HomeMy WebLinkAbout25032RESOLUTION NO. 25032
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL BY
PSPC ENTERPRISES LLC (dba FUEGO NIGHTCLUB) AND
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
FOR A NIGHTCLUB / COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE WITHIN AN
EXISTING 9,504-SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH
ACCOMPANYING OFF-STREET PARKING, LOCATED AT 383
SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD (CASE 5.1544
CUP).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS AND
DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. LWSC, LLC, (Building Owner) c/o PSPC Enterprises LLC (dba Fuego
Nightclub) ("Applicant") has filed a Conditional Use Permit application, Case 5.1544 CUP,
with the City pursuant to Sections 94.02.00 (Conditional Use Permit) of the Palm Springs
Zoning Code; proposing a tenant improvement for a nightclub/lounge in a 9,504-square
foot single -use building located at 383 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone CBD.
B. On March 9, 2022, a public hearing on the applications to consider Case
5.1544 CUP was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law,
and the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the application based on not being able
to make finding #2 that the proposed use is necessary or desirable for the development
of the community and in harmony with the various elements of the general plan.
C. On March 17, 2022, PSPC Enterprises LLC filed an appeal to the City
Council of the City of Palm Springs of the March 9, 2022 Planning Commission's decision
to deny Case 5.1544 CUP in accordance with applicable law.
D. A notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Case 5.1544 CUP was given in accordance with applicable law.
E. On April 12 and May 12, 2022, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
California, held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's decision to deny Case
5.1544 CUP, in accordance with applicable law, and carefully reviewed and considered
all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting.
F. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs has 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.
G. Section 94.02.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) requires that
five findings be met in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council of the
City of Palm Springs finds the following relative to these findings and the proposed the
Conditional Use Permit application, Case 5.1544 CUP:
Resolution No. 25032
Page 2
2. That the 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 zone in
which the proposed use is to be located.
As noted in Zoning Code Section 92.09.00, The Central Business District is
intended to be a compact, lively, active, intensively used area catering to the
pedestrian with specialty retail, restaurants and entertainment uses. However, the
Planning Commission has determined that the proposed use as a nightclub with
late night hours and DJ music is not desirable for the community and has the
potential to be detrimental to the adjacent residential uses. The proposed noise
attenuation measures inside the building will not fully contain the noise and there
is potential for disturbances to occur in the off-street parking lot which adjoins
residential apartments and hotels. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot
make this finding.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. That the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Palm Springs rejects the appeal
and denies Case 5.1544 CUP, a conditional use permit for a nightclub/lounge use located
at 383 South Palm Canyon Drive.
SECTION 3. That this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) Section 15061(b)(4),
which states projects are exempt from CEQA if the project is rejected or disapproved.
ADOPTED THIS 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
JUSTIN tLIFTON
CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
MONIQU M. LOMELI, CMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 25032
Page 3
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
I, MONIQUE M. LOMELI, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that Resolution No. 25032 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on June 30, 2022, by
the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Holstege, Kors, and Mayor Middleton
NOES:
Councilmember Woods
RECUSE:
Councilmember Mayor Pro Tern Garner
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of Palm Springs, California, this �o day of & jt4 , 202L .
MON14JE M. LOMELI, CMC
INTERN CITY CLERK
0
0
�l