "for a period or periods not exceeding a total of five years . . . in addition to" a tentative tract map's original 24-month period and one 12-month extension. Since, as the Report indicates, the TTM here has had a 12-month extension of the original 24- month period, the City Council may grant an extension of up to five years under Section 66452.6(a)(1)and (e). In this regard, we respectfully disagree with the Report's conclusion that the City's Municipal Code limits the period of an extension to 12 months. We will appear at today's City Council meeting at which we derstand the City Council will consider and decide upon the extension reque cerely, Fernando Villa cc: Mr. John Raymond (via e-mail) Mr. Douglas Holland, Esq. (via e-mail) Ms. Jing Yeo (via e-mail) Each without enclosures LA-F51\323782v01\99971.158424 GREENBERG TRAIIRIG, LLP Greenberg Traurig January 27, 2005 Fernando Villa (310)586-7848 villaf@gtlaw.com VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Douglas C. Holland,Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 701 South Parker Street, Suite 8000 Orange, CA 92868-4760 Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") Planned Development District#260 Tentative Tract Map# 29691 ALBANY AMSTERDAM Dear Mr. Holland: ATLANTA BOCA RATON This letter memorializes the agreement reached yesterday by the City of Palm BOSTON Springs (the "City") and Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield")regarding the referenced CHICAGO Planned Development District(the "PDD") and the Tentative Tract Map (the "TTM"). DAL-As to The City and Fairfield agree that: a)the TTM will not expire until the earlier of the DENVER 60 day after January 30, 2005 or the date on which the City Council approves, FORT LAUDERDALE conditionally approves or denies Fairfield's pending application to extend the TTM and LOS ANGELES PDD; b) the PDD will not expire unless and until Fairfield fails to commence substantial MIAMI construction prior to the termination of(i)the Disposition and Development Agreement(the NEW JERSEY "DDA") between the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs (the "Agency") and SCHLPS, LLC, Fairfield's predecessor for this project, and/or(ii)the TTM; NEwYGRN and c)notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City Council denies the application to extend the ORANGE`OUNI CA TTM and PDD,these entitlements will remain in effect until the date on which applicable ORLANDO statutes of limitation would bar the filing of an action in court to appeal from such a denial. PHILADELPHIA PHOENIX The City and Fairfield base their agreement on the following considerations: a) Fairfield submitted its application to extend the TTM and PDD in November 2004; b) on wcoN VALLEY January 26, 2005 the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council TALLAHASSEE approve a 90-day extension of the PDD and TTM; c)the PDD will not expire so long as TYSONS CORNER Fairfield commences substantial construction before the termination of the DDA and/or the WASHINGTON,AC. TTM under Section 20 of the First Amendment to the DDA and Section 94.03.00.I.3. of the WEST PALM BEACH WILMINGTON LA-FS I\320461vo l\99971.I58424 ZURICH Greenberg Traung,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 90404 www.gtlaw.com Tel 310 586.7700 1 Fax 310 586,7800 Douglas C. Holland, Esq. January 27, 2005 Page 2 City's Zoning Code; and d) the City and Fairfield desire to avoid litigation during the pendency of Fairfield's request for the referenced extension. If the foregoing terms meet with your understanding of the arties' agreement,please sign the acknowledgement below. I appreciate your profession c esy and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely Fernando Villa ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On behalf of the City of Palm Springs, I have read the foregoing terms of this letter, and I acknowledge that they accurately reflect the agreement referenced therein. By: Douglas C. Holland,Esq. City Attorney City of Palm Springs cc: Mr. John Raymond Ms. Jing Yeo LA-FS 1\320461 W 1 W 9971.158424 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Greenberg Traurig January 7, 2005 Femando Villa (310)586-7848 villaf@gtlaw.com VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Vice Chairman Jon Shoenberger Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") Planned Development District# 260 Tentative Tract Map# 29691 Dear Vice Chairman Shoenberger: On November 22, 2004, I submitted a letter requesting a two (2) year time extension for Planned Development District#260 and for Tentative Tract Map# 29691 for the above referenced Project on behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"). Please see the attached November 22"d letter request and its attachments. As of the date of this letter, neither Fairfield nor Greenberg Traurig has received notice of any action taken, including any hearing set, in response to this request. An associate from my office contacted Jing Yeo shortly after we submitted the request to confirm receipt of the request and the required fee, and Jing confirmed receipt of both. In addition,Jing informed us that the Planning Department would be meeting on Thursday, December 16d'to internally discuss the status of the Project and that the request would be placed on the Planning Commission's agenda shortly thereafter. My office has made several recent attempts to have the matter heard and acted upon by the Planning Commission as soon as practicable, but we have yet to receive any response. As I explained in the initial request, immediate action by the Planning Commission is required in order to protect Fairfieldrs entitlements,to afford our client due process and to comply with applicable law. We request that the extension request be added to the Planning Commission's hearing agenda as soon as possible, but in no event later than January 13,2005. If the Planning Commission fails to set Fairfield's request for a hearing and to act on this request before January 13,2005,Fairfield would have no choice but to LA-FS 11316067vW46575.010500 Greenberg Traurig,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 904041 Tel 310.586.7700I Fax 310.586.78001 w .gtlawconn Vice Chairman Jon Shoenberger Planning Commission January 7, 2005 Page 2 pursue all available legal remedies to preserve its vested rights, including, but not limited to, seeking immediate City Council action and filing an action in court. Fairfield looks forward to the Planning Commission's prompt response and appropriate action. Fernando Villa cc: Mr. John Raymond(via Email and Facsimile w/encls.) Mr. David Aleshire,Esq. (via Email and Facsimile w/encls.) LA-FS 1\316067v01A6575.010500 GREENBERG TRAURiG,LLP : 41�575. vlv�� Greenberg FILE COPY Traurig November 22, 2004 Fernando Mile (310)6W7848 vllldopdow.00m VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attention: Vice Chairman Shoenberger Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") Planned Development District# 260 Tentative Tract Map#29691 Dear Vice Chairman Shoenberger: On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield'),we hereby request a two (2)year time extension of Planned Development District#260(the "PDD")and Tentative Tract Map#29691 (the"Tentative Map"). As detailed, below, good cause exists for granting this extension,in view of Fairfield's diligent, extensive efforts to prepare its final development plans (collectively,the "Final Plan") and to seek approval of the Final Plan for the Project from the City of Palm Springs (the"City"). Accordingly, the Commission must grant this request. Please note that on January 29, 2003 the City's City Council (the "City Council') previously approved an extension of time for the PDD and the Tentative Map up to and including January 30, 2005. Please see the attached copy of the City Council's Resolution No. 20537 evidencing this extension. For nearly two years,Fairfield has worked diligently with the City's engineering and planning staff, with the Design Review Committee(the "DRC")and with the City's Planning Commission(the"Commission"),in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan for the Star Canyon Resort. Despite Fairfield's diligent, good faith efforts,the Final Plan has not yet been approved by the Commission, and the January 30, 2005 expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map, as reflected in the enclosed Resolution,is quickly approaching. This expiration date is superseded by the City's own Zoning Code,which provides that the PDD must remain in effect coextensively with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City's Community Redevelopment Agency and Fairfield(the "DDA"). See Section 94.030.00(l)(3)of the City's Zoning Code. Nevertheless,Fairfield requests an extension of this expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map as stated in the attached LA-FS 11309720v03 Greenberg Traurig,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Los Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 904041 Tel 310.586.7700 1 Fax 310.586.7800 1 www.gtlawcom Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 2 Resolution to avoid any confusion or uncertainty concerning this matter, and does so without waiver of any of its vested and other rights under the DDA, the Development Agreement between the City and Fairfield and all other applicable agreements, laws and regulations. I. Good Cause EAsts to Grant this Request in That Fairfield has Dili¢ently Sonaht to Finalize and Obtain Approval of the Final Plan Prior to the PDD Eioiration Date. On April 7, 2003, Fairfield acquired the Project site,along with all interests in the related approvals and entitlements, from SCHLPS,LLC, the original Project proponent. Even before that date,representatives from Fairfield were in contact with City staff, with an eye towards moving forward with the Project as soon as practicable. Since that time,Fairfield has continued to work closely with the City planning staff and Commission in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan. In furtherance of this goal, Fairfield has, among other things: • Met in person with planning and engineering staff and the DRC on a regular basis to present and discuss plans and design issues and respond to staff and DRC comments and concerns, including meetings in June,August, September,November and December of 2003, and February,March,April,May,June,July and August of 2004. • Met with other City staff, including meetings in March,April,and July of 2004,to discuss various planning and design issues. • Submitted proposed plans and drawings to planning staff and DRC on a regular basis, including submittals made in June,August, September,November and December of 2003, and March,May, June,July and August of 2004. Many refinements and modifications were made to the Final Plan in direct response to the guidance and suggestions of the planning staff and the DRC after review of Fairfield's submittals. On more than one occasion Fairfield was told that the design was on track and that Fairfield should continue in the same direction. • Coordinated with planning staff to submit site plan to Commission,which site plan was approved by the Commission at the June 23, 2004 Commission meeting. • After obtaining planning staff and DRC endorsement of the Final Plan, attended Commission meetings on September 8, 2004, October 13,2004 and November 10, 2004. In response to the Commission's questions and concerns, and in the spirit of cooperation, Fairfield has prepared and submitted supplemental materials above and beyond the normal scope of Final Plans. Additionally,Fairfield representatives have traveled from Florida to attend each of these Commission meetings in order to ensure that any issues raised by the Commission may be addressed promptly and in person. LA-FSI\309720v03 Greenberg Traurig,LLP Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 3 II. An Extension of the PDD and Tentative Mao is Necessary at This Time to Protect Fair£eld's Entitlements. As the above discussion demonstrates, Fairfield has undertaken extensive efforts and incurred significant expense in diligently pursuing completion and approval of the Final Plan in cooperation with the City. The collaborative process with the City staff,the DRC and the Commission has been a much lengthier and involved process than anticipated. As detailed in our November 10,2004 letter to the Commission and in our presentation to the Commission at its November 10'h hearing,this collaborative process with the City has yielded a Final Plan which not only substantially conforms with the Preliminary Plan the Commission and City Council previously approved for the Project, it is truer to the original Southern European castle design than was the Preliminary Plan, and reflects an improvement over the former plan. Fairfield seeks to protect its vested rights during the time the Commission deliberates and acts upon the Final Plan and avoid any uncertainty over the period of vesting by requesting this extension in view of the fast-approaching January 30, 2005 expiration date stated in the attached Resolution. In addition,Fairfield requests a concurrent extension of Tentative Tract Map#29691 for a period of two(2)additional years. Fairfield intended to submit the Final Subdivision Map to the City's Engineer following the Commission's approval of the Final Plan to coordinate with obtaining the Project's building plans,which Fairfield understands is the City's custom and practice. Because Fairfield is still working with the City staff and the Commission in obtaining Final Plan approval, the Final Subdivision Map has not been submitted. While Fairfield is in a position to submit the map within the next few weeks, it is unlikely that the Map approval process would be completed prior to the January 30, 2005 expiration. For all the foregoing reasons, good cause exists to grant this request for an extension of the PDD and the Tentative Map. The request should thus be granted. Sincerely, CV`c "s� Fernando Villa cc; John Raymond Doug Evans David Aleshire LA•FS 11309720v03 Greenberg Traurig,LLP RESOLUTIOO NO. 20537 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME;'EXTENSION FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT, CASE NO. 5.0830-PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260(PD-280)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29801 (TTM 29891), FROM MAY 17, 2003 TO JANUARY 30,204 LOCATED WEST OF SO(1TH PALM CANYON DRIVE, BETWEEN SUNNY DUNES ROAD TO THE NORTH, MESQUITE AVENUE TO THE SOUTH,AND SOUTH BELARDO ROAD TO THE WEST,W-C-1 AND W-R-3 ZONES, SECTIONS 22 AND 23. WHEREAS,Palm Springs New Millennium(Star Canyon Villas),(the"Appllcann request approval of atime extension for Case No.5.0830-Planned Development District260(PD-260)and Tentattm Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691) for property located west of South Patin Canyon Drive, between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue;to the south, and South Bslardo Road to the West,W-C-1 and W-R-3 zones, Sections 22 and 23.; and WHEREAS,the Applicant has requested additional8me to May 17,2004,to continue negotiations with Interested parties regarding financing and construction of the project; and WHEREAS,on April 24,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and , WHEREAS, on May 15,2002, the City Council voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and WHEREAS,on July 10,2002,the Planning Commisralon voted to recommend that the CRY Council approve an amendment to the Planned Development Dlabict, to change the land uses from hotel and time sham to all timeshare; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, the City Councll votpd to approve an amendment to the Planned Development District, to change the land uses ftvm hotel and time share to all timeshare;and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council grant a time extension on from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2003, a public meeting on the request for a time extension from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004 for PD-280 and1TTM 29691 Was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the CRY Council carefully reviewed ar(d considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, Includld but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, l q48 Resolution 20537 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Cky of Palm Springs, ' CO"110, after considering the evidence provided at the meeting, does hereby approve a time exlenelon tram May 17,2003 to Jenuary 30, 2W5,for Case No. 5.0830-PD-280 and TTM 29MI. ADOPTED this 2Mh day of January, 2003. AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Oden, holler-Spurgln and Mayor Kleindienst NOES: None ABSENT. None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS IFORNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: l � I HEREBY CERTIFY THB RL'OOINO M A TRUE COFYOF RESOLUTIONNa J DULYADOPTEDBYTHE C17YCOUNCIOFTHE O ALMSPR�H��Al�p 7FB0tBOFHBLDONTHB DAYOF` 3 DA7EDAJZALtSPRIbil Q�ALII+O T=4W". .DAY01 &Ad, Z + 3 DEM-M 'IYCLERC ... , /k�� CALII�OR1dA Pays 3 fPti ViG MXY HAPP , N.T.S. ffmotN ROAD GN'J/MOPNPO=A �' SUNNY � OUNCCs ROro �,. iPNCR�IDC DRNC � , rr AT we • PRO.lL'�GT ' 3IfC CITY - OF PALL SPRIN, GS.. 1 CASE .NO. PD260J ..abpbw" is hol}tiaair bn tlnr wn,,,,N..,,aauw APPLICANT PAUI9PR�NG9NGW H1UfNMVHDWCW?HCW,,ItiG, ,q ,.bruwu� ao,�, °A"a'•hbr»eau,, �bawglNrdoRpdbfNwak MWW bMr+ `fcp5 /5 . UIUSbO Greenberg FILE COPY Traurig November 22, 2004 Fernando Villa (310)586-7848 vlllafogtaw.com VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attention: Vice Chairman Shoenberger Re: Case 5.0830 - Star Canyon Resort(the "Project") Planned Development District#260 Tentative Tract Map# 29691 Dear Vice Chairman Shoenberger: On behalf of Fairfield Resorts, Inc. ("Fairfield"), we hereby request a two (2) year time extension of Planned Development District# 260 (the "PDD") and Tentative Tract Map # 29691 (the "Tentative Map"). As detailed, below, good cause exists for granting this extension, in view of Fairfield's diligent, extensive efforts to prepare its final development plans (collectively,the "Final Plan")and to seek approval of the Final Plan for the Project from the City of Palm Springs (the "City"). Accordingly, the Commission must grant this request. Please note that on January 29, 2003 the City's City Council(the "City Council') previously approved an extension of time for the PDD and the Tentative Map up to and including January 30, 2005. Please see the attached copy of the City Council's Resolution No. 20537 evidencing this extension. For nearly two years,Fairfield has worked diligently with the City's engineering and planning staff, with the Design Review Committee (the "DRC") and with the City's Planning Commission(the "Commission"), in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan for the Star Canyon Resort. Despite Fairfield's diligent, good faith efforts,the Final Plan has not yet been approved by the Commission, and the January 30, 2005 expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map, as reflected in the enclosed Resolution, is quickly approaching. This expiration date is superseded by the City's own Zoning Code, which provides that the PDD must remain in effect coextensively with the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City's Community Redevelopment Agency and Fairfield(the "DDA"). See Section 94.030.00(l)(3)of the City's Zoning Code. Nevertheless,Fairfield requests an extension of this expiration of the PDD and Tentative Map as stated in the attached LA-FSD309720v03 Greenberg Traurig,LLP I Attorneys at Law I Las Angeles Office 12450 Colorado Avenue I Suite 400E I Santa Monica,CA 904041 Tel 310.586.7700 I Fax 310.S86.7800 1 www.gdaw.com Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 2 Resolution to avoid any confusion or uncertainty concerning this matter, and does so without waiver of any of its vested and other rights under the DDA,the Development Agreement between the City and Fairfield and all other applicable agreements, laws and regulations. I. Good Cause Exists to Grant this Request in That Fairfield has Dilieently Soueht to Finalize and Obtain Approval of the Final Plan Prior to the PDD Expiration Date. On April 7, 2003,Fairfield acquired the Project site, along with all interests in the related approvals and entitlements, from SCHLPS, LLC,the original Project proponent. Even before that date,representatives from Fairfield were in contact with City staff, with an eye towards moving forward with the Project as soon as practicable. Since that time,Fairfield has continued to work closely with the City planning staff and Commission in preparing and seeking approval of the Final Plan. In furtherance of this goal, Fairfield has, among other things: • Met in person with planning and engineering staff and the DRC on a regular basis to present and discuss plans and design issues and respond to staff and DRC comments and concerns, including meetings in June,August, September,November and December of 2003, and February,March, April, May, June, July and August of 2004. • Met with other City staff, including meetings in March,April, and July of 2004,to discuss various planning and design issues. • Submitted proposed plans and drawings to planning staff and DRC on a regular basis, including submittals made in June, August, September,November and December of 2003, and March, May, June, July and August of 2004. Many refinements and modifications were made to the Final Plan in direct response to the guidance and suggestions of the planning staff and the DRC after review of Fairfield's submittals. On more than one occasion Fairfield was told that the design was on track and that Fairfield should continue in the same direction. • Coordinated with planning staff to submit site plan to Commission, which site plan was approved by the Commission at the June 23, 2004 Commission meeting. • After obtaining planning staff and DRC endorsement of the Final Plan, attended Commission meetings on September 8, 2004, October 13, 2004 and November 10, 2004. In response to the Commission's questions and concerns, and in the spirit of cooperation, Fairfield has prepared and submitted supplemental materials above and beyond the normal scope of Final Plans. Additionally, Fairfield representatives have traveled from Florida to attend each of these Commission meetings in order to ensure that any issues raised by the Commission may be addressed promptly and in person. LA-FS11309720v03 Greenberg 7raurig,LLP Planning Commission November 22, 2004 Page 3 II. An Extension of the PDD and Tentative May is Necessary at This Time to Protect Fairfield's Entitlements. As the above discussion demonstrates,Fairfield has undertaken extensive efforts and incurred significant expense in diligently pursuing completion and approval of the Final Plan in cooperation with the City. The collaborative process with the City staff, the DRC and the Commission has been a much lengthier and involved process than anticipated. As detailed in our November 10,2004 letter to the Commission and in our presentation to the Commission at its November 10a'hearing,this collaborative process with the City has yielded a Final Plan which not only substantially conforms with the Preliminary Plan the Commission and City Council previously approved for the Project, it is truer to the original Southern European castle design than was the Preliminary Plan, and reflects an improvement over the former plan. Fairfield seeks to protect its vested rights during the time the Commission deliberates and acts upon the Final Plan and avoid any uncertainty over the period of vesting by requesting this extension in view of the fast-approaching January 30, 2005 expiration date stated in the attached Resolution. In addition,Fairfield requests a concurrent extension of Tentative Tract Map# 29691 for a period of two (2) additional years. Fairfield intended to submit the Final Subdivision Map to the City's Engineer following the Commission's approval of the Final Plan to coordinate with obtaining the Project's building plans, which Fairfield understands is the City's custom and practice. Because Fairfield is still working with the City staff and the Commission in obtaining Final Plan approval, the Final Subdivision Map has not been submitted. While Fairfield is in a position to submit the map within the next few weeks, it is unlikely that the Map approval process would be completed prior to the January 30,2005 expiration. For all the foregoing reasons,good cause exists to grant this request for an extension of the PDD and the Tentative Map. The request should thus be granted. Sincerely, Fernando Villa cc: John Raymond Doug Evans David Aleshire LA-FS11309720v03 Greenberg Traurig,LLP RESOLUTION NO. 20537 , OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME 9XTENSION FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT, CASE NO. 5.0830-PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260(PD6-280)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29891 (TTM 29W1), FROM MAY 17, 2003 TO JANUARY 30,2005, LOCATED WEST OF SOVTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, BETWEEN SUNNY DUNES ROAD TO THE NORTH, MESQUITE AVENUE TO THE SOUTH,AND SOUTH BELARDO ROAD TO THE WEST,W-C-1 AND W-R-3 ZONES, SECTIONS 22 AND 23. WHEREAS, Palm Springs New Millennium(Star Canyon Villas),(the"Applicant")request approval ofatime extension for Case No.5.0830-Planned Development District260(PD-260)and Tentative Trad Map 29691 (TTM 29691)for property located west of South Palm Canyon Drive, between Sunny Dunes Road to the north, Mesquite Avenue;to the south, and South Belardo Road to the west, W-C-1 and W-R-3 zones, Sections 22 and 23.; and WHEREAS,the Applicant has requested additional time to May 17,2004,to continue negotiations with Interested parties,regarding financing and construction of the project; and WHEREAS,on April 24,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and , WHEREAS, on May 15,2002,the city Council voted to recommend that the City Council approve the time extension request; and WHEREAS,on July 10,2002,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment to the Planned Development District, to change the land uses from hotel and time share to all timeshare; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2002, the City Council voted to approve an amendment to the Planned Development District, to change the land uses from hotel and time share to all timeshare; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council grant a time extension on from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2003, a public meeting,on the request for a time extension from May 17, 2003 to December 31, 2004 for PD-260 and!TTM 29691 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 hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. �_ ' 413 Resolution 20537 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, ' California, after considering the evidence provided at the meeting, does hereby approve a time eAsneion from May 17,2003 to January 30, 2005,for Case No.5.0830-PD-260 and TTM 29691. ADOPTED this 29th day of January, 2003. AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Klelndienst NOES: None ABSENT. None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: l � I HEREBY CERTIFY REGOING IS ATRUE COPYOF RESOLUTIONNo. DULYADOVM BYTHB CITY COUNCIL OF THE OPALM SPRi�iOS DJA MBB77N(} THE =F HELD ON THE DAY OF ` 3 DATED 3PRIN�Q$�.,gqALB?O 7HIS r �DAY�O TYciTY E � --- Page 3 N.T.S. KM1ON KOAD tk CrIM/NOFIVOCCIA qc TUNNY DUNCE 9'0/0 � ]PNCK3/DC DKN'C N=Oufrjr Aoo'fAklf gl1"C ypq y CITY - OF PALL SPRINGS.- 1 CASE _N0. ODW M 260) An rnaaborA a PNrud avaapmrA o� 4 m4 rrH 2%91 ra ma tiaaa T«Aabw Trap�.P 2MW p oawre tw holl►ioonr a 7Y Tina aAra unla rq olhar APPLICANT pAU15PK/MG9NEW amaa anb atlMSMrCnyonRaa4babdaf !7/LLCNNQ/1j DNCLOpI7CNT,/11G aft eww«,rw Tahqu& wash q b»naft MaquMAvww b to aoulh fto Pain CHryoe MW b" w1 rib SPAN ldrdo Roil b dw want w.C.1 lw W.w-It 7...,.. RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR THE STAR CANYON RESORT, CASE NO. 5.0830-PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 260 (PD-260) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29691 (TTM 29611), FROM JANUARY 30, 2005 TO APRIL 30, 2005, LOCATED AT 961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONES W-C-1 AND W-R-3, SECTIONS 22 AND 23. WHEREAS, Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Fairfield Resorts (the "Applicant') requests approval of a two-year time extension for Case No. 5.0830- Planned Development District 260 (PD-260) and Tentative Tract Map 29691 (TTM 29691) for property located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a time extension to January 30, 2006, to allow additional time to complete the approval process for the final subdivision map and final development plans; and 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 29, 2003, a time extension from May 17, 2003 to January 30, 2005 for PD-260 and TTM 29691 was approved by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; 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 voted to deny the final development plans; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2005, a public meeting on the request for a time extension from January 30, 2005 to January 30, 2006 for PD-260 and TTM 29691 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; 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 hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, after considering the evidence provided at the meeting, does hereby approve a time extension from January 30, 2005 to April 30, 2005, for Case No. 5.0830-PD-260 and TTM 29691. 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: A Qp pALM3 i Department of Planning Services " 'C'l2lFOlHip Vicinity Map W+E 0 d. W m SUNNY DUNES RD C N� 1 n v N R +F m MESQUITE E m K A � O Z A O U 2 J ¢ PALO VERDEAVE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5,0830 PD260 TTM29691 DESCRIPTION: for a time cation APPLICANT: Fairfield Resorts, Inc. fomlJanuary 30, 2005 totension AprI 30f 006 orrthe Star Caanyonn Resort located at 961 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zones W-C-1 and W-R-3, Sections 22 and 23.