The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-11-19 PC Special Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES November 19, 2014 Palm Springs Downtown Renovation Project 2nd floor of the parking structure located at Belardo Road and North Museum Drive, Palm Springs CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hudson called the meeting to order at 11:35 am. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice - Chair Klatchko and Chair Hudson ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Fagg, AICP REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 4:00 pm on Thursday, November 13, 2014. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: FRANK TYSEN, submitted a letter into the record, declaring the study session to be in violation of the Brown Act. 2. TOUR OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROGRESS OF-THE--MUSEUM--MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN / PALM SPRINGS DOWNTOWN RENOVATION PROJECT LOCATED NORTHWEST OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND PALM CANYON DRIVE. Staff made a brief presentation, describing the projects that had been approved for the site to date and the layout of the public streets that would be developed under the plan. Planning Commissioners had the following individual comments and questions: • Vice Chair Klatchko questioned whether seismic upgrades were required for the existing parking structures on the site. 1�Page Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes November 19, 2014 • Chair Hudson had questions about how the parking on the site would function, and noted that a drawing showing the entries into each of the garages would be necessary to understand how the parking will work. He also had questions about connections between the various underground garages, and if there was still an underground garage planned for the AC Marriott hotel site. Chair Hudson questioned if there was a need for additional traffic control at the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. • Commissioner Roberts asked about the timeline for construction of the phases of the project, and questioned if there were any issues that would prevent the construction from occurring as planned. Commissioner Roberts noted that the City's event space on Block E may significantly impact parking at the site. • , Commissioner Calerdine had questions about the views down Main Street and view corridors in general, and questioned if the height of the proposed buildings on Blocks Al and B1 would impact views. Commissioner Calerdine also had questions about how the intersection of Museum Drive and the Belardo Road extension would function, and if there would be left -over right-of-way space. He requested information on the proposed timeline for the opening of the new streets that will be developed with the project. • Commissioner Weremiuk posed questions related to crosswalks within and abutting the development, and if a 4-way pedestrian ("scramble") crossing might be appropriate. • Commissioner Middleton noted that a parking diagram should be produced; showing which spaces would be open to the general public and which spaces would be restricted for tenants of the project. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned of 12:11 pm to an Adjourned Meeting at 1:30 pm, Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Council Chamber, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. F�-, �-:F7�5 Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services 2 Frank Tysen 175 South Cahuilla Palm Springs, CA Wednesday, November 19, 2014 To the Planning Commission City of Palm Springs, California RE: November 19, 2014 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission Agenda / Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Palm Springs has not adopted adequate ordinances to allow for site visits that do not violate the public protections of the Ralph M. Brown Act, and its requirements of public transparency, notice, and opportunity to set a proper record. Accordingly, the site visit of the Planning Commission to view the 'Redevelopment Site" is in violation of the act. The city has not ensured the content of all discussions during the site visit are transparent to all parties, are recorded, and limited (by law) to the content of questions about the site itself, in contrast to discussion of the merits, or discussions outside of the formally adopted protections of protocol that occurs when the meetings are at City Hall. Accordingly, the site visit set for November 19, 2014, is in violation of the Act. The public notice of the meeting is deficient, because it describes the project as a Redevelopment Project (incorrect terminology after the termination of Redevelopment in the State of California), and the notice describes the project site as a Renovation Project, when all buildings and structures within the previously identified "renovation project' have been demolished and removed. The MMPSP Downtown Project does not meet the city's ordinance guidelines or Specific Plan guidelines for a renovation project. The City has taken previous actions to prohibit site visits through the actions of its previous Planning Director, Craig Ewing, when he canceled a scheduled site visit by the Historic Site Preservation Board, under the grounds that it violated the Ralph M. Brown Act. These previous actions show a consciousness by the City that site visits result in Brown Act violations, particularly when public meetings of the City Council in Palm Springs are recorded and televised. The public transparency and protections of this meeting are not on par with other public meetings, leaving a lesser public standard of review. I have attached a Resolution for Site Visits from the City of Sausalito, that demonstrates that there exists the opportunity to structure site visits to protect the public interest by adequate ordinance development and adoption. Adoption of protective ordinances do not ensure that the site visits meet the Brown Act requirements, but are far beyond the gaps left from the City of Palm Springs' lack of ordinance protection, to - wit, note the discussion of concerns by the City of Sausalito: `In each of these situations, opportunities may exist for private discussions about the merits of the project as well as lobbying for or against the project." Under the protective ordinances of the City of Sausalito, content of discussion is limited BY LAW to "questions about the merits of the project as well as lobbying for or against the project." The ordinance also identifies different types of site visits and provides appropriate procedures for each type of visit. The meetings BY ORDINANCE, require the taking of minutes, public comments, a brief project summary by staff, and opportunity for the applicants and members of the public to address the Committee. Ad hoc provisions (meeting by meeting) without the protection of an adopted ordinance is not a substitute for ordinance protection, nor does it result in equal protection, because standards will vary overtime from each site visit. Fraiki Attachment: Sausalito Ordinance (attached to original signed copy only) 1 1 : L lU VGIdITC, tt Z��U DATE: Septemb TO: Trees and Views Committee FROM: feremy Graves, Community Development Director It. SUBJECT: Policy for Site Visits Discussion As part of the responsibilities of the Trees and Views Committee in evaluating View Claims, the Trees and Views Regulations (Section 11.12.040.B.3) state, "[t]he Trees and Views Committee shall reasonably attempt, as a group, to inspect the premises of both the claimant and the tree owner(s) prior to the arbitration meeting." Like the Trees and Views Committee, the Planning Commission members frequently conduct site visits to project sites. The Planning Commission adopted a site visit policy in order to: (1) provide guidelines that meet the requirements of the Brown Act for public meetings by ensuring the content of discussions during site visits is transparent for all parties; and (2) identify the different types of site visits and provide appropriate procedures for each type of visit. Staff suggests the Trees and Views Committee faces similar concerns regarding Brown Act requirements and procedures for different types of site visits. Staff has prepared the attached draft policy tailored to the Trees and Views Committee responsibilities and procedures. Recommendation Staff recommends the Trees and Views Committee take the following actions: • Review and revise, as appropriate, the attached policy for site visits. • Approve the attached resolution which approves the policy for site visits Exhibit: Resolution regarding Policy for Site Visits [Draft] -- - CDD1B=ds-&Commiftmk dMemoslSite visit Policy Mamo-i 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 SAUSALITO TREES AND VIEWS COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO.2010-XX POLICY FOR SITE VISITS WHEREAS, site visits by Tree and Views Committee members to project sites are important since site visits foster informed decision -making by facilitating a better understanding of projects and their associated impacts; and WHEREAS, many site visits are made by Committee members individually, during which time applicants and/or neighbors may be present. In these situations, as well as publicly -noticed site visits by the Tree and Views Committee, opportunities may exist for private discussions about the merits of projects as well as lobbying for or against the projects; and WHEREAS, site visits pose challenges due to the potential for inappropriate ex parte conversations, which do not exist during formal hearings held by the Tree and Views Committee at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a policy which addresses these situations and supports responsible and transparent public decision -making is desirable. NOW, THEREFORE, THE TREES AND VIEWS COMMITTEE HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The attached policy for site visits is approved to provide guidelines that meet the requirements of the Brown Act for public meetings; to identify the different types of site visits; and to provide appropriate procedures for each type of visit. RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED, at the regular meeting of the Sausalito Trees and Views Committee on the _ day of . 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Committee Member. NOES: Committee Member: ABSENT: Committee Member: ABSTAIN: Committee Member. Jeremy Graves, AICP Community Development Director Attachment Policy for Site Visits I:1COMoards and ComrffdeesRVCXMemoslSRe VBitPolicydoc t°r 3 mcF-S) 1 SAUSALITO TREES AND VIEWS COMMITTEE ? POLICY FOR SITE VISITS 5 Site visits by Trees and Views Committee members to project sites are important. Site visits foster 6 informed decision -making by facilitating a better understanding of the tree settings and any 7 associated view issues. However, due to the potential for inappropriate ex pane' conversations, site 8 visits pose challenges which do not exist during formal hearings held by the Trees and Views 9 Committee at City Hall. Many site visits are made by Committee members individually, during which IO time applicants and/or neighbors may be present. Site visits at which a quorum of the Committee 11 are present are conducted as publicly -noticed "special meetings," at which Committee members, 12 applicants, neighbors, City staff, and the public all have an opportunity to be present. In each of 13 these situations, opportunities may exist for private discussions about the merits of the project as 14 well as lobbying for or against the project. This policy addresses these situations and works to 15 support responsible and transparent decision -making. I Policy Objectives. This policy has two objectives: (1) to provide site visit guidelines that meet the requirements of the Brown Act for public meetings by ensuring the content of discussion is transparent for all parties; and (2) to identify the different types of site visits and provide appropriate procedures for each type of visit. Transparency. The content of discussion that may properly occur between Committee members and others during site visits is limited to questions about and presentation of factual information related to the tree(s), the view(s), the proposed action and its relationship to the physical characteristics of the site. Discussion of the merits of the project is inappropriate during site visits. The shortcoming of the City is that it does not have ordinance policy, and there are no pre-set limitation: Types of Site Visits what can be discussed. An option is individual site visits, with limitations on what can be discussed. Individual Site Visits are site visits by individual Committee members. Committee members may visit at their convenience. As a courtesy, individual Committee members may contact the property owner (or resident) and let them know in advance of the visit. If the property owner (or resident) is present during the visit, the conversation must be limited to the tree(s), the view(s), the proposed action and its relationship to the physical characteristics of the site. 35 Group Site Visits are site visits conducted by a quorum of the Committee and must be conducted as 36 publicly -noticed "special meetings" which are open to the public. Group site visits include view claim 37 inspections conducted by the Committee pursuant to Section 11.12.040.B.3 of the Municipal.Code 38 "to inspect the premises of both the claimant and the tree owner(s) prior to the arbitration meeting 39 Special meetings are formal Trees and Views Committee meetings which are limited in scope. In addition to the site tour itself, these meetings include the taking of minutes, public comments, a brief 1 project summary by staff, and an opportunity for the applicant and members of the public to address the Committee concerning any item on the agenda. 43 No provision has been made for minutes, public comments 44 In the course of the site tour, questions from the public for purposes of clarification of factual aspects 45 of the project may be accepted at the discretion of staff and/or the Committee. Comments/questions 46 from Committee members are restricted to inquiries about the tree(s), the view(s), the .proposed 47 action and its relationship to.the physical characteristics of the site. Questions/comments should be 48 communicated through staff by all present. Staff may refer questions to the applicant as 49 appropriate. Committee members should refrain from making comments relating to the merits of the 50 project at all times during a Special Meeting site visit. Handouts are permitted, so long as there are 51 sufficient copies for all present. From or on one side only, with the other side absent or unrepresented. American Heritage Dictionary. 2 Opportunities for ex parte communication can occur in situations in which applicants, public, staff, and Committee members walk about a site in small, unsupervised groups. Therefore, Committee 4 members should move about the site as a group and avoid private conversations among 5 themselves, with the public, and with the applicant. Within the context of Special Meetings, the 6 Commission should refrain from breaking into smaller groups. 7 8 Small Group Site Visits are visits arranged by staff and made by Committee members in groups of 9 less than a quorum of the whole Committee. This is the least preferred type of visit and is 10 discouraged, as the individual groups may be informed about different aspects of the project and site 11 and the process could be perceived as not providing the fully transparent process to which the 12 Committee aspires. When Small Group visits are necessary, strict adherence to these guidelines 13 must be maintained to avoid the appearance of impropriety. To avoid the perception of serial 14 meetings, in the event Small Group visits do occur, members of one group shall not discuss the visit 15 with members of another group. Small Group visits are to be conducted by City staff. The applicant 16 and neighbors may or may not be present. Participation by the applicant and neighbors is limited to 17 responding to questions the tree(s), the view(s), the proposed action and its relationship to the 18 physical characteristics of the site. 19 20 Organizing Site Visits 21 22 Committee Member Responsibilities. If individual Trees and Views Committee members intend to 23 conduct an Individual Site Visit, the Committee members may contact staff for (1) applicant contact 24 information; (2) directions to the site, including access point information if the address is not clearly 25 marked; (3) information about entering the property, including locked gates, pets, etc.; and (4) 26 advice as to whether providing the applicant with advance notice of a visit is necessary, Staff Responsibilities. Staff is responsible for promptly providing individual Committee members /9 with the information listed above. In addition, staff must inform the applicant that individual 30 Committee members may be entering their property. For Group Site Visits and Small Group Site 31 Visits, staff will work with the applicant .to provide sufficient parking, provide PA equipment as 32 appropriate, and organize the tour route in advance of the visit. For Special Meetings, staff will 33 oversee the distribution of the public notice. For Group Site Visits and Small Group Site Visits, staff 34 will conduct the tour. 35 36 Copies of this policy', must be made available to all project applicants. Whenever a staff planner 37 perceives that there is a reasonable possibility of a Group Site Visit or Small Group Site Visit, the 38 planner shall provide applicant with a copy of this policy at the earliest opportunity_ 39 40 Applicant Responsibilities_ As part of submitting a completed project application, applicants are 41 required to acknowledge in writing that they have reviewed and understand this Site Visits Policy. 42 43 1VastroboyldatakcoDlPIan Commwiemos\Site Visit Pol(cy.doc A+, J r Palm Springs Art Museum • ; S / - o 0 0 jo 4m�Museum Dr. I I t !f IF 1 1 t f i HI H-1 PARKING BELOW PARKING BELOW W EXISTING EXISTING J — — BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE UPPER LEVEL PARKING GARAGE - - EXISTING ON GRADE- AND BELOW GRADE GRADE n > J LEGEND" t _EXISTING 3 LEVEL PHASE 1TM�+SrART"•Te+% .9 ' j e t' f =P.4RKIN6 GARAGE KIMPTON tl T0XC0M'"P"I��1e PHASE 1 wMar:'1-rrR¢wle j PHASE 2 Q k ma � y BLO,Ck�.Er n . o� BLOCK D ommmo. ommmo. R : E S—QEVFLOPMF�T r I �� r� rt'� p a c}'� BLO�GLC G � C W I FAMN TFAPORAgTI£b I'%MOTEL ALET PARgNVG BLOCKP �: r is - Fl iD' RITURE DEVEi6GFS17r / l I b ,o Ni TEMPORARY RESTAURANT / HOTEL m HOTEL `l _} RESTAUMNT / rETAI. i I v 7r A £ VUET PA HWG / O'Donne,11\0\�If Course o�_ Belardo Road IENIANCED PAVING) Belerd0 Road l XDTEL WrIH ROOF a T I II I ' . Nw I ". SToeeva BUILDING tl % I� GnlOuro FtiooR l BUILDING Al (ph 2) PETAl / PESE" _i T / OFFtcE GROUro 0.00R ) i` a 3 1✓`,/ "1 % � � � I WIM RE9I0NTAL ABOVE (- I I "RETAIL / FESTALWNR /OFFICE �w �� t i y y'. - E b y, l WmI flESbFf1i10. ABOVE - I EXISTING O HYATT HOTEL •; , QO it Market treat mqZ Paeao IENIANCEO PAVBVGI � IEMIANCm PAVINGI D I I I a I r � I I�;• ¢ r _ t I �.... I �� £ �4 �✓ a ,u„w �•.I- �' I h nN ' r 5 ; I " ' � 'r^* p�RETAL/ MESTAURAM 3,BUlLDiNG A ✓ 1� t Aa m i 1 �q { q t £�j. i ! SPESDENML ABOTVE = IRETAL / BESTAURAN�, RETAIL / fE3TAtXUM : ti C 1 £r• ' I _ _ NL { 5r/ BLOCK G BLOCK B - BLOCK A Palm Canyon Drive_ 0 p =t EXISTING RETAIL / RESTAURANT "STING flETAiL / flESTAUMNi EXISTING PETAA. PESTAURANr E)SSTINO RETAI %IESTAURAM � d � DOWNTOWN P^L" I SPRINGS — PHASING EXHIBIT a so WIG 200 WE55MA4N DEVELOPMENT scALEr-3a, Prepared by SANBORN A/E.ING-ARCHTKIURE-CIVIL ENGINEERMGSIEVEYING-76 -423- 00