Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23498 RESOLUTION NO. 23498 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL BY JUDY DEERTRACK AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO ISSUE LAND USE PERMIT CASE 13-067 FOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT / MUSICIANS AS ACCESSORY TO A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, Miggy's Cantina, LLC, ("Applicant") doing business as Hacienda Cantina submitted a Land Use Permit application (Case LUP 13- 067) requesting approval to allow outdoor entertainment and musicians as an accessory to an existing restaurant space at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, zone C-1 / PD 131; and WHEREAS, Sections 92.12.01(C)(2)0) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code allows musicians / entertainment as an accessory to primary uses within the C-1 zone with the approval of a Land Use Permit, and Section 94.02.01(D)(3) grants the Planning Director authority to conduct an investigation and render a decision on all Land Use Permits; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2013, the Planning Director issued the approval of Land Use Permit 13-067; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2013, Judy Deertrack ("Appellant") filed an appeal of Case LUP 13-067; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented and voted 4-0 (3 absent) to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Director to approve Case No. LUP 13-067; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, the Appellant filed a subsequent appeal, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Case No. LUP 13-067; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2014, a public meeting on the appeal was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the appeal hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. Resolution No. 23498 Page 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, and the appellant's stated grounds for the appeal includes the following: This project appears to me as the choice of the city to place a large,high-capacity outdoor 0event venue with music andAcohol permits,right in the middle of a small residential shopping center surrounded by residential use, with all the expectations of quiet and privacy, and then to advise us that there is no obligation to follow the General Plan protections of a Neighborhood Convenience Center, and there is nothing remiss about excluding our input by never placing this matter on a public notice agenda, or by never allowing a public hearing until two appeals were.filed. I am disappointed that none of us were contacted,particularly because the property owner is our landlord. This appeal is about noise and the right for affected residents to know and participate,and just that. It is about the important obligation of creating appropriate mixtures of commercial and residential uses, building projects to scale, and the obligation of the City to probed its residents from misplaced noise intrusion through the many avenues it has available for that purpose,whether that be: 1. Enforcing the thoughtful protections of its General Plan, 4 2_ Giving impacted neighbors a chance to participate in the decision, 3. Creating fair and appropriate appeal procedures, 4. Creating a safe environment for public participation; S. Empowering public review of noise,traffic,and parking studies, 6. Sharing written commentary by placing it on the public record, 7. Consolidating the piecemeeled permits for an integrated review, 8. Appropriately interpreting "neighborhood compatibility" and how it rehttes to the California Environmental Quality Act 9. Scrupulously protecting access to elected representatives when true public issues are present, 10.Protecting the commercial/neighborhood designation of this small Planned Development District during its modification and change over time. All of the above factors are present as decisions previously made,and now new choices to be made by the City Council. My primary concern today is that no public notice ever went out on this project; people attending today were privately notified. No resident or owner within the area of impact was ever given public notice either before or through the entire appeal process;even the Planning Commission had this Placed on the"meeting agenda' rather than a higher level"hearing agenda." As an appellant I did not even get a chance to speak on the agenda item utter paying$3oo. I presented my appeal during general Public comment,which was awkward and an inappropriate venue for placing the appeal grounds before the decision maker. The appeal period created under city ordinance for a land use permit actually expired because no record of review existed within its time frame;the Notice of Exemption on CEQA with its appeal deadlines was flied (still again) without any public notification of a matter under review. The Planning Commission concluded upon review,with the assent of the Planning Director,that there was no obligation to follow the General Plan protections for neighborhood serving uses;and the Planning Commission admitted that this project is in character,identical to others such as the Ace Hotel, Saguaro Hotel, Riviera,etc.,which they admit have extensive records of residential complaints because of major noise and activity incompatibilities But at the same time the Commission concluded no environmental impact assessment Is required. All of these impediments and inhibitors to full public review and participation have a chilling effect when attempting to balance the equities between the general public and commercial development -where there is a crowded or tight fn,as there is here. Resolution No, 23498 Page 3 Palm Springs has admitted to a vigorous program of outreach to hotels, restaurants,and commercial areas to bring youth, music, and vitality to the city. This has even been described as the Millennium generation. It is unthinkable, however,to intrude into quiet residential neighborhoods without in the least inviting those neighbors to offer their input to elected representatives. These music venues and large public gatherings are not expected to be quiet or neighborhood oriented. The noise ordinance was the administrative solution to mitigation, but now of us participated In this choice Noise ordinances only work when development is placed where it truly belongs,location is everything. This project is likewise confused by segregating a series of permits that collectively comprise the 'Project' This review has been segregated into an architectural permit a land use permit and an alcohol permit None of the permits run concurrently, and each has its own separate appeal. Therefor, a consolidated review or appeal Is impossible, and the true impacts of the project are never before the decision maker or the public at any given time. This has created a fragmented environment and of course the project never reaches a CEQA threshold of sigdHcance, which would generate a public hearing. There are also problems with the record. only a few days before this final appeal, Mr. Marantz,the owner of the Happy Traveler Rv Park,shared with me a draft,four-page legal memorandum prepared by his attorney, Simon Housman. The memorandum is an in-depth analysis of the ciws Noise Element concluding the ciVs approval of the project would be in violation of its Noise Element and that the 'overly narrow analysis'of the project as a'minor remodeling"ignores its change from a restaurant to an'eventvenue." That memo was addressed to the Mayor and City Council and dated December 9, 2013, received one month before the Planning Commission review and subsequent approval that occurred January 8, 2014, but it was never put on the record for Planning Commission review. I am assuming that the Planning Commission approved the project without benefit of this document attached to this appeal. If this Is the case, the input from Mr. Housman is sud9dently critical, that any decision is incomplete without its addition. i also was not informed of this important document and would never have discovered it had I not approached Mr.Marantz subsequent to PC approval. Mr.Marantz gave me a check to cover the cost of the appeal to the City Council because of his concern on how this project will impact his business and clients. I will be contacting cite City Planning Department to find out whether and when the document was received by Council, in what final form (this is a draft copy),and why it was not shared, if it was placed in the file,which would have been the obligation I am highly supportive of commercial development in this city. The prosperity of our future depends upon the generated revenue, and the vibrancy of our city depends upon the creativity we place into commercial areas. So much of what we are doing has improved the future of Palm Springs. In the Instance of the defunct Creekside inn,i am very excited at Its re-opening,and feel that the applicant is an outstanding developer. However,I am asking the City to truly open this process to public inspection and participation so that a careful balance can be obtained between the project and its neighbors. If we don't do this now,this project may suffer over time,or create some of the unpleasantness experienced In other music venues within the City. We don't want that to be the result SECTION 2. In response to the above, the City Council finds as follows: The restaurant is located at the northeast corner of the Plaza Del Sol shopping complex and adjacent to a Major Thoroughfare as designated by the General Plan Circulation Element. Commercial uses are permitted within the Neighborhood Community Commercial Land Use designation of the General Plan; the underlying C-1 zone explicitly identifies uses that are permitted as accessory to a primary use. Resolution No. 23498 Page 4 Specifically, Section 92.12.01(C)(2)0) of the zoning code allows musicians / entertainment (subject to the provisions of the noise ordinance) as an outdoor accessory to a permitted main use with the approval of a Land Use Permit. Land Use Permits do not require "public notice agenda" under the zoning or municipal codes. The Land Use Permit approval is conditioned so that the outdoor entertainment / music are subject to the Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 11.74. Decibel limits are specified within the Permit to ensure minimal noise impacts off-site. See LUP condition Nos. 5 & 7. Regarding noticing, land use permits do not require public hearing notices under the zoning or municipal codes. Notification of appeals to appellant(s) and applicant(s) are public documents available for public inspection. The separate MAA action was heard at two posted AAC meetings, and the appellant attended and spoke at the second meeting on the project. The LUP appeal period expired after the initial appeal was filed and five days after the record of decision was made. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303(e), wherein the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. All of records of applications and decisions are available for public review and inspection. The Minor Architectural and Land Use Permit applications are reviewed and acted upon exclusively in the zoning code. For instance, one application may be approved and the other may be denied; though they were both approved in this case. Should it be determined that there are noncompliance issues with the LUP, the Permit may be revoked, resulting in the elimination of outdoor entertainment / music. Such revocation of exterior improvements is not possible under the zoning code. Therefore, the applications are reviewed and acted upon independently. Staff never received the Housman letter attached to Ms. Deertrack's appeal in any form. Had it been received, it would have been part of the record and included with the appeal to the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve Case LUP 13-067. Resolution No. 23498 Page 5 ADOPTED THIS 5T" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. DAVID H. READY, CI GER ATTEST: MES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 23498 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 the 5t" day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Lewin, Councilmember Mills, Mayor Pro Tern Hutcheson, and Mayor Pougnet. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK City of Palm Springs, California,,/, -7 I>e ( -4-