HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _6201- Case 5.1263RESOLUTION No. 6201
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE DESERT FASHION PLAZA AND
RELATED PROPERTIES IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE
WITH THE 2007 PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Wessman Development Company has proposed a Development
Agreement (Case No. 5.1263) with the City of Palm Springs to assist in the
redevelopment and revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza and certain related
properties; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement includes reference to the Museum
Market Plaza Specific Plan as the controlling land use document for said Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the approval of a Development Agreement must conform to the
requirements of California Government Code Section 65867 et seq, and also to the
provisions of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.08; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for Case 5.1263 was given in accordance with
applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2011, a public hearing on the conformity of the proposed
Development Agreement Case 5.1263 with State and City laws was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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, and all written and oral testimony presented.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs does
recommend to the City Council that the proposed Development Agreement is not in
conformance with the 2007 Palm Springs General Plan, and not in conformity with
public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, will be detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare, and will adversely affect the orderly development
of property or the preservation of property values:
1. No retail marketing study provided to justify project.
2. The entire Planning Commission should be involved in a Study Session of the
proposed Development Agreement
3. The developer has a long history with the project without taking action on
revitalizing the property
N
4. The City should study larger traffic circulation pattern / design before approving
the project.
5. The Town & Country Center should be preserved, or Blocks K1 and K2 should
be deleted from Development Agreement project description
6. There is insufficient public plaza space in proposed plan
7. The proposed plan to share Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) with the developer
is not appropriate.
8. Private benefits to developer significantly outweigh public benefits to City
9. Indian Canyon and Palm Canyon should be returned to two-way traffic
10.The commitment to housing in proposed plan is inadequate, compared to
Specific Plan.
11. The Frank Property is not clearly identified as included or excluded from the
proposed project
12. The adaptive re -use of historic building should be considered
13.The proposed Agreement is inconsistent with the General Plan regarding
preserving the City's historical resources and sustainability, specifically the
adaptive reuse of the Town & Country Center (Blocks K1 and K2)
14. The proposed Agreement's term of 25 years is too long.
15. The sale of any portion of the development to any person including relatives
should require city approval.
16.The proposed Agreement appears to eliminate the liability of the seller for the
responsibilities of the DA with any sold property.
17. The proposed Agreement appears to override the phasing and other regulations
contained in the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan.
18. The proposed Agreement appears to provide too general a commitment by the
City to support the owner.
19.The proposed Agreement does not contain a definitive schedule for phasing
development.
20. The requirement for a "super majority" of the City Council to modify or terminate
the proposed Agreement should be a simple majority.
21. The proposed Agreement's provision for no monetary damages is insufficient.
22. The proposed Agreement provides no remedy should the developer quit or die
during construction of the project.
23. The mortgagee protection should exclude developer and his successors,
surrogates, assignees, corporations and relatives.
24. Museum Way should be Pedestrian only.
25. Developer should dedicate those properties to the City that are to be developed
as public right-of-way.
26.Immediate demolition of the Town & Country Center only allows for an
unnecessary mid -block street that further divides the development and adds
unwanted auto traffic instead of open space.
27. No waiver of in -lieu fees should be allowed for deficient parking at hotels in
Blocks K1 and K2.
28.There should be an acceptable approved site plan before implementing the
proposed Development Agreement.
ADOPTED this 8=h day of June 2011.
AYES: 3, Chair Caffery, Doug Hudson and Leslie Munger
NOES: 1, Vice Chair Donenfeld
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: 3, Tracy Conrad, Philip Klatchko and J.R. Roberts
ATTEST:
l
•/;�: • r ■
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
N
W-j