Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to analyze pros and cons of CUP versus development agreements for hotels
Summary
Councilmembers asked whether hotels in the plan should be processed through conditional use permits (CUP) or development agreements/planned developments (PD); staff recommended the CUP process but agreed to return with pros and cons and examples such as Glendale.
Several councilmembers raised whether hotels should be handled by development agreements or planned developments rather than by the conditional use permit (CUP) process proposed by staff. Councilmember Anthony and others said a development agreement or planned development might provide more upfront control given uncertainty around high‑speed rail, airport changes and future demand.
Assistant Director Fred Ramirez and Senior Planner (S8) said the proposal uses the CUP process to preserve a transparent, discretionary review with Planning Commission hearings and council appeal rights. "The CUP process would analyze the project, determine its impacts to the site and adjacent uses," Ramirez said, and council would retain final decision‑making through appeals. Staff warned that a lengthy planned development or development agreement process could discourage hotel development, and they committed to returning with a written pros‑and‑cons analysis — including examples from other cities such as Glendale — for council direction.
Councilmembers asked staff to evaluate both approaches, weighing local control against permitting speed and developer incentives.
