Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Deferment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on Resat Hotel utility undergrounding to Dec. 17 after questions over cost and phase 2
Summary
Commissioners asked the applicant to appear and supply cost and schedule details before ruling on a requested deferment of undergrounding utilities for the Resat Hotel; commissioners reached consensus to continue the item to Dec. 17 to allow the developer to respond to questions about costs, phase 2 status, and possible bonding or lien conditions.
The Twentynine Palms Planning Commission held a detailed discussion about a developer’s request to defer the undergrounding-of-utilities requirement for the Resat Hotel and agreed to continue the item to Dec. 17 so the applicant can provide cost estimates and schedule details.
Staff explained the request is to defer Condition of Approval E12 — the city’s undergrounding requirement — until the hotel’s phase 2 is developed and said the city engineer had reviewed and found the applicant’s cost estimates to be accurate and had no objection to a deferment. "Long story short, [the city engineer] has no objection to it," staff said.
Commissioners pressed staff and suggested the applicant attend in person. Commissioners and public commenters raised multiple concerns: which utilities are considered "off-site," whether phase 2 still exists (staff and public comments indicated phase 2 may have been withdrawn in a prior meeting), and whether granting a deferment would set an undesirable precedent. Transcript figures discussed by commissioners put the undergrounding cost in the neighborhood of $247,000 to $274,002.77, with multiple participants describing it as "closer to $300,000." One public commenter said the overall project cost could be about $15 million and urged the commission to require a bond or lien to guarantee future compliance. "Would he be able to provide us a bond for this $300,000 ... or at least we should put a lien," the commenter said.
Another public commenter, Eric Menendez, called for consistent enforcement: "If we're applying one set of development standards for one developer ... they should stick to the development standards that they signed up for," he said.
Given the many open questions and because the applicant was not present to answer them, commissioners reached a consensus to continue the item to Dec. 17 to obtain the applicant’s attendance and detailed cost, schedule and phase-2 information. Staff said a deferment agreement could include time limits and provisions for extensions or additional security if the commission chooses to attach them.
The item was continued for a date certain to allow the applicant to appear and provide documents and clarifications.
