Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/5/2014 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. LawOfficesotBabak Naficy February 5,2014 i Via US Mail and Email City of Palm Springs, c/o City Clerk City Council of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 CiLYclerkRpalmsprings-ca.gov Steve Pougnet@palmsprinuca c v Chris,Millsnopalmsprinys-ca.gov u; Ginny.Foat(a)palmsprings-ca.gdv — Rick.Hutcheson ftalmsprin c,s-ca.gov Paul.Lewin(L' nalmspringsca.gov 1504 Marsh Street Son Luis Obispo RE; February 5,2014 City Council Meeting Item LB California 93401 Hacienda Cantina-DeertrackAppeal ph:805-593-0926 fox:805-593-0946 Honorable City Councilmembers, babakaaheyWs bc9lob0m,I These comments are submitted on behalf of People for Proper Planning("PFPP") in connection with the above referenced project. Based on the staff report and the City's handling of this project, it appears the City's rules and practices regarding providing adequate public notice to the neighborhood in connection with proposed developments is deeply flawed. Staff simply states that a notice is not required under the code for a proposed Land Use Permit(LUP) for outdoor entertainment. If this is true, it must be addressed by the City Council as the project's neighbors have a right to know about a proposed project that can seriously impact their lives by creating a constant noise source. The residents must be provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. According to the Staff Report, the mere fact that the proposed outdoor music venue is subject to the noise ordinance in itself is enough to conclude that the residents would be subject to only minimal noise levels. Every project in the city is subject to every limitation in the City Code, yet this is not an adequate basis to conclude each and every project would not have a substantial negative impact on the residents. The City Council must consider the location and the type of project proposed and make a specific determination about potential project impacts on that basis. The assumption that compliance with the noise ordinance would reduce any impact to less than significant is not warranted without a detailed and site-specific inquiry, especially in light of the appellant's proffered evidence of numerous neighborhood complaints lodged against this type of outdoor music venue. Appellant, Judy Deertrack, states that as an appellant, she was not afforded an opportunity to make her case to the Planning Commission. Staff does not address this /slit' City of Palm Springs Palm Springs City Council February 5, 2014 Page 2 of 2 issue, but the City Council must address it by referring the case back to the Planning Commission in order to give the appellant the same opportunity to make her case as is routinely afforded to developers when they appear as an appellant. Staff insists that the Notice of Exemption("NOE") for the architectural application was appropriately filed, yet admits that approval was for the physical structures only. In other words, the Staff Report itself seems to admit that the NOE did not take into account the project's potential noise impacts and potential incompatibility with the neighborhood. As such, the NOE was premature,inadequate and void ab initio. CEQA directs agencies not to prematurely issue an NOE before the project is approved. In this case,the "project"clearly is not limited to the construction of the proposed accessory buildings, the pool,etc.,but also includes the LUP for the music. As such, the City could not issue an NOE before the decision was made to approve the entire project Coalition for Clean Air v. Cily of Visalia,(2012)209 Cal. App.4th 408,423 ("We conclude that the foregoing provisions of Guidelines section 15062 unambiguously require notices of exemption to be filed after the project has been approved.") In theory, the City could issue a second NOE in connection with the LUP,but such an approach would run afoul of the prohibition against impermissible segmentation of the project. The City's practice of premature issuance of notices of determination and notices of exemption before project approval is completed must stop. Sincerely,! a G G�414'�"—/ 11111� Babak Naficy Counsel for People for Proper Planning r7R SOUND B VIDEO Rich Meaney Miggy's Cantina, LLC 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Sound System for Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Dear Rich: It was a pleasure speaking with you this afternoon. To address the concerns regarding the sound system design, Pro Sound & Video is in the process of completing a design that will direct the majority of sound energy toward the parking lot to the south rather than the housing developments. Below are a few itemized system features that will reduce the environmental noise concerns: 1) The sound system will be connected to a digital signal processor specifically configured and programmed for your venue. This will allow for changes in the sound levels and tunings for the system based on pre-defined presets that are recalled by time of the day or event type. 2) The speakers will be oriented and aimed in a fashion to significantly reduce environmental noise bleed into neighboring residential communities. 3) The sound system will be professional designed using EASE, an acoustic simulation software program that allows for precise acoustic predictions. Given the ability to control and limit the sound levels electronically, we believe the residents in the area will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. Attached is a project reference list to identify some of the projects that Pro Sound & Video has recently completed. Respectfully, David Myers, CTS-D Director of Operations PRO SOUND & VIDEO LOS ANGELES * MIAMI * ORLANDO * PENSACOLA www.prosound.net CA License #839692 7401 Laurel Canyon Blvd Suite 29 2TEpu/ P✓ North Hollywood,CA Tel:818.765.3800 Fax:818.765.6304 E0LIN0 B VIDE ❑ Rich Meaney Miggy's Cantina, LLC 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Sound System for Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Dear Rich: It was a pleasure speaking with you this afternoon. To address the concerns regarding the sound system design, Pro Sound & Video is in the process of completing a design that will direct the majority of sound energy toward the parking lot to the south rather than the housing developments. Below are a few itemized system features that will reduce the environmental noise concerns: 1) The sound system will be connected to a digital signal processor specifically configured and programmed for your venue. This will allow for changes in the sound levels and tunings for the system based on pre-defined presets that are recalled by time of the day or event type. 2) The speakers will be oriented and aimed in a fashion to significantly reduce environmental noise bleed into neighboring residential communities. 3) The sound system will be professional designed using EASE, an acoustic simulation software program that allows for precise acoustic predictions. Given the ability to control and limit the sound levels electronically, we believe the residents in the area will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. Attached is a project reference list to identify some of the projects that Pro Sound & Video has recently completed. Respectfully, David Myers, CTS-D Director of Operations PRO SOUND & VIDEO LOS ANGELES * MIAMI * ORLANDO * PENSACOLA www.prosound.net CA License #839692 7401 Laurel Canyon Blvd o/�3 Suite 29 North Hollywood,CA Tel:818.765.3800 Fax:818.765.6304 REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED effrrx*r==++**+*ffxxffrtrtrtwrtxxxwx»lfx:rf*****+****f**xrtrt Project: Jacobs Engineering Office Building Owner: Jacobs Engineering Contact: Keith Ruhland, 949-224-7658 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 950,000.00 Completion: 2013 »*ww»»wxlflwxwffxxx**x=*=++******xxxxrtrtrtwwxxxwwxxr::ffx Project: Bing Concert Hall at Stanford University Owner: Stanford University Contact: Maggie Burgett, 650.725.0662 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 1,500,000.00 Completion: 2013 =xx***++++++++******fxx*xxxfrtrtrtww»»»xxwwffrrx***r**xff* Project: UCLA Pauley Pavilion Owner: UCLA Contact: Ali Bassam, 818.224.0939 Consultant: Acoustic Dimensions Contract: $ 762,000.00 Completion: 2013 wffwxx=xxx==+=++__++_++*+++***xfxxx*»xrtrtwwxwxwwwewxx*xx Project: Harman Hall Owner: Cal Poly State University Contact: Roger Phillip, 805.756.6283 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 737,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: Herb Alpert Educational Village and Ann & Jerry Moss Theater Owner: New Roads School Contact: Sean McGarry, 310.828.5582 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2013 +++********f*fxw****fxxxx*xrtrtwrtrtrtrtww»»xxwxrrfxxx****+*_ Project: Arcadia High School Performing Arts Owner: Arcadia Unifed School District Contact: James Richardson, 818.883.5110 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 545,000.00 Completion: 2012 ****++**********f*f*xxxffrirrrtrtrtrtwrtw»xxxwxllfwrwfrxfrx* Project: USC/Brain Creativity Institute Theater Owner: USC Contact: Ed Buch, 213.821.5634 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 371,000.00 Completion: 2012 +*****++**===x*rtrtrtxwxwxxxxxxwxxxxw!»lffxxr::=***+*=***r PF-0, C1 ='L,N B vice❑ Paae 1 of REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED Project: Jacobs Engineering Office Building Owner: Jacobs Engineering Contact: Keith Ruhland, 949-224-7658 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 950,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: Bing Concert Hall at Stanford University Owner: Stanford University Contact: Maggie Burgett, 650.725.0662 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 1,500,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: UCLA Pauley Pavilion Owner: UCLA Contact: All Bassam, 818.224.0939 Consultant: Acoustic Dimensions Contract: $ 762,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: Harman Hall Owner: Cal Poly State University Contact: Roger Phillip, 805.756.6283 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 737,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: Herb Alpert Educational Village and Ann & Jerry Moss Theater Owner: New Roads School Contact: Sean McGarry, 310.828.5582 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2013 Project: Arcadia High School Performing Arts Owner: Arcadia Unifed School District Contact: James Richardson, 818.883.5110 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 545,000.00 Completion: 2012 Project: USC/Brain Creativity Institute Theater Owner: USC Contact: Ed Buch, 213.821.5634 Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 371.000.00 Completion: 2012 P�❑ SOUND S VIDEO Paae 1 of 4 REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED Project: St Margret's Episcopal School Performing Arts Center Owner: St Margret's Episcopal School Contact: Dick Jonovich, 949.661.0108 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 820,000,00 Completion: 2012 Project: Campbell Hall Community Arts Center Contact: Kristopher M Barr, 562.754.2913 GC: MATT Construction Consultant: The Shalleck Collaborative Contract: $ 700,000.00 Completion: 2012 Project: Cars Land, Walt Disney Imagineering Contact: Lynn C. Gould, 714-817-1309 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 360,000.00 Completion: 2012 Project: Sinai Temple Contact: Howard Lesner, 310.474.1518 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 310,400.00 Completion: 2012 Project: DTS/ DISNEYTOON Studios (Disney Workdwide Services, inc.) Contact: Bill Munsterman, 818.402.2652 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 920,000.00 Completion: 2011 Project: DCA Little Mermaid (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 175,000.00 Completion: 2011 Project: Universal CityWalk (NBC Universal) Contact: Paul Cuoco, 818.622.5810 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 415,000.00 Completion: 2011 Project: SOKA University Performing Arts Center Contact: Sam Morales, 949-480-4247 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 870,000.00 Completion: 2011 Pf�' ❑ s7uNF e VfoF❑ Paae2of4 REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED Project: St Margret's Episcopal School Performing Arts Center Owner: St Margret's Episcopal School Contact: Dick Jonovich, 949.661.0108 Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 820,000.00 Completion: 2012 *********=ff=fff=}*}**###}}************k*kk*******f*f== Project: Campbell Hall Community Arts Center Contact: Kristopher M Barr, 562.754.2913 GC: MATT Construction Consultant: The Shalleck Collaborative Contract: $ 700,000.00 Completion: 2012 Project: Cars Land, Walt Disney Imagineering Contact: Lynn C. Gould, 714-817-1309 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 360,000.00 Completion: 2012 Project: Sinai Temple Contact: Howard Lesner, 310.474.1518 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 310,400.00 Completion: 2012 ***k****fk**k*fflflff**k**==!*******#********k***kk**** Project: DTS/ DISNEYTOON Studios (Disney Workdwide Services, inc.) Contact: Bill Munsterman, 818.402.2652 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 920,000.00 Completion: 2011 Project: DCA Little Mermaid (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 175,000.00 Completion: 2011 Project: Universal CityWalk (NBC Universal) Contact: Paul Cuoco, 818.622.5810 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 415,000.00 Completion: 2011 ****}}}#}}k*****}**k*********k*****k***k********fff=!f! Project: SOKA University Performing Arts Center Contact: Sam Morales, 949-480-4247 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 870,000.00 Completion: 2011 � �\] *##*******}}*************************k*******fff***=*** Pi ji,} \© SOUND s woE❑ Paae 2 of 4 REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED X#xk*x###wwxwxX#x##k*wk*##kkwwwxXXXX****wwkxxxx#XXXxw** Project: CSUN —Valley Performing Arts Center Contact: Jack Guzman, 626.351.8800 GC: CW Driver Consultant: McKay Conant Hoover Contract: $ 2,200,000.00 Completion: 2011 ' wkx#www::wxxxXXXXXwwxx*wwkxwxxxXXX#wxx###wwxxxxxx##wwwx Project: USC — Ronald N. Tutor Campus Center Contact: Brandon Operchuck, 213.740.8159 GC: Tutor Saliba Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 2,000,000.00 Completion: 2010 xxxXXXwwwww*x##wwwwxx:x#XXXwwxx###wxwwxx#XX#www*##wwk:k Project: Western Diocese of the Armenian Church North America Contact: Scott Clendenin, 310.470.1264 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 200,000.00 Completion: 2010 #wwxww+xXXxXXXw*kx*#www:xxxXXXXwwwx*wwwwwwxxxXXX#www*## Project: Universal Studios Hollywood King Kong Contact: Paul Cuoco, 818.622.5810 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 225,000.00 Completion: 2010 #*xkwx*#wwwwwxwwxxXXXwkxxx*wwwwxkxwXXX##wk*##wwwxxxx#:X Project: dts Headquarters Relocation Contact: Paolo Burgos, 818.201.4600 GC: Inner Space Constructors Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 400,000.00 Completion: 2009 ##wxwxwwwxxxxXX#ww*wx##w#xxwwxxxXX##**x#ww:wxxxxxXXwww* Project. CBS Executive Administrative Building Contact: Jereme Wemes, 323.575.2644 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 500,000.00 Completion: 2009 x###wwwkwxwxx*xxXXwwwwxx##wwwxxxxxXXXwww*xx#wwwxwxxXXXX Project: NARAS (Grammy's) Headquarters Building Contact: Tim Whalen, 310.581.8675 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $400,000.00 Completion: 2009 wkxx*#XXXXXXwkw**xwwwwxxxxx#XXX#wk*#x*wwxxxxxXxXXwwwx## Project: First Congregational Church of Los Angeles Contact: Morris Wise, 213.385.1341 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 200.000.00 Completion: 2009 XXXXwwwwxxx###wwwkwxx:##XX#wwxxxx##wwwxxxxxXXXwwkx*ww#w PF' SOUND S VIDEO Paae 3 of 4 REFERENCES— PROJECTS COMPLETED #*********hf====kkk**********hh**kkk*********f===k*kkk* Project: CSUN—Valley Performing Arts Center Contact: Jack Guzman, 626.351.8800 GC: CW Driver Consultant: McKay Conant Hoover Contract: $ 2,200,000.00 Completion: 2011 *k**********=*===kk**k*********#=*=kkk*******k**#f=*=** Project: USC— Ronald N. Tutor Campus Center Contact: Brandon Operchuck, 213.740.8159 GC: Tutor Saliba Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 2,000,000.00 Completion: 2010 ********h*=h*=kkkkkk********#ff*==k#kk*********#=f=k*kk Project: Western Diocese of the Armenian Church North America Contact: Scott Clendenin, 310.470.1264 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 200,000.00 Completion: 2010 Project: Universal Studios Hollywood King Kong Contact: Paul Cuoco, 818.622,5810 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 225,000.00 Completion: 2010 #*******f##==k*kkk****#*******f==kkkkk*f******##f===kkk Project: dts Headquarters Relocation Contact: Paolo Burgos, 818.201.4600 GC: Inner Space Constructors Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 400,000.00 Completion: 2009 *********#f#h=*kkkkkk**********#f==kkkk*********#ff==kk Project: CBS Executive Administrative Building Contact: Jereme Wemes, 323.575.2644 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 500,000.00 Completion. 2009 Project: NARAS (Grammy's) Headquarters Building Contact: Tim Whalen, 310.581.8675 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 400,000.00 Completion: 2009 ******=ffhx*=kkk*k**********ffxxxkkk*kk*******##==kkk** Project: First Congregational Church of Los Angeles Contact: Morris Wise, 213.385.1341 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 200,000.00 Completion: 2009 kkk=kkk*************#===kkkkkk*##******#*h==kkk**k***** PIS ❑ SOUND 8 VIDEO Paae 3 of 4 REFERENCES— PROJECTS COMPLETED +**x11f111RRR****=*k=#ii+iff******rtrt*xxxRRRRff*fk=#=k## Project: Midway Games (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 115,000.00 Completion: 2009 =fkk+++kkki=i+++ffiffR**rt*rtrtxrtfifix1x11RR**fk==k=#+i+ififlf Project: Bakken Auditorium (Mid-Pacific Institute) Contact: Arne LaPrade, 808.330.1748 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PMK Associates Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: ESRI Theater GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $400,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: Leo Baeck Temple Contact: Abigail Spiegel, 310.476.2861 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 150,000.00 Completion: 2009 *rtrtrt**fififirtfirtxxffhllRRRR*ff*!*##*k+ii+++*RRrtf***rtrt*rtfixxx Project: Los Angeles High School#9 GC: PCL Contract: $ 325,000.00 Completion: 2009 RRRfffffff+fif********==k*i=iif+f*RR**rtrt**xRxffffflflik Project: Americana at Brand GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2008 ' k#k=+ff+f!!lrtrtrt*frt!*rt***rtx*RRxxxx»!!!*****ii++f*frtrtrtrtfi Project: The Colburn School Contact: Mike Hockett, 213.621.4521 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 800,000.00 Completion: 2007 #**iiif+lf++11rtlf*****rtrt***fixRxxxxxfff!!k:*+*k+f+flxlrtrt Project: Toy Story (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 1,400,000.00 Completion: 2007 xRfRxxxfffff1f111f******=kk==iiii++fRR**rtrtfififirtrtRRxfRff* FPF� ❑ SOUND S VIDEO Paae4of4 REFERENCES — PROJECTS COMPLETED Project: Midway Games (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 115,000.00 Completion: 2009 xxx!!!!!!xx=######****************xx**llxxx=#*****#**** Project: Bakken Auditorium (Mid-Pacific Institute) Contact: Arne LaPrade, 808.330.1748 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PMK Associates Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: ESRI Theater GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 400,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: Leo Baeck Temple Contact: Abigail Spiegel, 310.4762861 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Veneklasen Associates Contract: $ 150,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: Los Angeles High School #9 GC: PCL Contract: $ 325,000.00 Completion: 2009 Project: Americana at Brand GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: PlanNet Consulting Contract: $ 300,000.00 Completion: 2008 Project: The Colburn School Contact: Mike Hockett, 213.621.4521 GC: AV Contracted to owner Consultant: Sonitus Consulting Contract: $ 800,000.00 Completion: 2007 Project: Toy Story (Walt Disney Imagineering) Contact: Catherine Larkin, 714.781.0390 GC: AV Contracted to owner Contract: $ 1,400,000.00 Completion: 2007 *****xxx****xxxxxx*xxxxxxx=##*=****#****x*xx*xxxxxxxxx= PRO SOON❑ B VIDEO Paae 4 of 4 I � SIMON A. HOUSMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 69730 Highway 111, Suite 200 Admitted to the Bar Rancho Mirage CA 92270 California (760)328-7995 Fax 760-3284985 New York simonhousmanlaw(a�eartlink.nel New Jersey February 5, 2014 Mayor, Mr. Steve Pougnet Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Chris Mills City Councilpersons: Ms. Ginny Foat, Mr. Rick Hutcheson and Mr. Paul Lewin, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92270 Re: The Proposed Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Event Venue Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilpersons: I am writing to you on behalf of the owner of the Happy Traveler RV Park located at 211 West Mesquite Avenue Palm Springs. Happy Traveler hosts 130 Family RV sites and frequently over 200 hundred visitors on any season day. Most of these visitors have been visiting Palm Springs and repeatedly staying at the Happy Traveler for many years. They come to enjoy the quiet, beautiful environment of Palm Springs at the very foot of the the soaring Mt. San Jacinto. We are concerned about noise related issues of procedure and substance being applied to review of this project. The Happy Traveler is only 60 feet from the proposed Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club event venue. The proposal appears to change a restaurant with a small patio into a"Cantina & Beach Club"hosting musicians and other events throughout the day and into the night, including weekends and holidays. This proposed project which makes a major change in the use of the property has been treated by the City as a minor remodeling. This overly narrow analysis ignores the change from a restaurant to an event venue. It circumvents the public hearing process appropriate to vet such a potentially noisy project in violation of the 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Noise Element. "...[M]inimizing the exposure of Palm Springs residents to excessive noise is essential to maintaining a quiet, safe, and productive environment and a high quality of life. The purpose of this noise element is to outline a set of noise control policies, programs, and implementation measures that provide guidance for solving noise-related issues and problems. By identifying noise sources within the City and its sphere of influence, future noise impacts associated with the �H iB IC J SIMON A. HOUSMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 69730 Highway 111, Suite 200 Admitted to the Bar Rancho Mirage CA 92270 California (760)328-7995 Fax 760-328-4985 New York Simon housmanlaw(deartlink.net New Jersey February 5, 2014 Mayor, Mr. Steve Pougnet Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Chris Mills City Councilpersons: Ms. Ginny Foat, Mr. Rick Hutcheson and Mr. Paul Lewin, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92270 Re: The Proposed Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Event Venue Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilpersons: I am writing to you on behalf of the owner of the Happy Traveler RV Park located at 211 West Mesquite Avenue Palm Springs. Happy Traveler hosts 130 Family RV sites and frequently over 200 hundred visitors on any season day. Most of these visitors have been visiting Palm Springs and repeatedly staying at the Happy Traveler for many years. They come to enjoy the quiet, beautiful environment of Palm Springs at the very foot of the the soaring Mt. San Jacinto. We are concerned about noise related issues of procedure and substance being applied to review of this project. The Happy Traveler is only 60 feet from the proposed Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club event venue. The proposal appears to change a restaurant with a small patio into a "Cantina & Beach Club" hosting musicians and other events throughout the day and into the night, including weekends and holidays. This proposed project which makes a major change in the use of the property has been treated by the City as a minor remodeling. This overly narrow analysis ignores the change from a restaurant to an event venue. It circumvents the public hearing process appropriate to vet such a potentially noisy project in violation of the 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Noise Element. "...[M]inimizing the exposure of Palm Springs residents to excessive noise is essential to maintaining a quiet, safe, and productive environment and a high quality of life. The purpose of this noise element is to outline a set of noise control policies, programs, and implementation measures that provide guidance for solving noise-related issues and problems. By identifying noise sources within the City and its sphere of influence, future noise impacts associated with the February 5, 2014 Page 2 continued growth of a thriving city such as Palm Springs can be minimized and avoided." 2007 Palm Springs General Plan: Article 8. Noise Element. Happy Traveler provides Habitable dwelling areas for several hundred people. "Habitable: a dwelling area that is occupied, or that is intended or designed to be occupied, by one family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. (Source: California Health and Safety Code, Section 19970)" General Plan Noise Element at Pe 8-8. As noted in Fig. 8-2, of the General Plan Noise Element, at a Transient Lodging property, such as Happy Traveler, 60db is only"Conditionally Acceptable". A "conditionally acceptable" designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. General Plan Noise Element, Pa 8-8 (emphasis added). Approving The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club as an event venue introduces significant noise hazards to the surrounding properties. The Noise element of the General Plan Identifies "Rock Band"at 110 db, second only to a DC-10 Aircraft noise at 125 db. (Figure 8-1) The City of Palm Springs has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. The applicable standards for these activities are specified in the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The Municipal Code limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Page 8-5 The General Plan includes several policies which appear to be ignored in the over simplistic "minor architectural' processing of this project. NS1.2 Encourage the application of site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects. NS1.3 Utilize maximum anticipated, or"worst case,"noise conditions as the basis for land use decisions and design controls as a means of preventing future incompatibilities. NS1.4 Evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with the existing noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. February 5, 2014 Page 2 continued growth of a thriving city such as Palm Springs can be minimized and avoided." 2007 Palm Springs General Plan: Article 8, Noise Element. Happy Traveler provides Habitable dwelling areas for several hundred people. "Habitable: a dwelling area that is occupied, or that is intended or designed to be occupied, by one family with facilities for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating. (Source: California Health and Safety Code, Section 19970)" General Plan Noise Element at Pe 8-8. As noted in Fig. 8-2, of the General Plan Noise Element, at a Transient Lodging property, such as Happy Traveler, 60db is only"Conditionally Acceptable". A "conditionally acceptable" designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. General Plan Noise Element, PR 8-8 (emphasis added). Approving The Hacienda Cantina& Beach Club as an event venue introduces significant noise hazards to the surrounding properties. The Noise element of the General Plan Identifies "Rock Band" at 110 db, second only to a DC-10 Aircraft noise at 125 db. (Figure 8-1) The City of Palm Springs has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. The applicable standards for these activities are specified in the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The Municipal Code limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Page 8-5 The General Plan includes several policies which appear to be ignored in the over simplistic "minor architectural' processing of this project. NS1.2 Encourage the application of site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects. NS1.3 Utilize maximum anticipated, or"worst case," noise conditions as the basis for land use decisions and design controls as a means of preventing future incompatibilities. NS1.4 Evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with the existing noise environment when preparing, revising, or reviewing development proposals. February 5, 2014 Page 3 NS1.7 Allow new developments in areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL only if appropriate mitigation measures areincluded such that applicable noise standards are met. In the present instance, the Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club project will be created in an area between the 60db and 65 db contours on the Central Future Noise contour map. There is no indication that the City has taken any of the steps identified in the General Plan Policies to: Properly reduce noise impacts on existing structures, Utilize the "worst case" to prevent future incompatabilities, Evaluate compatibility using existing noise, and Appropriately mitigate the noise added to the area. Shortcutting the procedure prevents a thorough evaluation considering the surrounding land uses. As contemplated by the policies in the General Plan, the City should provide for adequate public hearings for neighborhood participation. NS1.10 Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into adjacent residential neighborhoods. NS1.5 Require that noise analyses for future developments be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. Studies must indicate how proposed developments are in compliance with the City noise ordinance. Studies will be reviewed by the appropriate decisionmaking body prior to the issuance of permits. If the project is approved, with the proper mitigation the operation will be conditioned on compliance with the Palm Spring Noise Ordinance. (1) The noise standards for the various categories of land use identified in Section 11.74.031 shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated, apply to all such property within a designated zone. (2) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property, to exceed the limits set forth in Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.032. Palm Springs Noise Ord. Section 11.74.034 (Ord. 1167 § 1, 1952) (Emphasis added) Section 11.74.031 of the Palm Spring Noise Ordinance sets the standards for permissible noise levels which can be exported by the proposed commercial project to its neighbors as follows: 10p.m. - 7a.m.= 50 db., 7a.m. - 6 p.m.= 60db. and 6p.m. 6 - 10 p.m.= 55db. February 5, 2014 Page 3 NS1.7 Allow new developments in areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL only if appropriate mitigation measures areincluded such that applicable noise standards are met. In the present instance, the Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club project will be created in an area between the 60db and 65 db contours on the Central Future Noise contour map. There is no indication that the City has taken any of the steps identified in the General Plan Policies to: Properly reduce noise impacts on existing structures, Utilize the "worst case"to prevent future incompatabilities, Evaluate compatibility using existing noise, and Appropriately mitigate the noise added to the area. Shortcutting the procedure prevents a thorough evaluation considering the surrounding land uses. As contemplated by the policies in the General Plan, the City should provide for adequate public hearings for neighborhood participation. NS1.10 Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into adjacent residential neighborhoods. NS1.5 Require that noise analyses for future developments be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. Studies must indicate how proposed developments are in compliance with the City noise ordinance. Studies will be reviewed by the appropriate decisionmaking body prior to the issuance of permits. If the project is approved, with the proper mitigation the operation will be conditioned on compliance with the Palm Spring Noise Ordinance. (1) The noise standards for the various categories of land use identified in Section 11.74.031 shall, unless otherwise specifically indicated, apply to all such property within a designated zone. (2) No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property, to exceed the limits set forth in Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.032. Palm Springs Noise Ord. Section 11.74.034 (Ord. 1167 § 1, 1982) (Emphasis added) Section 11.74.031 of the Palm Spring Noise Ordinance sets the standards for permissible noise levels which can be exported by the proposed commercial project to its neighbors as follows: 10p.m. - 7a.m.= 50 db., 7a.m. - 6 p.m.= 60db. and 6p.m. 6 - 10 p.m.= 55db. February 5, 2014 Page 4 Since the customary operation of a cantina in Palm Springs extends beyond 6 p.m. and beyond 10 p.m. when 60db and 55 db are permissible, it is forseeable that this project will run afoul of the noise ordinance. Those noise levels should not be exported to Happy Traveler which provides habitation for its hundreds of guests. In conclusion, our client requests the review of the project include a careful acoustic study evaluating the"worst case". The design, if approved, contain the noise within the project. One method of addressing these probable noise violations would be to include in the Conditions of Approval, an affirmative duty on the Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club to adequately mitigate any noise violations by appropriate further remodeling and landscaping including but not limited to hedge rows and other accoustic measures. Concrete sound walls would need to be so high as to destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood unless setback a sufficient distance from the streets and landscaped.. A well publicized and readily available mechanism to immediately address and stop excessive noise seems reasonable. Your courtesy and cooperation are greatly appreciated. Thank you, SIMON A. HOU MAN SAH:rd February 5, 2014 Page 4 Since the customary operation of a cantina in Palm Springs extends beyond 6 p.m. and beyond 10 p.m. when 60db and 55 db are permissible, it is forseeable that this project will run afoul of the noise ordinance. Those noise levels should not be exported to Happy Traveler which provides habitation for its hundreds of guests. In conclusion, our client requests the review of the project include a careful acoustic study evaluating the "worst case". The design, if approved, contain the noise within the project. One method of addressing these probable noise violations would be to include in the Conditions of Approval, an affirmative duty on the Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club to adequately mitigate any noise violations by appropriate further remodeling and landscaping including but not limited to hedge rows and other accoustic measures. Concrete sound walls would need to be so high as to destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood unless setback a sufficient distance from the streets and landscaped.. A well publicized and readily available mechanism to immediately address and stop excessive noise seems reasonable. Your courtesy and cooperation are greatly appreciated. i Thank you, SIMON A. HOUSMAN SAH:rd 1555 S. Palm Canyon Way O J t W m AL. MOROFIGO RD .� J ity+Of �n f ; f prings Yi1 , Q N/�.�ppA M t r, r � I Riverside Coulnty TLMA GIS ° 'IMPORTANT' Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only.Map features are approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards.The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content(the source is often third party),accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map.Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. REPORT PRINTED ON...Wed Feb 05 16:16:63 2014 Version 131127 Surrounding Habitations 1555 S. Palm Canyon Way A _ ❑ C dw r 9 } t MORONGO RD ■ " P Im 'Springs �l�k _ jdo r SONORA RD i Riverside County 1LMA GI S ° 'IMPORTANT' Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only.Map features are approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards.The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content(the source is often third party),accuracy,timeliness,or completeness of any of the data provided,and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map.Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. REPORT PRINTED ON...Wed Feb 05 16,16,53 2014 Version 131127 Surrounding Habitations i r � t 70 'Jig t poll Qj►Y r Lap liptwoL f,�. ( •� � - �• !.r .. Y'. ! a vim` N OAs .r • w .T .. V NJ co w-. C • V �� V W El br +! '• 4..E a Vol Mks� �! ♦. ' f 1' IV Ip z l M YI 1 if _ t i 11 1 � ��� Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Since/rel� ` BOB VITHAL General Manager ffls. Bob Vithal Owner & GM Musicland Hotel 1342 S. Palm Canyon MUSICLAND HOTEL 1342 S.Palm Canyon Dr. Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs,CA 92264 760/325-1326 (760)325-1326 FAX(760)322-5759 ba/Bdf�� For Reservations Cell 1-888-312-6222 www.musiclandhotel.com . g, musiclandhotel@gmail.com Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sincerely, Pm k_ South Palm Canyon Palm Springs CA 92264 �2�3�- Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sinc ely, ----- 7ti C, PA South Palm Canyon I Palm Springs CA 92264 MEDITERRANEAN-CONTINENTAL CUISINE Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sincerely, &AaC AN4sa:i /owut¢ Travel Lodge South Palm Canyon Palm Springs CA 92264 Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sincerely, . � Palm Canyon Liquor & Deli Super Lotto Plus ,. Liquor,Beer,Fine Wine Fresh Sandwiches&Groceries U South Palm Canyon 1400 S.Palm Canyon Dr. Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm springs,cn92264 George Zakkour (760)325-1623 Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit b keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and p P Y P 91 P local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one lithe group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sincerely, i Boca Gambale Creative Director & Founder emrowea. 1500 S. Palm Canyon Ste 10 1(.N TC, Palm Springs CA 92264 CREATIVITY TC 760/980-2900 caenTiviTv... .T1, use C CENTER Letter of Support Dear Mayor & Council, Please count me 100% in with those who show support for the wisdom and decisions of our elected officials by passing and supporting the revitalization of South Palm Canyon, particularly as it relates to the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Project. Please remain diligent in your fight with those few individuals who are trying to block this unique Palm Springs Venue. I am firmly in support of those Investors that are willing to risk putting hard earned money into revitalizing South Palm Canyon so it may reverse this area from falling further into decay. Perhaps those renting in that little area are used to buildings being empty, the homeless camps, and our private property being used as their doggy toilets, There is almost no lighting, no crosswalks, and generally no attention from Tourists or Investors. Renters can rent elsewhere if they want to remain in the Dark Ages, however, I can't move my business of so many years. We are a part of Downtown and we deserve to have a World Class Venue such as Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club anchor this area and help us bring foot traffic and attention to our struggling business. I have put my life savings into this business and I would like some representation and attention to the area. We need to attract foot traffic, tourists and locals alike to our businesses. We also need a crosswalk for safety and some new energy in the area. The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club venue would be unique to Palm Springs. When do we in the City of Palm Springs get to be the beneficiary of our own name and unique brand? Please keep working to ignite the entrepreneurial spirit by keeping jobs, business ownership, investment, tourism, and local business in South Palm Canyon, The Real Palm Springs and not Palm Desert. Please try to put an end to the hostage taking by this one little group of renters and their one token misguided business owner. There are literally hundreds of apartments for rent available for anyone who seeks something different and anyone can tell you that all businesses will benefit from a new fun filled venue within walking distance, even a seasonal trailer park. Why live or stay downtown otherwise? Stein Mart needs something there to bring people in or they will go away as well. Please help bring life back to that area. We support our Elected City Council, Mayor, our Business Community and The Hacienda Cantina & Beach Club Project. Sincerely, C 2 Edgar& ElAra Tailor Shop Phone(760)327-3327 Edgar Qoea� Monday-Friday 9 AM to 5 PM Custom Tailoring and Alterations Sat"�y 9 AM to I PM for Men and Women 1510 5.Palm Canyon Dr. South Palm Canyon �m Sl)dr s.CA 92262 y (Across From STEIN MART) Palm Springs CA 922(i4 1plge RESORTS February 5, 2014 Ahab Dada CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Tim Ellis To whom it may concern: VICE CHAIRMAN On behalf of the PS Resorts Board of Directors we would like to express Nick Gronkowski our support of the Hacienda Cantina and Beach club project planned for SECRETARY the Old Creek Inn site located at 1555 So. Palm Canyon Drive. — Brandon McCurley We feel this location is ideal and a great use of the property. This concept TREASURER of dinning, bar, entertainment, pool & cabana is a very unique concept and first of its kind in the Coachella Valley. With close proximity to the Ace Hotel, the Curve & Saguaro this is just another venue that will continue to market to the young, affluent, more hip traveler looking to come to our destination. Additionally, the proven track record of those involved with this project will be instrumental in the success of this new venue. We look forward to the finished project and including this new attraction *ir m rketing efforts. s, /5 190 Amado Road • Palm Springs, CA 92262 • 760-275-0963 • vwwv . S'-RESORTS.com ?PA M SA c / N ` ONau'01'' +: IlFORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 5, 2014 APPEAL HEARING SUBJECT: JUDY DEERTRACK APPEALING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A LAND USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT / MUSICIANS AS ACCESSORY TO A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE PD-131 / I.L. (CASE LUP 13-067). FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to reject an appeal and uphold the Director of Planning Services decision to conditionally approve a Land Use Permit (LUP) authorizing outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory to a restaurant located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive. The LUP was issued to Miggy's Cantina LLC ("Applicant") doing business as Hacienda Cantina. The appellant, Judy Deertrack, is a resident at 1333 S. Belardo Road, Apt. 510. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the hearing and receive testimony; 2. Adopt Resolution No. "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." ITEM NO. kb City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 2 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal BACKGROUND: Planning Areas Specific Plan None Design Plan None Airport Overlay None Indian Land Yes Resort Combining Yes Subject to Section 92.25.00 of Zoning Code Related Relevant City' Actions by Planning, Fire, Building, etc... 10/21/2013 The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed a Minor Architectural Application (MAA) to develop the vacant pad area adjacent to the existing restaurant building with an outdoor pool, lounge and bar area at the existing Plaza Del Sol shopping center. The project was tabled with comments and requests, including: 1. Use of Washington Filifera Palms instead of Queen Palms; 2. Use 36-inch box Olive trees in parking lot for shading; 3. Setback wall along Palm Canyon with enhanced landscape; 4. Height of service (bar) structure too tall at ten feet height and should be reduced; 5. Provide additional information on Palm Canyon building /structure elevations, and details of wall finish and articulation; 11/25/2013 The AAC recommended approval of the MAA, subject to proposed staff conditions and have a subcommittee review how the new walls will interface with the original walls with regard to size, location, material, color and texture, and an additional condition for the four Queen Palms to be replaced with Washingtonia Palms. Chair Secoy-Jensen added an amendment stating that the landscape plans supersede the drainage plans due to inconsistencies. 11/27/2013 Staff approved the MAA (Case 3.1111) for exterior improvements and Land Use Permit (13-067) for accessory outdoor musicians / entertainment, subject to Conditions. See attached approval letter. 11/27/2013 The City filed a Notice of Exemption with Riverside County Clerk. (See attached approval letter. 1/08/2014 The Planning Commission reviewed the LUP appeal and unanimously rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the Director of Planning Services to approve Land Use Permit Case LUP 13-067. General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses of Site & Surrounding Areas Existing General Plan 'Existing Zoning Designation Existing Land Use Designations Subject NCC (Neighborhood / PD-131 (Planned Development Restaurant in Commercial Property Community Commercial) 131) Shopping Center North NCC C-1 (Retail Business), R-3 66-unit Hotel (Multiple-family Residential and Hotel) & PD-17 South TRC (Tourist Resort PD-52 Stein-Mart and other Commercial) I commercial tenants East TRC C-1 38-unit Hotel West HDR (High Density R-3 Vacant Residential 02 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 3 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal Nei hborhood Meeting None x v ,i ? P , Y :x t µ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ENTERTAINMENT BACKGROUND The subject site is currently a non-operational restaurant building within the Plaza Del Sol shopping center. The applicant submitted two applications — a Minor Architectural Application (MAA) and a Land Use Permit (LUP). The MAA was for all exterior improvements, including: • Construction of an outdoor accessory recreation area including, pool, lounge chairs, private cabanas, palapa bar, bathrooms and (2) bocce ball courts; • Building a six-foot high block wall around accessory recreation area; • Installation of wrought-iron fence between pool area and restaurant building walkway; • Expand the parking area to the vacant, undeveloped dirt area west of the building; • Re-paint existing restaurant building with gray hues; • Enhance landscaping around and within proposed recreation area. The MAA was sent to the AAC for consideration. The Committee recommended approval and a Notice of Exemption was filed with Riverside County Clerk on November 27, 2013. 03 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014—Page 4 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal The Land Use Permit was submitted to allow outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory to the restaurant. Throughout the review process, the appellant has noted both the MAA and LUP applications are being appealed. This is shown as recent as the appellant's letter dated January 21, 2014. However, it should be noted that the LUP is the only item being appealed as confirmed in an email from the appellant on December 18, 2013 (see attached email). LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION 13-067 Miggy's Cantina LLC filed an application to allow outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory use to the existing non-operational restaurant. The entertainment is proposed to be located within a newly expanded pool and accessory recreation space adjacent to the restaurant. Music / entertainment are limited between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily, and must be in conformance with the noise ordinance, including limitations on maximum decibel levels. See all conditions outlined in attached LUP 13- 067. ,,. . . ._.MORONGO R0. f�(lu if/ l tm,+ � '.� ..:i 1�i•qy\ F V st q PACOT w.� . . ^t. t / t, o / ! a c.. L I 1 } Architectural Site Plan Proposed Site Plan 04 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 5 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal APPEAL The submitted appeal includes numerous statements and reasons for overturning the decision to approve the LUP. Staff has reviewed each below and provided a response: Please accept this letter as an appeal of the above matter to the City Council. 1 am respectfully asking the City to incorporate by reference into the staff packet on the appeal,any and all previous comment letters from me or from any other parties, or their representatives, that have been submitted to the City in regard to this matter. Staff response (#1): All items have been included — see attachment list at end of this report. This project appears to me as the choice of the city to place a large,high-capacity outdoor"event venue" with music and Alcohol permits,right in the middle of a small residential shopping center smTounded 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. 1 am disappointed that none of us were contacted,particularly because the property owner is our landlord. Staff response (#2): 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. 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. 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 protect its residents from misplaced noise intrusion through the am ny avr it has available for that purpose,whether that be: 1. Enforcing the thoughtful protections of its General Plan, 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 plecemealed permits for an integrated review, 8. Appropriately interpreting "neighborhood compatibility" and how it relates 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. 05 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 6 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal All of the above factors are present as decisions previously made,and now new choices to he 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 Panning 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 after paying$300. 1 presented my appeal during general public comment,which was awkward and an inappropriate venue for placing the appeal grounds before the decision maker. Staff response (#3): 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 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 filed (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 fit,as there is here. 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 none of us participated in this choice. Noise ordinances only work when development is placed where it truly belongs;location is everything. Staff response (#4): 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. 06 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 7 Case No. LUP 13-067— Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal 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 CERA threshold of significance, which would generate a public hearing. Staff response (#5): 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. 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 inemorandom is an in-depth analysis of the city's Noise Element, concluding the city's approval or the project would be in violation of its Noise filement, and that the "overly narrow analysis" of the project as a "minor remodeling"ignores its change from a restaurant to an"event venue." 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 Planting Commission approved the project without benefit of this document,attached to this appeal. If this is the rase, the input from Mr. Housman is sufficiently 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 the 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. Staff response (#6): 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. 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'twant that to he the result. Staff response (#7): See staff response #2 and second paragraph of#3. The remainder of the appeal letter is related to ordinance changes and broad considerations. 07 City Council Staff Report February 5, 2014— Page 8 Case No. LUP 13-067—Hacienda Cantina— Deertrack Appeal CONCLUSION: Staff and the Planning Commission have concluded that the Land Use Permit application (Case LUP 13-067) for outdoor entertainment / musicians is an accessory use authorized by Land Use Permit. Staff and the Planning Commission followed the proper review procedures pursuant to current law. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council reject the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve LUP 13-067, subject to the conditions contained therein. M. Margo W eeler, AIC David H. Ready Director of Planning Services City Manager Attachments: 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. LUP 13-067 4. Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 8, 2014 5. Planning Commission Resolution 6377 6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 8, 2014 7. Appellant letter, dated January 21, 2014 8. Appellant email, dated December 18, 2013 9. Rutan & Tucker LLP (Applicant) letter, dated January 3, 2014 10. Appellant letter, dated December 5, 2013 11. Staff letter to Appellant and Applicant, dated January 23, 2014 12. Staff letter to Appellant, dated January 9, 2014 13. Staff approval letter to Applicant, dated November 27, 2013 14. Reduced Plans ti$ ti OEpPLM Sp�'y N Department of Planning Services W E k"... Vicinity Map 'C4l ISORNP. [ :.�_. � _ ��N�• it - — it _n c���j =.x "�Y r F21 C R3 _ itClli ---------- R3RMHP i rJL G,t µ �ICi l ._.®,RAC ._,_:_.® PD i =BE07iL3fl3t9E a---v--_ . _ - K y s Ici pRzl Ric as � WCt R1C i R3 1C1�R3jR2 i lit n li R1C _ II r—r-- R1C i RIC- i 9Ci R3 i{R2 020 R1G au PD , e Y RR2I ........, f�€:_:__ E�PAL�4T�ANY�I D Legend Ric ; ;o it�— '�•a,�fl ffi,m _ _ Site R3 p a�O�RiC Io i O 500R Site Radius ,7 Parcels �_ ! i s--,�^ a! R2 RMHP RMH CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: LUP 13-067 DESCRIPTION: An appeal of the Planning Director's decision to APPLICANT: Miggy's Cantina LLC approve by Land Use Permit outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory to a restaurant located at APPELLANT: Judy Deertrack 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-131 / C-1, Section 22. li 9 RESOLUTION NO. 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)(j) 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. 10 City Council Resolution 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"event venue" with music and alcohol 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 as 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 protect its residents from misplaced noise intrusion through the man"avrliues it has available for that purpose,whether that be: 1. Enforcing the thoughtful protections of its General Plan, 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, b. Sharing written commentary by placing it on the public record, 7. Consolidating the pleeemealed permits for an integrated review, 8. Appropriately interpreting "neighborhood compatibility' and how it relates 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 he 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 after paying$300. 1 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 CEQ/t with its appeal deadlines was filed (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 fit,as there is here. it City Council Resolution 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 none of us participated in this choice. Noise ordinances only work when development is placed where ittruly 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 significance, 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 city's Noise Element, concluding the city's 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"event venue." 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 sufficiently 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 the 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. 1 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,1 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 CA zone explicitly identifies uses that are permitted as accessory to a primary use. 12 City Council Resolution 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 a hearing 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 have been made 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. AII'correspondence that has been received, have been made part of the record and included with the appeal to the Planning Commission. It was presented to the City Council as an attachment to the Staff Report and reviewed. 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. ADOPTED this 5th day of February, 2014. David H. Ready, City Manager i3 City Council Resolution Page 5 ATTEST: James 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. 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 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California ;.4 O4 pALM @AA • V "t/POR CiTY OF PALM SPRINGS �1NO} Department of Planning Services LANs) USE PERMIT# 13-067 Applicant: Mailing Address: Phone: (949) 922.8210 Miggy's Cantina, LLC 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Fax: Palm Springs, CA 92262 E-Mail: rhm@nexusd.com Business Name: Hacienda Cantina Site Address: 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive Zone/GP.- C-1 / NCC JAPN. 513-300-038 Section, Township, Range: 22/414 92.12.01 C 2 ' PROCEDURE: An application for a Land Use Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services, and shall be accompanied by the following: 1. A Processing fee of$696.00 2. A floor plan and/or site plan displaying the layout of the proposal. A. Such other information as the Director of Planning Services may require, including, but not limited to adjacent uses, photographs, building elevations, landscape plans, design studies, furniture information, etc. STATEMENT OF ACTIVITY.. Applicant shall submit a statement of the use, expected size, volume, hours, and length of operations; information relating to sanitation, noise, air pollution, vehicle parking, traffic circulation, and any other information of the proposed project: Land Use Permit for musicians and entertainment.(subject to provisions of noise ordinance) outside on pool deck entertainment to include live DJ's and bands with hours of operation for outside pool -area to be from 8:00 AM to.6,00 PM seven days a week. CONDITIONS: See Land Use Permit for conditions including the requirement of an encroachment agreement to be obtained from the City Engineering Department. TRANSFER: Transfer of Land Use Permit to another applicant is subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning Services. REV CATION: The Director of Planning Services may revoke any Land Use Permit that does not meet r comply with conditions and requirements of this permit. Appli s Signature Pe C ter Signatu Date Account# 001-32204 15 City of Palm Springs pPLMS A o � Department of p Planning Services H 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 A. (760) 323-8245 —direct C'14,F0R (760) 322-8360—facsimile LAND USE PERMIT#13-067 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: November 27, 2013 REQUEST: Land Use Permit for musicians and entertainment (subject to provisions of noise ordinance) outside on pool deck; entertainment to Include live DJ's and bands with hours of operation for outside pool area to be from. 8:00 AM to 6:00 fM seven days a week. APPLICANT: Miggy's Cantina LLC LOCATION: 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive ZONING/ GENERAL PLAN: C-1 / NCC - Section 92.12.01(C)(2)0)— outdoor musicians and entertainment (subject to provisions of noise ordinance) located on the same property as permitted use allowed with a Land Use Permit. 'Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning and Building, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition(s). Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 1. The proposed development of the promises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning this Land Use Permit application. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter or pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney, If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall walve the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter i 6 LUP 13-067 November 27, 2013 Hacienda Cantina Page 2 of 3 following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the Indemnification rights herein. 3. No architectural approval is granted herein. Any exterior changes of the establishment shall require separate applications and permits. .4. Any exterior signing, including menu boards and temporary signs shall be approved by the Planning Department. Menu boards and portable open signs shall not be permitted within the City right-of-way without a permit and violations will result in issuance of citations and revocation of all permits and agreements. 5. This Land Use Permit authorizes the use of live DJ's and bands providing entertainment outdoor on pool deck. Live Entertainment is approved as follows: a) Live entertainment shall be limited to the pool deck within the hours of 8:00 AM to 6.00 PM, b) Any and all instruments shall have limited amplification. c) All amplification equipment shall be placed so that sound is projected toward other commercial properties and roadways away from nearby residential communities. d) Noise levels shall be maintained to a level where customers can conduct normal conversation. . e) All activities shall comply with the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. . 6. Hours of operation for outdoor pool area to be from 8:OO AM to 6:00 PM seven days a week. T . This permit does not waive the C4's noise ordinance. The business is required to adhere to the following noise levels at all times according.to Muni. Code Chap. 11.74. Ordinance Time of Day Ordinance dBA Limits 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 60 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 55 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 6. All conditions of approval associated with Minor Architectural.Application (MAA) Case # 3.111 shall apply including site layout, hardscape, and landscaping. 9. This Land Use Permit recognizes the presence of 401 off-street parking spaces at Plaza del Sol Shopping Center meeting the requirements of Section 93.06.00(D)(19) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) for mixed-use developments over 20,OOO-square feet. 7 LUP 13-067 November 27, 2013 Hacienda Cantlna Page 3 of 3 10.The food service use shall conform to all County of Riverside Department of Health requirements. 11.A business license and any other permits are required. 12.Applloant shall comply with all California Alcohol Beverage Control regulations. 13.This Land Use Permit shall be displayed on-site at all times and made available to City officials upon request. 14.Failure to comply with Municipal Codes, Ordinances, and the conditions of this land use permit may result in revocation of this permit. Director of Planning Services Signature; Date: � Applicants Signature: Date; � v i 7 { ) CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 08, 2014 Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donenfeld called the meeting to order at 1:32 pm. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Klatchko, Commissioner Roberts and Chair Donenfeld ABSENT: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk and Vice-Chair Hudson ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Wheeler, Principal Planner Robertson and Admin. Coordinator Hintz 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, January 2, 2014. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted, as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Donenfeld opened the public comments portion of the meeting: TOM O'DONNEL, said this project is a minor modification of an existing use and the old restaurant site is in need of revitalization. GERARD NOONA, executive vice-president, Chamber of Commerce, spoke about the benefits to the community from the revitalization of the vacant restaurant site. 19 J Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 JOY MEREDITH, spoke about this area being vacant for a long time and it will attract a younger crowd to the city and provide jobs for the community. MANUAL MONTOYA, spoke on behalf of People for Proper Planning, said they are opposed to the project because there was no neighborhood notification given and inadequate analysis on the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. AFTAB DADA, general manager, Hilton Hotel, spoke about the city creating incentive programs for large new and existing hotels in the community; noting that this is a very unique project. JAIME KOWAL, commented on the exciting things happening in the city and noting that this project will bring positive changes. JORDAN FIFE, works at Viceroy Hotel, said that a new younger demographic group is coming to the city; and the city needs attractions that will appeal to tourists and residents. MICHAEL KASSINGER, resident since 1978, commercial realtor, the city's pro- development has enabled the growth to the community; restaurants will need to provide other amenities, as this project, in order to survive. MAUREEN FLANNERY, resident and attorney, spoke in support of the new and exciting concept of poolside entertainment in a stand-alone restaurant. MICHAEL BENTAL, South Palm Springs resident, commented that the restaurant will provide new energy for an established neighborhood and create year-round jobs. KATHY BATES, has worked in hospitality business for over 25 years, spoke in support of project; noting that the younger demographic group needs attractions that will appeal , to them. ADAM GILBERT, said this is the exact project the city needs to attract people and the site is in dire need of renovation. REGGIE CAMERON, resident and marketing consultant, commented about the noise ordinance that is in effect and spoke in support of the project. KIMBERLY FUNKEY, restaurant owner, feels this area can use ajroect like this and project does not see problems with parking issues. Page 12 L Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 AMANDA CHERREY, the city has the opportunity to restore an empty building into a vibrant energetic dining experience. MARK BALDWIN, resident, commented that this building has been vacant for two years and this project will add the revitalization the city needs. BRANDON CANNING, spoke in reference to Item 3C, Case 3.3697, provided details on the proposed project and is available for questions from the Commission. KATHERINE JENSON, legal consul for the applicant, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, commented that this is clearly an accessory use and will not serve as a commercial swimming pool and it fits well within the city's code. MARK MARSHALL, spoke in support of the project; noting there is a void in the south part of town and this is a vital project for the city. KEVIN REACH, said that it is a necessity for the city to have a Hacienda Cantina to appeal to celebrities and attract more people. GEORGE MARANTZ, spoke in support of the Hacienda Cantina; however, he expressed concern with the distance of this project to the adjacent Happy Trailer Park which is less than 80 feet from the site. DAN CLEARY, retired police officer, expressed concern with the noise that would affect the trailer park residents and does not think the police department can control the noise and is concerned with the traffic. JOHN WESSMAN, commented that he owns the shopping center and adjacent apartments in the rear and is planning to build homes across the street. This property is surrounded by commercial and the noise ordinance has strict restrictions. He spoke in favor of the project. JUDY DEERTRACK, appellant, (Item 3B - Hacienda Cantina) said that the proposed project is a large assembly with full-scale entertainment that is within 30 yards from where she resides. She said the city has created the land use designation as neighborhood commercial and expressed concern that the surrounding neighbors were not notified and given the chance to participate in the city meetings. There being no further appearances public comments was closed. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: Page 13 21 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 11, 2013 AC N: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2013, (a correc n on page 8) as amended. Motion: C missioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Klatchko and unanimously carried 4-0-3 a roll call vote. AYES: Co issioner Calerdine, Commissioner Klatchko, Commissioner Robe and Chair Donenfeld ABSENT: Commi 'oner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice Chair Hudson 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2A. AT&T MOBILITY ON BE LF OF SHARON DEAN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A FORTY-EIG FOOT TALL MONOPOLE DISGUISED AS A PALM TREE AND A VARIANCE T XCEED THE MAXIMUM ANTENNA HEIGHT PERMITTED FROM 15' TO 48' LOCA AT 4185 EAST PALM CANYON, ZONE C- 2, SECTION 30 (CASE 5.1285 CUP 16.5 VAR). (DN) Principal Planner Robertson presented the p osed project as outlined in the staff report. Chair Donenfeld opened the public hearing: ROB SEARCY, Prescott Communications, spoke abou he height that is needed to provide for radio frequency. He described the location and a design of the monopalm. He noted that the AAC recommended five palms trees and quested a reduction be considered and require only two trees because of the high cos Mr. Searcy provided details about the concerns associated with co-locations at the exi ' g cell tower. KELLY DUNN, owner, Safari Mobile Home Park, spoke in oppositi to the wireless antennas; and reiterated the antenna height limit is 15 feet. He indl ted he would litigate if approved. There being no further appearances the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Robertson reported that staff is confident they can work wit the applicant on finding a creative solution to arrange the trees so they will not encroach the critical habitat area. Page 14 22 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 mmissioner Calerdine commented about the relatively new established endangered s ies that was found in this area and that established protocol fora new species cou take a long time. Commis ' ner Klatchko asked about clarification of the 15 foot requirement for the antenna h ' ht. Staff responded that this section of the Zoning Code may need to be updated; an larified that the 15 feet is above an existing structure also. Commissioner tchko asked if there are alternative towers in the neighborhoods to fill this gap. ROB SEARCY respo ed that they looked at the area where they have the gap and searched for options wit ' the vicinity. He commented that they need a defined area; and if the antenna is too c e to another cell site it would over-saturate the signals and create interference within th etwork. Commissioner Calerdine comm ed on the necessity of the antennas and will support staffs recommendation. ACTION: To approve, subject to Con ' ns of Approval, as amended with an additional condition: • The applicant shall submit a bi-annu maintenance report with photographs to the City. Motion: Commissioner Calerdine, seconded by hair Donenfeld and unanimously carried 4-0-3 on a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commission Klatchko, Commissioner Roberts and Chair Donenfeld ABSENT: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk d Vice Chair Hudson A recess was taken at 3:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 3:09 pm. 3. NEW BUSINESS: 3A. GARY AND JULIE CHANEY FOR ARCHITECTURAL APPRO TO REMODEL AND EXPAND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCL NG THE ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,402-SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA A Page 15 Z 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 A W TWO-CAR GARAGE ON A HILLSIDE LOT LOCATED AT 2343 BISNAGA AVEN ONE R-1-13 (CASE 3.2420 MAJ). (DN) Principal Planne obertson presented the proposed project as outlined in the staff report. He reported rrection on page 3, the expansion is proposed near both the front and rear yards and o e 4, the maximum proposed building height is 13 feet. Commissioner Calerdine questione a concerns from the public correspondence will be addressed. Staff responded that th licant, staff and the neighbor will meet to mitigate the measures. ACTION: To approve, subject to Conditions. Motion: Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commis ' er Calerdine and unanimously carried 4-0-3 on a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Klatchko, Commissione berts and Chair Donenfeld ABSENT: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice Chair Hudson \V 3B. JUDY DEERTRACK FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRETOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A LAND USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT 1 MUSICIANS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE PD-131 I I.L. (CASE LUP 13-067). (DN) Commissioner Klatchko asked if staff is comfortable all the notice requirements by law have been met. Director Wheeler responded that Minor Architectural Application (MAA) and Land Use Permits (LUP) require administrative review and neither requires a public hearing. She noted that the City's Noise Ordinance is not being waived. This location is within a commercial shopping center on a major arterial highway and the ambient noise level at this location is quite high. Commissioner Calerdine commented that he thinks this is a good use of the site since this restaurant has had many problems and something new may be necessary to work. He noted that Ms. Deertrack raises two general procedural questions and addressed these issues. He stated that this city is a charter city and the General Plan and Zoning Code need not be consistent. Commissioner Roberts concurred with many of the speakers today and the city is becoming a new demographic. This use is innovative and exciting. He thinks the real Page 16 24 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 issue is the impact to the neighborhood from this use and feels the noise ordinance may not be sufficient with this type of use. Chair Donenfeld suggested monitoring this type of use closely with a report coming back to the Commission. The Commission and staff discussed crafting a condition to monitor the noise level. Commissioner Klatchko reminded the members of the public that a noise ordinance is in effect and neighbors should be vigilant and if there is non-compliance citations may be issued. ACTION: To uphold the decision of the Planning Director and deny said appeal, as amended: • Track noise complaints from the police department and code enforcement and provide annual reports beginning a date certain one year after opening. Motion: Commissioner Calerdine, seconded by Chair Donenfeld and unanimously carried 4-0-3 on a roll call vote. AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Klatchko, Commissioner Roberts and Chair Donenfeld ABSENT: Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice Chair Hudson 3C. JEAN GOLD FOR A NEW 4,675-SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON A HILLSI OT TO INCLUDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION REQ NG AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT LOCATED AT 131 RIDGE M AIN DRIVE, ZONE R-2 (CASE 3.3697 MAJ / 7.1409 AMM). (GM) Principal Planner Robertson presented the propose oject as outlined in the staff report. BRENDAN CANNING, project archite scribed the proposed house, terrain and type of materials that will be used. Commissioner Robert d he does not have a concern with the height because it works very well the terrain and it will not create a problem to the surrounding neighbors. N: To approve, subject to Conditions. Page 17 05 RESOLUTION NO. 6377 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN APPEAL BY JUDY DEERTRACK AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES TO APPROVE LUP 13-067; ALLOWING ACCESSORY OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT / MUSICIANS AT AN EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, Miggy's Cantina, LLC, doing business as Hacienda Cantina submitted a Land Use Permit application (Case 13-067) requesting approval to allow outdoor entertainment and musicians as an accessory to a'n existing restaurant space at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive, zone C-1 / PD 131; and WHEREAS, Sections 92.12.01(C)(2)(j) 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 filed an appeal of Case LUP 13- 067; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public review of the appeal request, including all of the evidence presented in connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared on the matter, and all written and oral testimony presented; and THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the decision by the Director of Planning Services to approve the Land Use Permit request to allow musicians / entertainment as an accessory to a restaurant use within the C-1 zone is one properly authorized by Section 92.12.01(C)(2)(j) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. Section 2: That the conditions imposed by Land Use Permit 13-067 are necessary to insure the proposed use is compatible with adjacent properties and the community. Section 3: That an additional condition be added as follows: City staff shall track noise complaints as received from the Police Department and Code Enforcement and provide annual report beginning from opening of the business. zs Planning Commission Resolution No. 6377 January S, 2014 Case LUP 13-067 Hacienda Cantina Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby rejects the appeal and upholds the decision of the Director of Planning Services to approve Case LUP 13-067 as conditioned. ADOPTED this 8�h day of January 2014. AYES: 4, Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Klatchko, Commissioner Roberts and Chair Donenfeld NOES: None ABSENT: 3, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Weremiuk and Vice-Chair Hudson ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 4Nfarag;o!`Whee_1er, AICP Director of Planning Services r. Qp�M Sp c t, N f c f °hv,ertv r' CQ�/FORN�P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: January 8, 2014 SUBJECT: JUDY DEERTRACK FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRETOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE A LAND USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT / MUSICIANS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1555 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE PD-131 I I.L. (CASE LUP 13-067). (DN) CASE: 13-067 LUP (APPEAL) FROM: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The Planning Commission will consider an appeal of the Planning Directors decision to approve a Land Use Permit authorizing outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory to a restaurant located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive. The permit was issued to Miggy's Cantina LLC doing business as Hacienda Cantina. The appellant, Judy Deertrack, is a resident at 1333 S. Belardo Road, Apt. 510. RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision. ISSUES: • None BACKGROUND: Planning Areas Specific Plan None Design Plan None Airport Overlay None Indian Land Yes Resort Combining Yes Subject to Section 92.25.00 of Zoning Code � 8 L Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014— Page 2 Case No. 13-067 LUP—Hacienda Cantina—Appeal of Director's Decision Related Relevant City Actions 4y Planning, Fire, Building, etc... 10/21/2013 The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed a Minor Architectural Application (MAA) to develop the vacant pad area adjacent to the existing restaurant building with an outdoor pool, recreation, lounge and bar area at the existing Plaza Del Sol shopping center. The project was tabled with comments and requests, including: 1. Use of Washington Filifera Palms instead of Queen Palms; 2. Use 36-inch box Olive trees in parking lot for shading; 3. Setback wall along Palm Canyon with enhanced landscape; 4. Height of service (bar) structure too tall at ten feet height and should be reduced; 5. Provide additional information on Palm Canyon building / structure elevations, and details of wall finish and articulation; 11/25/2013 The AAC recommended approval of the MAA, subject to proposed staff conditions and have a subcommittee review how the new walls will interface with the original walls with regard to size, location, material, color and texture, and an additional condition for the four Queen Palms to be replaced with Washingtonia Palms. Chair Secoy-Jensen added an amendment stating that the landscape plans supersede the drainage plans due to inconsistencies. 11/27/2013 Staff approved the MAA (Case 3.1111) for exterior improvements and Land Use Permit (13-067) for accessory outdoor musicians / entertainment, subject to Conditions. See attached approval letter. Neighborhood Meeting None General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses of Site & Surrounding Areas Existing General Plan Existing Zoning Existing Land Use Designations Designation Subject NCC (Neighborhood / PD-131 (Planned Restaurant in Property Community Commercial) Development 131) Commercial Shopping Center North NCC C-1 (Retail Business), R-3 66-unit Hotel (Multiple-family Residential and Hotel) & PDA 7 South TRC (Tourist Resort PD-52 Stein-Mart and other Commercial) commercial tenants East TRC C-1 38-unit Hotel West HDR (High Density R-3 Vacant Residential 29 Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014— Page 3 Case No. 13-067 LUP— Hacienda Cantina—Appeal of Director's Decision ,y .el " 33K y ' - dL 9 • .. "'9i{V bE41 {hen.. ..a e. Axti..� PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ENTERTAINMENT BACKGROUND The subject site is currently a non-operational restaurant building within the Plaza Del Sol shopping center. The applicant submitted two applications — a Minor Architectural Application (MAA) and a Land Use Permit (LUP). The MAA was for all exterior improvements, including: • Construction of an outdoor accessory recreation area including, pool, lounge chairs, private cabanas, palapa bar, bathrooms and (2) bocce ball courts; • Building a six-foot high block wall around accessory recreation area; • Installation of wrought-iron fence between pool area and restaurant building walkway; • Expand the parking area to the vacant, undeveloped dirt area west of the building; • Re-paint existing restaurant building with gray hues; • Enhance landscaping around and within proposed recreation area. The Land Use Permit was submitted to allow outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory to the restaurant. While the letter originally submitted by the appellant states the appeal is for both applications, only one appeal fee was submitted for the Land Use Permit. The appellant was informed on December 12th that this is the only matter under consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff was informed on December 18th to proceed with the LUP only. 30 Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014— Page 4 Case No. 13-067 LUP— Hacienda Cantina—Appeal of Director's Decision MINOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICTION 3.1111 MAA Not under consideration. LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION 13-067 Miggy's Cantina LLC filed an application to allow outdoor entertainment / musicians as an accessory use to the existing non-operational restaurant. The entertainment will be located within a newly expanded pool and accessory recreation space adjacent to the restaurant. Music / entertainment are limited between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily, and must be in conformance with the noise ordinance, including limitations on maximum decibel levels. See all conditions outlined in attached LUP 13-067. ,'' •__,_„_ MORONGORD- Y is '+'r�"�*��i^y'—'"�''�` � a \v � y. �:!nt �r���vM,e�� �vYSi•+,a gaa. �i".ti: +`'n / 1 0 N: i 1 t / r -' � c \... ...... .. -xar. tom' N I Architectural Site Plan Proposed Site Plan 31 Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014— Page 5 Case No. 13-067 LUP— Hacienda Cantina—Appeal of Director's Decision APPEAL The appellant has stated three reasons for the appealing the Land Use Permit below. Staff has responded to each. "1. My first concern is with the classification of this project as `accessory use to a restaurant,' as though it is a minor modification that is a simple incidental use with no real change in character to the project area. Accessory uses are incidental to the principal permitted use in the zoning districts. But, the question here is whether the proposed accessory use is one customarily found in connection with the principal permitted use (a neighborhood restaurant in NCC), and secondly, whether it fits with the character of the overall Plaza Del Sol shopping center as a Neighborhood Community Center, servicing a local population as required by the general plan. This project is not neighborhood serving. Creekside Inn has always been a quiet residential restaurant, not a restaurant linked to a large commercial hotel or general commercial district. Therefore, classifying the accessory uses as "music" seems disingenuous, because it ignores the primary activity, which is gathering place for large groups, sitting at the pool, drinking at the bar, most likely loud music, and hundreds of people that gather on the weekends at spot locations in Palm Springs, such as you find at the Ace Hotel, Saguaro Hotel, and the Riviera. These uses are absolutely fun and appropriate to Palm Springs when they occur in the proper areas of the city and when they get proper review, but neither element is present here." Staff response: the zoning code specifies a number of uses that are permitted as accessory to a primary use within the C-1 Zone, which is the underlying zoning designation for the property. 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. "2. A second concern is that this should have been processed as a revision or modification to a Planned Development District PDD, and possibly even a combination PDD and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) rather than land use permit. If so, it would have had a hearing. Considering there are significant new uses, it should also be reviewed for Public Benefits requirements of the Planning Policy that requires a PDD to justify its range of uses. It seems problematic to use a Land Use Permit (LUP) and accessory use classification to process any significant change within a Planned Development District (PDD) linked to a pre-existing shopping center, especially when a huge component of parking for that project is going to be displaced. The new parking area is within a `vacant' classified area, but it is my understanding that this parking area' was reserved for commercial office building that has already been permitted and might still be active. That permit is not referenced in the parking discussion. No pakring plan was submitted that I have ever seen. At the least, the re-design of the parking area should be reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council— not under the restrictions of an appeal, but under the proper use of a revised PDD. During the Christmas Season, there wasn't a parking spot left in front of Steinmart on the weekend. Can you imagine eliminating about 50% of these spaces with no plan in sight for the displacement?" 32 Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014— Page 6 Case No. 13-067 LUP— Hacienda Cantina—Appeal of Director's Decision Staff response: A parking analysis was completed under the Minor Architectural Application and the site has adequate parking for the new accessory recreation space. The zoning code does not require additional parking for outdoor entertainment / musicians. "3. Thirdly, l am concerned by the failure to place a use permit on equal par with a minor architectural permit. The LUP did not get a hearing, the Minor Architectural Permit did. It seems odd that the land use project implications completely escape public review and the architectural features of the same project get a public hearing. This is not to demean architectural review, which is critical to creating the aesthetics we love and want to protect in the community. But— use should be on equal footing! The Palm Springs General Plan contains important neighborhood protections by classifying land use into three distinct commercial categories: those that serve and limit uses to surrounding neighborhoods (NCC); those that serve citywide needs; and those that serve regional needs. Here is the language on NCC, which applies for this PDD. The general plan requires compliance with this standard: NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTERS "Neighborhood retail centers provide shopping, dining, and gathering opportunities at a smaller scale than community commercial centers. They serve the residential areas immediately surrounding the center rather than Citywide or regional markers." [emphasis added] [Authoes Nate: This language is accompanied by a photograph of Plaza Del Sol, the PDD at issue, attached] General Plan Community Design Element 9-38. "Neighborhood/Community Commercial (0.35 FAR). Areas designated as Neighborhood/Community Commercial provide an opportunity for convenience commercial uses that serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. The commercial opportunities created under this designation are intended to be an integrated element of the neighborhood, providing to nearby residents services such as dry cleaners, grocery stores, bakeries, bank and post office branches, bookstores, drugstores, and smaller-scale restaurants. Harmonious relationships between these commercial uses and adjacent residential uses shall be achieved through compatibility of site design, building scale, pathways and circulation design, and architectural treatment of structures." [emphasis added] General Plan Land Use Element 2-6. 33 Planning Commission Staff Report January 8, 2014-Page 7 Case No. 13-067 LUP- Hacienda Cantina-Appeal of Director's Decision Neighborhood Serving Commercial 3.26.2 A Neighborhood Convenience Center is intended to provide a service radius of one-half to one mite, with a supermarket as a major tenant, on a 10-30 acre site. Structures shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height"[Author's Note: Although the anchor is not a grocery store, the neighborhood service radius should be the same or similar to NCC] General Plan Bridge Z-App E-3 "The commercial opportunities treated under this designation are intended to be an integrated element of the neighborhood, providing to nearby residents services such as dry cleaners, grocery stores, bakeries, bank and post office branches, bookstores, drugstores, and small-scale_restaurants." [emphasis added] General Plan LUE at 2-6 Staff response: 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. There is nothing in the zoning code that requires LUPs be considered at a "hearing" as stated by the appellant. CONCLUSION Staff has concluded that the Land Use Permit application (Case 13-067) for outdoor entertainment / musicians is an accessory use authorized by Land Use Permit. Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's LUP approval and deny the appeal. David A. Newell M. argo Wheeler, AICP Associate Planner Director of Planning Services achments Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. P 13-067 4. Ap ant letter dated December 5, 2013 5. Appro etter dated November 27, 2013 6. Reduced ns ,, 4 Judy Deertrack C `r ''' 1333 South Belardo Road,Apt 510 - Palm Springs,CA 92264 2014 JAN 2 1 Fn 2' 21 Tuesday,January 21,2014 ei� f c�ti� � Re: CITY COUNCIL APPEAL (PD Decision 11.27.13) Case No.LUP 13-067&3.1111 MAA; Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club 1555 S. Palm Canyon Drive Request to construct and operate accessory outdoor uses accessory to existing restaurant To the Honorable City Council: Please accept this letter as an appeal of the above matter to the City Council. I am respectfully asking the City to incorporate by reference into the staff packet on the appeal, any and all previous comment letters from me or from any other parties, or their representatives, that have been submitted to the City in regard to this matter. This project appears to me as the choice of the city to place a large, high-capacity outdoor "event venue" with music and alcohol 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. I reside at Tahquitz Mesa Villas, a multi-family development of approximately 200 tenants, mostly 55+ age,which sits immediately to the west of the planned.Hacienda Cantina. The Cantina Project is bordered on the northwest by Parkview Mobile Estates with 198 lots (55+ age tenants),and to the north by Happy Traveler RV Park, (200 visitors daily) which, by the owner's admission in a letter to the city, caters to repeat visitors who come specifically for the quiet of the Palm Springs. The owner, Mr. George Marantz, actually paid the cost of this appeal because of his expressed distress at the potential impacts to his RV guests. There is also a hotel south of the project To the southwest of the Cantina project, Mr.John Wessman has applied for a permit to build about 40 single-family residential homes. The Hacienda Cantina is ringed by residences, RV rentals, and hotels, creating a strong obligation for the city to maintain a livable and pleasant environment—and certainly to take every measure to ensure that all voices are heard and considered on the project design,its size and nature,and the repercussions of alcohol in an outdoor party environment with live music. I have met with the applicants who seem to be very gracious and professional. They have assured me that they will take every measure to control noise, but the permit runs in perpetuity,and no agreement is assured over time. 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 protect its residents from misplaced noise " -ihtrusion through the many avenues it has available for that purpose,whether that be: i 5 2 1. Enforcing the thoughtful protections of its General Plan, 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; 5. Empowering public review of noise, traffic, and parking studies, 6. Sharing written commentary by placing it on the public record, 7. Consolidating the piecemealed permits for an integrated review, 8. Appropriately interpreting "neighborhood compatibility" and how it relates 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 after paying$300. 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 filed (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 fit,as there is here. 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 none 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 significance, which would generate a. public hearing. 3 6 3 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 city's Noise Element concluding the city s 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"event venue." 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 sufficiently 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 the 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 I have a lot of confidence in this city and its representatives, even in the midst of a very stressful appeal process. I would ask the following of the City: 1. Avery close review of the public's right to notification and participation. 2. A closer inspection of how CEQA can actually aid commercial development by a. Resolving disputes at an early stage; b. Recognizing the threshold between major and minor thresholds of significance; c. Informing the public of important studies that define the nature and range of impacts; d. Allowing the public to see how the city defines and mitigates development impacts; e. Allowing the public to understand its right to comment upon design and improvements; f. Providing the rationale for public hearings; 3. A closer inspection of its use of the Land Use Permit,and how the ordinance does not distinguish major projects from minor projects; how it does not adequately distinguish major revisions from minor revisions; how it does not create proper criteria for what is public versus what is an internal, administrative review of development or land changes. 4. The need to incorporate proper findings into the land use permit so that an already overly private process can be reviewed for its sufficiency,so that we may know how the decision was reached. 5. A definite need to inspect the appeal procedures for the Land Use Permit It is fairly obvious that an appeal right is worthless if there is no manner of knowing a project is under review. Also, five days to appeal after a private,in-house decision is deeply problematic. 6. A closer inspection of the balance between commercial and neighborhood needs and what criteria compatibility is based upon - and how the general plan addresses those issues. Saying hat J7 4 general plan interpretations are loose guidelines conflicts with clear language in the plan that state zoning decisions are meant to be consistent with the general plan,not a loose interpretation. I remain deeply complimentary to the courtesy and generosity of staff in supplying information and in their willingness to meet and discuss issues. I thank the City Council for its hard work of remaining in the very tough spot of balancing economic vitality with privacy and quality of life, and working so hard to find both in every project it reviews. Thank you to all concerned. With regard, J y t ack A ACHMENT: Draft Letter from Simon Housman,dated December 9,2013 General Plan Appendix E, 3.26.2 (Neighborhood Convenience Center,or NCC) j � ^V '4 �� "W�I� � f- 4 � M+l•� i P A x w � uF� ad-ift k 4� 4 e •� .� �.. MIN WI I 1333 S BELARDO RD APT 510 (760)325-4290 i iaslizio C' PALM SPRINGS,CA 922,64 - � met 1 3utoth,• -2 1 $. di ol-d �i�� ))aloe ustomer Bankof America ACH HR 121 La 1: 1 10003sa4 000514003541ii' 1 3 I SIMON A. HOUSMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 69730 FTtghway 111,Suite 200 Admitted to the Bar Rancho Mirage CA 92270 California (760)329-7995 Fax 760-328.4985 New York simonhwsiaulawt&7eartlink net New Jersey December 9,2013 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Coun e City of Palm Springs 3200 East Palm Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92270 Re: The Proposed Hacienda Cantina&Beach Club Event Venue Dear Mr.Mayor and Councilpersons: I am writing to you on behalf of the owner of the Happy Traveler RV Park located at 211 West Mesquite Avenue Palm Springs. Happy Traveler hosts 130 Family RV sites and frequently over 200 hundred visitors On any season day. Most of these visitors have been visiting Palm Springs and repeatedly staying at the Happy Traveler for many years. They come to enjoy the quiet, beautiful environment of Palm Springs at the very foot of the the soaring Mt. San Jacinto. We are concerned about noise related issues of procedure and substance being applied to review Of this project. The Happy Traveler is only 60 feet from the proposed Hacienda Cantina&Beach Club event venue. The proposal appears to change a restaurant with a small patio into a"Cantina &Beach Club"hosting musicians and other events throughout the day and into the night, including weekends and holidays. This Proposed project which makes a major change in the use of the property has been treated by the City as a minor remodeling.This overly narrow analysis ignores the change from a restaurant to an event venue. It circumvents the public hearing process appropriate to vet such a potentially noisy project in violation of the 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Noise Element. "...[MJini imnQ the exposure of Patin Springs residents to excessive noise is essential to maintaining a quiet, safe,and productive environment and a high quality of life. The purpose of this noise element is to outline a set of noise control policies,programs, and implementation measures that provide guidance for solving noise-related issues and problems. By identifying noise sources within the City and its sphere of influence,future noise impacts associated with the continued growth of a thriving city such as Palm Springs can be mirdmized and avoided." 2007 Palm Spduo General Plan Article 8. Noise Element. 19 December 9,2013 Page 2 , \� Happy Traveler provides Habitable dwelling arm for several hundred people. "Habitable: a dwelling area that is occupied,or that is intended or designed to be occupied,by one family with facilities for living,sleeping, cooking,and eating. (Source: California Health and Safety Code, Section 19970)" General Plan Nome Element at Piz 8,=8. As noted in R& 8-2,of the General Plan Noise Element, at a Transient Lodging property, such as Happy Traveler, 60db is only"Conditionally Acceptable". A I condttio=4 acceptable"destgn&uon implies new contraction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design Noise El en 8-8 (emphasis added). Approving The Hacienda Cantina&Beach Club as an event venue introduces significant noise hazards to the surrounding properties. The Noise element of the General Plan identifies"Rock Band"at 110 db,second only to a DC-10 Aircraft noise at 125 db. (Figure 8-1) The City of Palm Springs has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise.The applicable standards for these activities are specified in the Palm Springs Municipal Code.The Municipal Code limits sound levels for stationary sources of noise radiated for extended periods from any premises in excess of 60 decibels at the property line. 2007 Palm Springs General Plan Page 8 5 The General Plan includes.several policies which appear to be ignored in the over simplistic "minor architectural"processing of this project NS1.2 Encourage the application of site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects. NS 1.3 Utilize maximum anticipated,or"worst case,"noise conditions as the basis for land use decisions and design controls as a means of preventing future incompatibilities. NS 1.4 Evaluate the compatibility of proposed land uses with the existing noise environment when preparing,revising,or reviewing development proposals. NS1.7 Allow new developments in areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL only if appropriate mitigation measures areincluded such that applicable noise standards are met 40 December 9, 2013 0 �� Page 3 0� In the present instance,the Hacienda Cantina&Beach Club project will be created in an area between the 60db and 65 db contours on the Central Future Noise contour map. There is no indication that the City has taken any of the steps identified in the General Plan Policies to: Properly reduce noise impacts on existing structures, Utilize the"worst case"to prevent f rture incompatabilities, Evaluate compatibility using existing noise, and Appropriately mitigate the noise added to the area. Shortcutting the procedure prevents a thorough evaluation considering the surrounding land uses. As contemplated by the policies in the General Plan, the City should provide for adequate public hearings for neighborhood participation. NS1.10 Minimize noise spillover from commercial uses into adjacent residential neighborhoods. NS1.5 Require that noise analyses for future developments be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant Studies must indicate how proposed developments are in compliance with the City noise ordinance. Studies will be reviewed by the appropriate decissionmaking body prior to the issuance of permits. If the project is approved,with the proper mitigation the operation will be conditioned on compliance with the Patin Spring Noise Ordinance. (1)The noise standards for the various categories of land use identified in Section 11.74.031 shall,unless otherwise specifically indicated,apply to all such property within a designated zone. (2)No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property,to exceed the limits set forth in Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.031 Palm Springs Noise Ord. Section .034 (Ord. 1167§ 1, 1982)(Emphasis added) Section 11.74.031 of the Palm Spring Noise Ordinance sets the standards for permissible noise levels which can be exported by the proposed commercial project to its neighbors as follows: lOpm. -7a m:50 db., lam. -6 pm.=60db. and 6p m. 6 - 10 p.m.=55db. Since the customary operation of a cantina in Palm Springs extends beyond 6 pm.and beyond 10 pm.when 60db and 55 db are permissible,it is forseeable that this project will run afoul of the noise ordinance. Those noise levels should not be exported to Happy Traveler which provides habitation for its hundreds of guests. 41 December 9,2Q13 Q Page 4 In conclusion,our client requests the review of the project include a careful acoustic study evaluating the"worst case". The design,if approved,contain the noise within the project One method of addressing these probable noise violations would be to include in the Conditions of Approval,an affirmative duty on the Hacienda Cantina&Beach Club to adequately mitigate any noise violations by appropriate further remodeling and landscaping including but not limited to hedge rows and other accoustic measures. -concrete-soun&walls-would need to be so high as to destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood unless setback a sufficient distance from the streets and landscaped.. Your courtesy and cooperation are greatly appreciated. Thank you, SIMON A.HOUSMAN SAH:jIc 42 APPENDIX E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY CORRIDOR 3.23.8 Encourage that new structures be designed to create a"village-like" environment,by the siting and massing of buildings around common pedestrian areas and open spaces which are linked to Tahquitz Canyon Way and other circulation links to the focus area of downtown,inclusion of pedestrian-oriented uses at the ground level, and use of vertical setbacks of buildings in excess of 2 stories or 30 feet above grade. �COMMUNITY SHOPPING" 3.25.2 A Community Shopping Center is intended to service 20,000— 250,000 persons on a 15-60 acre site.Commercial structures shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height and hotel/residential structures shall be a maximum of 30-60 feet in height. 3.25.3 Allow the construction of architectural projections to a maximum height of 15 feet above that otherwise permitted where these contribute to and are integral with an extremely high level of architectural design performance, under the following conditions: a. the portion of structure exceeding the height limit shall be non-occupiable; b. extensions shall be limited to 10-15%of the total roof area; c. extensions shall not result in adverse shadows on adjacent properties; and d. extensions shall be sympathetic to the preservation of the views of the natural mountain backdrop. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL 3.26.2 A Neighborhood Convenience Center is intended to provide a service radius of one-half to one mile,with a supermarket as a major tenant, on a 10-30 acre site. Structures shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height. PROFESSIONAL 3.27.4 Structures shall be a maximum of 24 feet in height- A minimum of 40% of any property or project shall be reserved for open space or recreation areas. Permit additional height to a maximum of 60 feet when pubic amenities above minimum requirements are provided, Palm Springs 2007 General Plan Page E-7 Margo Wheeler From: judydeertrack@gmaii.com on behalf of Judy Deertrack <judy@judydeertrack.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:58 PM To: Margo Wheeler Subject: Re: Hacienda Cantina - Case Nos. LUP 13-067 and 3.1111 MAA Margo: Thank you for your response. I am proceeding on the land use portion. I met with Michael and John a few days ago (Mr. Wessman's reps), and yes, I would appreciate meeting before the hearing, I understand it is set for January 8th?? Also, Michael, John, and I agreed it would be helpful for me to meet with David Ready and talk about some of my larger concerns. David and I have had a chance to meet before, and I had intended to follow up with a second meeting anyway, and this might provide an opportunity. Michael was going to call David and suggest the meeting. With regard, Judy Deertrack 760 325 4290 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Margo Wheeler<Margo.Wheeler a palmsprings_ca.gov> wrote: Dear Judy, In the absence of a second appeal fee/application please clarify which application appeal you wish to pursue. The fee reso. Is available on line on the City clerk's page. There is no ordinance such as you reference in paragraph two. It is a de novo review. Speaker time is up to the Chair, you will be the listed appellant. 44 t If you wish to meet prior to the appeal hearing with questions that you have regarding the facts of the case itself, we shall certainly make time available. Margo Wheeler From: iudvdeertrack(ftmail.com [mailto:iudydeertrack(algmail com] On Behalf Of Judy Deertrack Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:18 PM To: David Newell; david.ready.@palmsprings.ca.gov Cc: Margo Wheeler Subject: Re: Hacienda Cantina - Case Nos. LUP 13-067 and 3.1111 MAA Dear David (Newell): Thank you for clarifying this appeal process and the required fees, because Glenn only processed the land use permit, and I did not know it was not an appeal by "project" rather than by "permit." Is there a reason the appeal is not coordinated into one action? May I ask whether the appeal fee is collected under an Ordinance? May I have a copy or at least the ordinance number? I would like to read the provisions..... it is my understanding that the City recently passed an ordinance that consolidates all permits into a single hearing. That being the case, I want to protest a split fee per permit. There should be an appeal of the total project approval, not piece meal, not each permit issued under the project handled as a separate appeal with a separate cost. It increases the burden on the appellant, and this is particularly sensitive because a vast majority of land use permits in the city appear to be going through with administrative review; without public notice and participation, without planning commission or city council review, or on any kind of agenda. The first agenda posting is the consent agenda, and that is after the appeal period has lapsed. Given all of this, the city should support the right of public participation, and make it low cost and effective. The other solution is to set a much stricter criteria on the difference between administrative review and PC review; particularly based upon the scope of the project, and the user population; whether neighborhood commercial, citywide commercial, or regional commercial impacts. The city should not make it burdensome or expensive to appeal. 2 45 The other major issue with the appeal process is an internal inconsistency which is quite serious, and I have mentioned this above. The appeal period to a land use permit is five days. The administrative project approval has 30 days to appear on a consent agenda, which would be the FIRST public notification of the project. This clearly does not make sense. How can one have an appeal right when no public notice of the action has ever occurred? May I have your consideration of whether you are willing to consolidate the cost of appeal because the Planning Commission will hear this as a consolidated project approval? May I also know three remaining points: (1) Is this de novo review? (2) What is my speaker time? I am used to 15 minutes on an appeal, equal to the applicant's right of presentation so there is no bias; (3) May I meet with the department, either David, Margo, or both, to determine whether any of our areas of conflict can be reduced or eliminated prior to the hearing, to determine the scope of issues under the appeal? Thank you. Judy Deertrack 760 325 4290 On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, David Newell <David.Newell@palmsprings-ca og_v>wrote: Ms. Deertrack, As we discussed,the appeal letter submitted references both Case Nos. LUP 13-067 and 3.1111 MAA; however, only one fee of$305.00 was collected for the processing of an appeal for Case No. LUP 13-067. In order to appeal Case No. 3.1111 MAA, a fee of$305.00 must be submitted prior to the conclusion of the appeal period on December 16, 2013. If you have questions on this, feel free to contact me. Thank you, 46 3 David A. Newell Associate Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Office: (760) 323-8245 1 Fax (760) 322.8360 E-mail: david.newell@oalmsnringsca.gov 47 4 RUTAN -) - M.Katherine Jenson - - - - -------- - Direct Dial;(714)641-341-3 RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP E-mail:lgensonQmtan.com January 3, 2014 RECEIVED JAN 0 6 2014 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Honorable Doug Donenfeld, Chairperson and Members of the Palm Springs Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Miggy's Cantina, LLC — Deertrack Appeal of Director's Decision re Land Use Permit for Outdoor Entertainment Dear Chairperson Donenfeld and Members of the Palm Springs Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of Rich Meaney and Miggy's Cantina, LLC (collectively, the "Applicant") relating to the above-referenced appeal. Rutan & Tucker, LLP serves as land use/CEQA counsel for the Applicant on this project. The majority of Ms. Deertrack's comments relate to the City's procedural processes relating to the Land Use Permit. City Staff has addressed those concerns in the staff report. We wish to reiterate that the proposed improvements and activities clearly fit within the definition of outdoor accessory uses as defined in Palm Springs Municipal Code section 92.12.01.C.21. and j. [Festivals, exhibits, special events, musicians/entertainment (subject to provisions of the noise ordinance).] The proposed improvements and uses are clearly ancillary to the restaurant and are specifically designed to allow the restaurant to remain viable during the summer season. The conditions of approval place stringent restrictions on all live entertainment. Such entertainment must cease by 6:00 p.m. Any instrument amplification is limited, and must be projected away from the residential properties. Noise must be low enough to allow patrons to carry on normal conversations. All activities must strictly comply with the City's noise ordinance, which restricts noise levels to 50 to 60 dBA, depending on the time of day. The outdoor pool area itself must close by 6:00 p.m. In addition, a subcommittee of the Architectural Advisory Committee is required to review the plans for the walls and hedges to ensure that they further reduce noise levels. Ms. Deertrack has also questioned the City's reliance on the Class 3 CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guideline 15303. Her letter quotes only part of that Guideline and also exaggerates the scope of the improvements. Subsection (e) of the Guideline specifically states that it is intended to cover "accessory (appurtenant) structures including ... patios, swimming pools and fences." Ms. Deertrack describes the improvements as "a commercial swimming Rutan & Tucker. LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400. Costa Mesa.. CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 119/031293-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www,rutan.com 6540522.1 a0V06/144 48 RUTAN Honorable Doug Donenfeld, Chairperson and Members of the Palm Springs Planning Commission January 3, 2014 Page 2 pool" with "90 cabanas." The applicant is not proposing to establish a commercial swimming establishment. Instead, a modest-sized pool (15 feet by 70 feet) is being offered to the Cantina patrons to allow them to cool off in the summer heat. This is certainly not a "commercial pool." Likewise, only 10 (not 90) cabanas are proposed to allow patrons to escape from the afternoon sun. Ms. Deertrack has suggested that the project is eliminating parking. NA%le certain parking spaces are eliminated under this proposal, others have been added. Specifically, while 26 parking spaces were removed 39 spaces were added, for a net increase of 13 spaces. In P g P P P addition, the site is actually over-parked due to the lack of development on some of the existing building pads within the center. Moreover, as explained in the staff report, a parking analysis was completed for the Minor Architectural Application and the site has adequate parking for the new accessory uses. In short, substantial evidence supports the staffs determination that the proposed accessory uses are exempt from CEQA. Despite the lack of merit to the appeal, Mr. Meaney has personally met with Ms. Deertrack and attempted to address her concerns. He has exchanged numerous a-mails with Ms. Deertrack, and had proposed a meeting with City Staff. He did not hear back from her. I also contacted her by e-mail offering to set up a conference call or meeting and got no response. For the reasons stated herein and in the staff report, the Applicant respectfully requests that Ms. Deertrack's appeal be denied. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP x /�� t"X-1. M. Katherine Jenso MKJ:lw 1191031293-0001 6540522.1 e01/06114 49 Judy Deertrack 1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Thursday, December 5, 2013 To the Planning Director and To the Planning Commission Palm Springs, California Re: APPEAL (PD Decision 11.27.13) Case No. LUP 13-067 & 3.1111 MAA; Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club 1555 S. Palm Canyon Drive Request to construct and operate accessory outdoor uses accessory to existing restaurant To the Honorable Planning Director and Planning Commission: Please accept this as an appeal and request for hearing on the approval of Case No. LUP 13- 067 & 3.1111 MAA, otherwise known as the Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Director on November 27, 2013. Please note in light of your recent proposed ordinance to combine permit determinations that there is also an outstanding Minor Architectural Permit, recently approved, that is related to this permit. I am a resident living on the adjoining property across Belardo Road on the westerly side of the project area at Tahquitz Mesa Villas. My first knowledge of the pending permit was by word of mouth immediately before the hearing with the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) on December 25'", the same day of the project approval by the Planning Director, Ms. Margo Wheeler. Although I entered a comment complaining about the absence of a land use permit determination in my letter and comments, no one from the department mentioned there was a separate land use permit, and I found out about the LUE on today's date by pure happenstance, and almost lost the right of appeal. This is a problem with segregating permits and not referencing concurrent permits in a project description. The reference to concurrent projects in a project description and on public hearing notices is a required practice of the County of Riverside Planning Department, and I highly recommend this practice to the City. The failure to give proper notification of the entire action through a project description (especially on a hearing notice — AAC in this instance) may also be a Brown Act violation, which could invalidate the approvals. The City ordinance also provides a very short appeal period from the approval (five days). By the time the project appears bundled into a consent agenda (which is less than transparent for significant change in uses), the appeal period is over. These procedures appear to be unnecessary restrictions of rights to public notification and rights to public participation in very important matters, especially where the public is directly affected by noise, activity, traffic, and parking. Even more important is the loss of public opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking that should accompany the modification and infill / development of commercial projects over time, especially where the commercial centers adjoin residential housing. Modified commercial projects can completely change in nature and scope from the original 50 2 permit, and the affected neighbors are not even part of this process under the city's current ordinance. PUBLIC NOTICE: My first request to the City is to review this project to determine whether it should be heard by the Planning Commission and / or City Council because the scope and nature of changes in use at this restaurant location are significant, and need general plan review on the limitations of use inherent in expanding a Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC). By implication, if the PC/CC hears this issue, it is placed on a public agenda, and becomes subject to public knowledge and review as well. USE PERMIT: I have three major concerns with the land use permit (LUP): 1. My first concern is with the classification of this project as "accessory use to a restaurant," as though it is a minor modification that is a simple incidental use with no real change in character to the project area. Accessory uses are incidental to the principal permitted use in zoning districts. But, the question here is whether the proposed accessory use is one customarily found in connection with the principal permitted use (a neighborhood restaurant in NCC), and secondly, whether it fits with the character of the overall Plaza Del Sol shopping center as a Neighborhood Community Center, servicing a local population as required by the general plan. This project is not neighborhood serving. Creekside Inn has always been a quiet residential restaurant, not a restaurant linked to a large commercial hotel or general commercial district. Therefore, classifying the accessory use as "music" seems disingenuous, because it ignores the primary activity, which is a gathering place for large groups, sitting at the pool, drinking at the bar, most likely loud music, and hundreds of people that gather on the weekends at spot locations in Palm Springs, such as you find at the Ace Hotel, Saguaro Hotel, and the Riviera. These uses are absolutely fun and appropriate to Palm Springs when they occur in the proper areas of the city and when they get proper review, but neither element is present here. 2. A second concern is that this should have been processed as a revision or modification to a Planned Development District PDD, and possibly even a combination PDD and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) rather than land use permit. If so, it would have had a hearing. Considering there are significant new uses, it should also be reviewed for Public Benefits requirements of the Planning Policy that requires a PDD to justify its range of uses. It seems problematic to use a Land Use Permit (LUP) and accessory use classification to process any significant change within a Planned Development District (PDD) linked to a pre-existing shopping center, especially when a huge component of the parking for that project is going to be displaced. The new parking area is within a "vacant" classed area, but it is my understanding that this "parking area" was reserved for a commercial office building that has already been permitted and might still be active. That permit is not referenced in the parking discussion. No parking plan was submitted that I have ever seen. At the least, the re-design of the parking area should be reviewed by Planning Commission or City Council — not under the restrictions of an appeal, but under the proper use of a revised PDD. During the Christmas Season, there wasn't a parking spot left in front of Steinmart on the weekend. Can you imagine eliminating about 50% of these spaces with no plan in sight for the displacement? 3. Thirdly, I am concerned by the failure to place a use permit on equal par with a minor architectural permit. The LUP did not get a hearing, the Minor Architectural Permit did. It 51 ', 3 seems odd that the land use project implications completely escape public review and the architectural features of the same project get a public hearing. This is not to demean architectural review, which is critical to creating the aesthetics we love and want to protect in the community. But — use should be on equal footing! The Palm Springs General Plan contains important neighborhood protections by classifying land use into three distinct commercial categories: those that serve and limit uses to surrounding neighborhoods (NCC); those that serve citywide needs; and those that serve regional needs. Here is the language on NCC, which applies for this PDD. The general plan requires compliance with this standard: NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTERS "Neighborhood retail centers provide shopping, dining, and gathering opportunities at a smaller scale than community commercial centers. They serve the residential areas immediately surrounding the center rather than Citywide or regional markers." [emphasis added] [Author's Note: This language is accompanied by a photograph of Plaza Del Sol, the PDD at issue, attached] General Plan Community Design Element 9-38. "NeighborhoodiCommunity Commercial (0.35 FAR). Areas designated as Neighborhood/Community Commercial provide an opportunity for convenience commercial uses that serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. The commercial opportunities created under this designation are intended to be an integrated element of the neighborhood, providing to nearby residents services such as dry cleaners, grocery stores, bakeries, bank and post office branches, bookstores, drugstores, and smaller-scale restaurants. Harmonious relationships between these commercial uses and adjacent residential uses shall be achieved through compatibility of site design, building scale, pathways and circulation design, and architectural treatment of structures." [emphasis added] General Plan Land Use Element 2-6. Neighborhood Serving Commercial 3.26.2 A Neighborhood Convenience Center is intended to provide a service radius of one-half to one mile, with a supermarket as a major tenant, on a 10-30 acre site. Structures shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height." [Author's Note: Although the anchor is not a grocery store, the neighborhood service radius should be the same or similar to NCC] General Plan Bridge Z -App E-3 "The commercial opportunities created under this designation are intended to be an integrated element of the neighborhood, providing to nearby residents services such as dry cleaners, grocery stores, bakeries, bank and post office branches, bookstores, drugstores, and small-scale restaurants." [emphasis added] General Plan LUE at 2-6 02 4 CEQA: Applicant proposes a commercial swimming pool, large event recreation grass area, two bocce ball courts, 90 cabanas, lounge chairs, an outside bar area, and general entertainment, and the elimination of an unspecified number of parking places to a new area (equally unspecified), apparently at a later time (unspecified). This project is not being built on vacant land; it is the elimination of a parking area that is part of the shared parking at the Steinmart shopping center. The city's exemption is cited from the following section of CEQA: "PRC 15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure." Although this project anticipates the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, such as the outdoor bar, the pool, cabanas, and outdoor restroom, this can hardly be classified as simple, minor, architectural changes. The real thrust of the new expansion is in the uses themselves—the head count of people expected to attend, the number of employees expected to serve them, the parking requirements, and activity generated on local traffic flow patterns; and ultimately the compatibility with this project to Plaza Del Sol, a neighborhood-serving commercial shopping plaza. I would appreciate your kind consideration of these thoughts and concerns. I want to re- emphasize how totally I support projects of this nature when they occur in an appropriate area or get appropriate neighborhood and Commission/Council review_ I would like to see the city err on the side of public rights and participation. Ultimately, I very much appreciate your hard work, and realize our City prospers from these differences in perspective. The City has always been courteous and gracious in its responses to suggested change. I very much appreciate this, and always want to return the same courtesies, out of pride for what City Hall has achieved in this community. With regard, f Judy -(J l-ck ATTACHMENTS: General Plan Community Design Element (CDE) 9-38 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) 2-6 53 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS `GENERAL PLAN CD 17.9 Provide landscaped buffers between the curb and sidewalk along major perimeter roadways surrounding retail centers. Doings so will improve pedestrian safety as well as create a more visually appealing streetscape. Actions CD17.1 Update zoning standards to require specific design features from the above policies with special emphasis on pedestrian-friendly amenities,such as gathering places,shade structures,and outdoor seating. PMi ..IINEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL MEL Distimetive and attractive entry monumeatation sbould be placed at the entrance of neigbborbood retail centers. -HAM GOAL CD 18: - ----------- - -------- Create attractive neighborhood retail centers that provide generous pedestrian amenities, distinctive architecture, and convenient access. s z' Policies C1118.1 Create visual interest and focal points at the corners of w.. retail centers. Measures include special architectural features (such as towers), distinctive roof design, accent landscaping,monument signage,and sculpture elements. CD18.2 Locate parking in a neighborhood retail center in parking plazas where practical. Massive, oversized Interesting architectural detailin&large display parking lots should be avoided. (See the Parking Windom,and aumingslarcades add topedestriam section of this chapter for a description of parking interest and comfort and should be imrnrp wed plazas_) into the design of neighborhood retail centers when feasible. 54 Pales aAR Palm Sotinos 2007 General Plan CITY OF PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN CD 17.9 Provide landscaped buffers between the curb and sidewalk along major perimeter roadways surrounding retail centers. Doings so will improve pedestrian safety as well as create a more visually appealing streetscape. Actions CD17.1 Update zoning standards to require specific design features from the above policies with special emphasis on pedestrian-friendly amenities,such as gathering places,shade structures,and outdoor seating. NEIGHB RETAIL CENTERS ORHOOD Neighborhood retail centers provide shopping,dining,and gathering oppor- tunities at a smaller scale than community commercial centers. They serve the residential areas immediately surrounding the center rather than Citywide or regional markets. However, these areas should include many of the same high-quality design elements as the larger centers, although at a smaller scale.These features include,but are not limited to,street-facing orientation, Distinctive and attractive entry buffered parking,comfortable pedestrian amenities,mini-plazas and gathering rmnsanentation should be placed at places, distinctive signage, theme landscaping, and consistent architectural the entrance of neigbborbood retail detailing. Additionally, a focus should be made on creating strong pedestrian LP1teT. and bicycle connections with the surrounding neighborhood. GOAL CD 18: Create attractive neighborhood retail centers that provide generous pedestrian amenities, distinctive architecture, and convenient access. Policies CD18.1 Create visual interest and focal points at the corners of retail centers. Measures include special architectural features (such as towers), distinctive roof design, accent landscaping,monument signage,and sculpture elements. CD18.2 Locate parking in a neighborhood retail center in parking plazas where practical. Massive, oversized Interesting arcbitectural detailing,large display parking lots should be avoided. (See the Parking windows, and awningslarcades add to pedestrian section of this chapter for a description of parking interest and comfort and should be incorporated plazas.) into the design of neighborhood retail centers when feasible. Page 9.38 Palm Springs 2007 General Plan 5�l CITY OF PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN COMMERCIAL Tourist Resort Commercial(0.35 FAR for stand-alone commercial uses; 43 hotel rooms per net acre; 86 rooms per net acre on Indian Land). This land use designation provides for large-scale resort hotels and timeshares including a broad range of convenience,fitness,spa,retail,and entertainment uses principally serving resort clientele. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities, such as convention centers, museums, indoor jU�iu and outdoor theatres, and water parks are included in this designation, °''i' but should be designed to be compatible with neighboring development. Tourist Resort Commercial facilities are most appropriate in the Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Drive corridors.It is intended that the primary use in any Tourist Resort Commercial area shall be hotel/tourist-related uses; if residential uses are proposed within the v .x - Tourist Commercial Designation(timeshares,condominiums,etc.) they shall be a secondary use ancillary to the proposed hotel uses and shall not exceed a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Permanent residential uses and commercial activities are allowed subject to approval of a planned development district. Small Hotel Resort Commercial (15 hotel rooms per net acre; 10 dwelling units per acre). This designation applies to areas with smaller-scale,boutique type hotels that are typically found in the Warm Toww Sesora Commercial Sands and Tennis CIub neighborhoods. It is intended that the tourist resort character of these neighborhoods be preserved; as a result, new residential uses or conversion of small hotels to residential uses are permitted as long as they comply with the conversion requirements outlined within the City's Zoning Code.Stand-alone retail and commercial uses are not permitted in this land use designation. Ancillary commercial uses such as a gift shop associated with a small hotel use are allowed. T � E Ngkibolioal/Cgalxuun�ty_GRmrrtera -(03.5_IR � Areas deslgnareil:s as_I��zgblaprizpodl�4rtmuatty ,WCgmmercHzL�provl¢e�ag,gppotuut��fq"ri "'"epte_� � m`'mel'ciaitiises t)!&t;se�e adJac��t r_esii�'entaal_neigh)in�liT24�ss`ror_m, n e;,co TOLQteiial,oppo>;`>:aamttes created under thts'desig axionagiuTen ,ed4o` be�n�reg�ase`tie)em�'n'r�ii�?`the itz�gh'bnr� ,i>x�vidaigar�nea��y�re,�i�amiss s cWsttol>*�s t(ty�Gle�Xlet�s, Sxocety.scorers.bakexte;`s�.�an1t and"�pst';offx��': b1lt_dies,"` kSc�res,;�]5��&tvtes`,`'>astdsma�l�r'scale,Fergtiran;s'�Tar�nonl4us rela Qns tpr'`beEween:%here coriimerrtal=uses and'ead9aceni 5e deptral:uses' 'shail,.be,achieved ,thtbugli;rorpp�)ziltty-�Y�f:,stte';d�stgn, .bivl�ng�scale,; pat�i;�uays an$cticuiarron desrg-h,:and architectural�teea`tpi�tt}�`ofist�etuites;?1 Regional Commercial(0.50 FAR).Regional Commercial areas are intended to provide for large-scale commercial uses that serve an area larger than the City boundaries. Allowable uses include department stores, theatres, and restaurants.Uses such as automobile dealerships that have a regional draw are 55 pane 7.R Palm Sorimm 2007 Geneml Plan 7CITY OF PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN COMMEROAL Tourist Resort Commercial(0.35 FAR for stand-alone commercial uses; 43 hotel rooms per net acre; 86 rooms per net acre on Indian Land). This land use designation provides for large-scale resort hotels and timeshares including a broad range ofconvenience, fitness,spa,retail,and entertainment uses principally serving resort clientele. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities, such as convention centers, museums, indoor ,I ) and outdoor theatres, and water parks are included in this designation, but should be designed to be compatible with neighboring development. Tourist Resort Commercial facilities are most appropriate in the Palm d' Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Drive corridors. It is intended that `? the primary use in any Tourist Resort Commercial area shall be hotel/tourist-related uses; if residential uses are proposed within the Tourist Commercial Designation(timeshares,condominiums,etc.)they shall be a secondary use ancillary to the proposed hotel uses and shall not exceed a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Permanent residential uses and commercial activities are allowed subject to approval of a planned development district. Small Hotel Resort Commercial (15 hotel rooms per net acre; 10 dwelling units per acre). This designation applies to areas with smaller-scale,boutique type hotels that are typically found in the Warm Tourist Resort Commercial Sands and Tennis Club neighborhoods. It is intended that the tourist resort character of these neighborhoods be preserved; as a result, new residential uses or conversion of small hotels to residential uses are permitted as long as they comply with the conversion requirements outlined within the City's Zoning Code.Stand-alone retail and commercial uses are not permitted in this land use designation. Ancillary commercial uses such as a gift shop associated with a small hotel use are allowed. Neighborhood/Community Commercial (0.35 FAR). Areas designated as Neighborhood/Community Commercial provide an opportunity for convenience commercial uses that serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. The commercial opportunities created under this designation are intended to be an integrated element of the neighborhood,providing to nearby residents services such as dry cleaners, grocery stores, bakeries, bank and post office branches,bookstores,drugstores,and smaller-scale restaurants. Harmonious relationships between these commercial uses and adjacent residential uses shall be achieved through compatibility of site design, building scale, pathways and circulation design, and architectural treatment of structures. Regional Commercial(0.50 FAR).Regional Commercial areas are intended to provide for large-scale commercial uses that serve an area larger than the City boundaries. Allowable uses include department stores, theatres, and restaurants.Uses such as automobile dealerships that have a regional draw are Page 2.6 Palm Springs 2007 General Plan 65 City of Palm Springs Office,of the City Clerk 3200 6,Talaquiti Canyon Way • Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tel:(760)323-8204 • Fax:(760) 322-8332 • TDB:(760)864-9527 • Web: www.paimsprinpca.gov January 23, 2014 APPELLANT Judy Evans Deertrack 1333 S. Belardo Road, Unit 510 Palm Springs, CA 92264 APPLICANT Rich Meaney Nexus Companies Palm Springs 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Appeal to the Palm Springs City Council Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club Case No. LUP 13-067/3.111 MMA The City of Palm Springs, is in receipt of a timely filed appeal pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Notice is hereby given,the appeal hearing before the Palm-Springs City Council, will take place at its meeting of Wednesday, February 5, 2014. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, Palm Springs City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. Response to this notice may be made verbally at the appeal hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk, City of Palm Springs, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. Respectfully, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MEs THOMPSON ity Clerk Attachment: Filed Appeal 56 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; I am employed by the City of Palm Springs, a public entity, in the County of Riverside located at 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs , California 92262. On January 23, 2014, 1 served the foregoing document(s) described as: In Re Appeal of Judy Evans Deertrack and Rich Meaney RE: Appeal to the Palm Springs City Council Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club (Case No. LUP 13-06713.111 MMA) ® by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed to the following individuals: Judy Evans Deertrack Rich Meaney 1333 S. Belardo Road, Unit 510 Nexus Companies Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92264 700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 ❑ by placing ❑ the original ❑ a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: M (BY MAIL) I placed said envelope(s) for collection and mailing, following ordinary business practices, at the business offices of Palm Springs City Hall, and addressed as shown on the attached service list, for deposit in the United States Postal Service. I am readily familiar with the practice of the City for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service, and said envelope(s) will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on said date in the ordinary course of business. ❑ (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by causing the foregoing document(s) to be electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which constitutes service of the filed document(s) on the individual(s) listed on the attached mailing list. ❑ (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I placed said documents in envelope(s) for collection following ordinary business practices, at the business offices of the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, and addressed as shown on the attached service list, for collection and delivery to a courier authorized by to receive said documents, with delivery fees provided for. I am readily familiar with the practices of the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for collection and processing of documents for overnight delivery, and said envelope(s) will be deposited for receipt by on said date in the ordinary course of business. IN (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ❑ (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 23, 2014, at Palm Springs, California. TERRI MILTON, Executive Administrative Assistant Office of Chief of Staff/City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 57 PALM 8 46. 19 A�'N City of Palm Springs * * Department of Planning Services « HC�RlopAIt�`,1a ` 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262 C, p. Tel:(760)323-8245 • Fax:(760)322-8360 • Web:www.palmspringsca.gov 4400 % January 9, 2014 Judy Deertrack 1333 South Belardo Road, Apt. 510 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Re: Case LUP 13-067 - Appeal of Directors Decision Location: 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive Dear Ms. Deertrack: On January 8, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs reviewed your appeal request on the approval decision of the Planning Director to issue the above-referenced Land Use Permit (LUP) authorizing accessory outdoor entertainment / musicians at the restaurant space located at 1555 South Palm Canyon Drive. At this meeting, the Commission voted 4-0 to reject the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision. Pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days from the date of this notice of action (by 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 21, 2014). This can be achieved by filing with the City Clerk a written notice of appeal which sets forth the appellant's full name and mailing address, the specific action appealed from, the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought. A fee of $546.00 is required for processing at the time of appeal filing. Please contact the Planning Department at (760) 323-8245, should you have any further questions regarding this action. Sincerely, Margo Wheeler, AICP Planning Director cc: Rich Meaney, Miggy's Cantina 58 Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 C) �pALM SA City of Palm Springs V N Department of Planning Services « �b„ 3200 E.Tahqquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 cg41FORS%V. Tel:(760) 323-8245 • Pax: (760)322-8360 " Web:www.palmspringsca.gov November 27, 2013 Rich Meaney Nexus Palm Springs 700 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite A Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Case No. LUP 13-067 & 3.1111 MAA; 1555 S. Palm Canyon Drive Request to construct and operate accessory outdoor uses accessory to existing restaurant Mr. Meaney, Thank you for submitting the Minor Architectural (MAA) and Land Use Permit (LUP) applications for the property located at the above address. Specifically, you have requested approval to develop the vacant land adjacent to the existing restaurant building with accessory uses, including an outdoor pool, recreation, lounge and bar area. The developed area will be used as accessory space to the existing restaurant. Modifications to the existing parking area are also proposed. Staff has reviewed the applications in accordance with Planned Development 131 and the underlying C-1 zone, Section 92.12.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC). Staff has determined that the outdoor pool, bar and recreation space is accessory to the restaurant and outdoor entertainment / musicians may be permitted with the approval of a Land Use Permit, pursuant to Sections 92.12.01(A)(1) and 92.12.01(C)(2)(h) of the PSZC, respectively. In accordance with Section 94.02.01(D) of the PSZC, staff has reviewed and approved the LUP application (LUP 13-067), subject to conditions of approval (see attached). This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within (5) days, pursuant to 94.02.01(D)(4) of the PSZC. The appeal must be filed in writing no later than December 5, 2013, and include the applicable filing fee. In accordance with Section 94.04.00 of the PSZC, staff has reviewed and conditionally approved the Minor Architectural Application (Case 3.1111 MAA) after consulting with the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) on October 21, 2013 and November 25, 2013. Conditions of approval include: 1. Final wall plans shalt be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permit and must include size, 59 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 0 i Meaney Letter November 27, 2013 Page 2 location, material, color and texture. Details on existing walls and proposed walls shall be included in the final wall plans. 2. Four (existing) Queen Palms shall be replaced with Mexican Fan Palms. 3, Planters with shade trees shall be incorporated into new and existing parking areas west of the proposed development to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within (10) working days, pursuant to 84.04.00(E)(2)(b) of the PSZC. The appeal must be filed in writing no later than December 16, 2013, and include the applicable filing fee. Staff has determined that the above actions are categorically exempt from the preparation of further environmental documents, pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption (NOE) will be.filed with the County Clerk. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me or Associate Planner David Newell at (760) 323-8245. Sincer y Margo Wheeler, AICP Director of Planning Services cc: Plaza Del Sol, LLC enclosure: - Notice of Exemption - Land Use Permit G0 . Notice of Exemption Appendix E To: Office of Planning and Research From:(Public Agency): City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 3200 East Tahqultz Canyon Way / Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 Palm Springs, CA 92282 County Clerk County of: Riverside (Address) Project Title: Hacienda Cantina Project Applicant: Nexus Palm Springs Project Location-Specific: 1555 South Belardo!toad Project Location-City: Palm Springs Project Location-County: Riverside Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: To develop vacant land adjacent to an existing restaurant building with accessory structures and uses, including an outdoor pool,recreation,lounge,bar area,walls,fencing,etc. The developed area will be used as accessory space to the existing restaurant. Modifications to the existing parking area are also proposed. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:City of Palm Springs Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Exempt Status: (check one): ❑ Ministerial (Sec-21080(b)(1); 15268); ❑ Declared Emergency(Sec. 21060(b)(3); 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project(Sec.21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); IM Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class III Exemption-Section 15303(e) ❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines,Class 3 exemptions consist of construction and location of limited numbers of new,small facilities or structures. Specifically,subsection(e)of 15303 allows for"accessory (appurtenant)structures including garages,carports,patios,swimming pools,and fences." This project consists of new walls,pool,landscape and accessory structures which comply w/zone development standards. Lead Agency Margo Wheeler, AICP 7601323-8245 Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension: If filed by applicant: 1.Attach certified dQj ument of x ption finding. 2.Hasa N 1 e f x ptio a filed by the public agency approving the project?, ❑.Yes © No Signature: Date: 11127/2013 Title: Planning Services Director Is@ Signed by Lead Agency❑ Signed by Applicant Authority ched:Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at CPR: Reference:Sections 21108,21152,and 21152.1,Public Resources Code. Revised 2011 61 HACIENDA CANTINA & BEACH CLUB aEs Pout DESI 41 - - 1 Hacienda 1 Cantina8 � Beach Club ' PIn SPM U >wttan ATw,lAiux: i TITLE atifiET x�rsva.ur.,ivaNerx ntaurt �eun,.Axv.wnm.c .m wx... Yea scWm w.� se:� Svua Nvxe DRca E � 'xmr. iwvmwa Eur Wn IImvmw7 ss: Nxan Inn MEwnrox wmtci. o.ssm,ur./u..w.Atx.uman,u M pxV C1 6,8 M DAW GXII®glx.} VnIFt 1D OV�aNN Ex waETaR�NRCNMVIM[MEA ulXEY11GL�nEPAJt� Y11MT( W FM ID.�� II II�'nXEpV1i �9W4U bPXGdi 1M.tlWN0.V1W plwwM1i aNn HFwn M1191C,1YP1[aPNNxX ry� PN [tll _. _ 015.1II TIMYS1mPoMe6YEINl AIRdMi1x1INRt1LL'41[UMW,ppEA4Mia0 _ Si'lArt.wnPSl'NtlaMfaWEi WlYY6Vi11@LNRWKTWVFM MGNPGM 91aWlxalppla a0 AmIMURfI,D,WIDAaT,q{Rn1IXR[1MTXVIIp:YAI¢YNgq WN-YtgXp,>p'llYiln.�i wec�i�IInlrnFwamexnnrasouniwa'iesmimm�nawrinXenNCIIFwos+xc m+'i�acnv�aumuwvnAmw u.xm,aux. uw.sau. DNNN W.TDHIA �}IEWY� {�{VAnDx{IiampM1') MI�f-®.1ERN®49NEltl9MRR11aM1CFim SOMIViDiTR(OVIXMRWVSXBWNIE451'NOFnLL LW3F1hA FINAYXNR/S&:mIM1'S L F0b1..,laW aa,IIdV wVIX[Afia/I.XDIRXTN'ST w6f.aW1 NFf1nTi[HATMfTmalRp WD#IVm)�1DF/xe OVnfefl'T'IViTMe MD[n6Aq IX WTIYfDVIXFA5TW 111iNyAYWfiNBwFRYM[W iVO ��� scum+normxpamIInrwwivewYwAnrnwiiuwww.vrt+NwWxvvx-wm.van mewnxwMuwxvnwroi solo Polxr Avo NE�rvEiNcwm�wanaenv W*xersr ���` 'Trt E P� 1VVIXeM[WUFIHefOVFIIfA5T+h1M6NOinwNGSlRwg(y[R ap9/appA{iMUFTI[ LwOfGROwO� AI3tlVHRF1oPNRC DPSN65EVINEAa+/a NlwX lblebi'wpn9M:f FFIT TOMFSEVFXF'fSiUpApa 11RNC0.M)rz Witlf SOt'ltl6lTINaNMe'AVM1Ie.4i u,MM1DYiILLtR wOFA+m AlTuna: ��.��_nKuln169+ 1G.'aR15i Vu in)nl'MPPN>GSCNI.pn[[nlnIImV¢V�T�WW pM��10V11IIMi111 VEMa n>K,+fl Nw>6[n6,Aa[:pf Ix.NMa IAM1I� ' Z d C ♦V N EXISTING VIEW NW ALONG S.PALM CANYON DRIVE MSTING VIEW NW CORNER OF S PALM CANYON DRIVE&MORONGO ROAD Hadenda .^.anbna& Beach Club ass s..m +R vam cayonw i oiMn SPrM.G ' YIlB. EXLSEING VIEW SW CORNER OF S PALM CANYON DRIVE&MORONGO ROAD EXIS1 V&W 5 COWER OF 5PALM CANYONDIWE AIANG r' M 1 .:. WE PHOT beR p1 ' 1.0 EXISTING VIEW SE PROM MORONGO ROAD) EXISTING VIEW SE AT REAR FNTRY ON MORONGO ROAD sbx Q� w MATERIAI. COLOR FINISH COB TENCORRUGATED BRIGHT WHITE MATTE METAL ROOF(WHITE) eB PAREE uESI .�„ GUNCRFTE BLOCK DUNN EDWARDS MATTE / DIAMOND FACE DE6MOCANADIANLAK9' 'J , CONCRETE BLOCK NATURALGONCRETE SMOOTH/ •+°"•'_»» SCORED PACE STANDARD EXISTING STUCCO DUNN EDWARDS MATTE DE6M0'CANADIAN LAKE' EXISTINGOUM DUNN EDWARDS MA rE DE04I TULCAM g , CABLE RAIL CLEAR COATING 51'EEL CORRUGATED- ETA BURNTCEDARSIDING NATURAL BLACK SMOOTH/ BURNT CEDARSIb1N0 BRUSHED -.i DECOMPOSED GRANITE Hacienda NATURAL TAN COMPACTED v � Cantina S € 'T!'y Beach Club ! ,sss sae+ ceaCgonp w CONCRETEBLOCK STUCCO- - EAIff' I41M-'VL`LCAN' FCOMPOSED GRAN11£ (DIAMOND FACE) 1 l I i I = eTw sesw ', CONCRETE BLOCK CABLERAILINGWI OUTDOORCABANAS (SCORED FACE) GALVANIZED METAL PIPE 56ee1 wu\ T r 99yp �; Hacienda �� '• ; �' �:fi;11 � 4 � Cantina& Beach klb my '� _ 4tartri�stmvtan ' ,- _ . �,�.+�• .-ea a..au t nwr4� tau r. PROPOSED IN.V PWITWE PLAN-SCALE.I M iNORTH Nia(YrwaEst< xt.c.ucu,ion•.r.tum...�v �. ■ EXISTING BUILDNG ON ADJACENT LOT - +wff+aewinirvmwnw:n `^inn.ti.nwmn.. 2 STORY-2T'-0' I .. _ _. f ■ EXISTING BUILDING ON PROJECT LOT 2 STORY UNITS-27'-0 STTE PUN ■ PROPOSED AREA OF DEV OPNENT JCR ■ OF WACENTLOOORTION 1.2 StwN i R!$vIRGC G4S!� '. rr.r�i,r HACIENDA CANTINA&BEACH CLUB-Site section Hacienda Cantina& Beach Club +xasam� un! 91E 5F.CZ1nT �oera ' i 1.3 s� rn cn MORONGO RD. +,. y~•�+' `` s4-�R'tu r*�",":`.SY '�.?,{' w �S �"fJ+'• �F`:''t``.:'.«i•'R':'•.P''."'h- � n `� �fi 4 t 'YF ;+IS Sr i ,1 VACANT PARCEL �',,, +. . • . .1 -'`"'"..-.'r."s%SF; covneED vnTM ��y ham`•}y'T' E s}rxev o +,-,I��G�A.`5,h� �=�:i I Hacienda IS "�" ,ky �*;•�—�+Yx 'd ''iex;.::��r -`r` Cantina&Beach P K� OT . .. Co Club O \ 5 i *' '�-Y •J•t :'`. � •^L- � 1555SwN Palm _ r \ 92 911N t � s Is - �� �'+`o• • by E k Warm Si WiifR� AO£@1 1 STORY PROPOSED BUILDINGS ❑ Architectural Site Plan` yo 1 a4 EXISTING BUILDING ® � scuE.r-m sew �J� - _c Ein IN THE CITY OF PAW����NG9, CALIFORNU PLAZA DEL SOL SANBORN 9DNG A FCNTION a 1 _ - va-ecasr Guaiva ARCHITECTURE CIVIL ENGINEEMNG LAND SURVEYING SANBORN A/E, Inc. OCTOM YODI Sn,.67N-A/-:NC �9£.flLO flOAp� ��w wK,wr i I II I I — I 4 r 000 _ I 9 (J ; -�I ' t � Q 9I. s k ? �7amp, 'I P. It pp t wx.m,e 1 { PLAZA DEL SOL " y 91 p �1 - r '.FAL4311F9.CA ua m rF wir i ur ' ALTA , w" trt r �'— wea a>m wax y mre- �sum sx . UK— A.. :.: G SOVR/PAf.V L.WY0.N OA � Tl w .. n rn 00 g ', .� � g- � .Irrrirrr rrrrrrrGrr c �� o .. - kil y 3� W r uum 11111113 1. � IIIIIII�� � Y •- ���-> ..,.�a ,P. ..� Fp15 PAP[9 Ok5! ! I Hacienda Cantina 8 BaCluch i e SnY IpM«�Y£ �� PYuf Mb k. 6 P pXW64 � oInINOM A �,� EMRI � � � PW� G ! �•— •� — 3 a eosTwc euvnwc Fl.00P PLAN J[OP a NOTE HACIENDA CANTINA CLUB-first .m=.� F2.0 sMe, }vuwo of men � , p 14 1= m women Hacienda —. ,..,. _ r-. _ antina 8 Cl b Beach 17 ova Bathhouse Plan i I I - __ .RATHH(ttiSE RLOOR PLAN .1a Bathhouse Roof Plan 2.1 ea.a r I NRIS FIRW Rf516M fir.. m..J I I .amm I Cantina da Be I /' a I �sss mRn Palapa Bar Floor Plan Palapa Bar Roof Plan � b Pr Soar t ibwphma 9*Mw Palapa Bar Elevation Palapa Bar Elevation 2.2 ry cabanas I e FT �I _ Hacienda _ Cantina& terrace Beach Club Raised Cabana Plan P. u I I P Y r• IWN IOgn) IOWnI Ipw,l Ownl /--� t17— �yerwNs Elevation-Looking East Cabana Section 1 ? J aw. W a I LHIq PIP00 OFSIPM H: } r: 4 o- �, ff• Hacienda �. Cantina& Beach Club NORTH ELEVATION 15565WN V,Pn 6 • aV��O�.CA� 9T164 1 r � Le _ f 13'-0y2 30'-0' 39-0' t 2'S E9 1-9y' au�q 92'd' EM�Bans WEST ELEVATION ,upa-W, I 3.0 ,CoTIp# -- A RJP7x3�'et Af�1 e{ yk ^ 4 '� iy i I sav all S � _ �.i � BBiCh ,r-r 14,$•. _. . �$ _- Club _ ffiB8wX11 Y`Im EAST ELEVATION a — } 6 C a•-0• sr.r sz'-W ,r-z -� ,�•�• EIraEorp ,..e SOUTH ELEVATION 3. 1 cn A PiAOOO ast row-: P, Hacienda ' Elevation-Looking South Cantina 6 Beach Club I is�sauw � 3 � women men Bathhouse Section 1 Bathhouse Section 2 Bathhouse Section 3 TMxoLrsE MRIOR ELEVAMNSI SEC ON J.*M 3.2 �s� �W� F-, T �7 Hacienda Cantina& Beach Club Fence and Gate-Type I Fence and Gate-Type 11 �VAVONS e _ 'FMGIS PIRBO DER!Ali ..gyp � Cantina& Beach 4Si Club G LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM S PALM CANYON 1� Dkft ' I b e 3.4 LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM S.PALM CANYON sn.w [ R U TA N M.Katherine Jenson .-- -- Direct Dial:(714)641-3413 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP E-mail:kjenson@mtan.com January 29, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council c/o James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Response to January 21, 2014 Appeal Letter Submitted by Judy Deertrack (Planning Commission Decision 118114) Case No. LUP 13-067 &Purportedly 3.1111 MAA Hacienda Cantina and Beach Club, 1555 S. Palm Canyon Drive Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: This letter is submitted on behalf of Rich Meaney and Miggy's Cantina, LLC (collectively, the "Applicant") relating to the above-referenced appeal. Rutan & Tucker, LLP serves as land use/CEQA counsel for the Applicant on this project. This letter serves as the Applicant's answer to the appeal, and is submitted pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code ("PSMC") Section 2.05.060. I. SCOPE OF APPEAL Before addressing Ms. Deertrack's ("Appellant") appeal, it is important to note what is not part of the appeal. While Appellant's letter of appeal references the Applicant's Minor Architectural Application Case 3.1 l 1 ("MAA"), and much of the letter appears to be directed at the minor remodel of the restaurant to enhance the patio area, the MAA is not, and cannot be, part of this appeal. As stated by the Planning Director in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Appellant chose not to appeal the MAA because she did not wish to pay the appeal fee for a second appeal. Pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code ("PSZC") Section 94.04.00.E.2.A, the decision on the MAA became final on December 16, 2013, 10 working days after the date it was issued (November 27, 2013). The fact that the MAA is final and is not part of the appeal was confirmed by City Attorney Douglas Holland on January 24, 2014. The Applicant objects to the appeal to the extent it seeks to review the propriety of the development activities authorized by the MAA or the CEQA determination relating thereto. Substantial work has already begun under the MAA, and the Applicant's rights under that approval are fully vested. What is at issue in this appeal is the Planning Commission's approval of Land Use Permit 13-067 ("LUP"), which authorizes "musicians and entertainment (subject to provisions of the noise ordinance)outside on pool deck...." Rutan & Tucker. LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd; Suite 1400. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 ( Fax 714-546-9035 119/031293-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 6600029.1 a01i29/14 79 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 2 The Appellant's notice of appeal suggests that she is appealing the Planning Director's November 27, 2013 decision on the LUP. However, pursuant to PSZC Section 94/02.0l.D.4, the Planning Commission's review of the matter was de novo. Therefore, it is the Planning Commission's decision on the LUP which is before the City Council. II. CORRECTED DESCRIPTION OF CENTER AND SURROUNDING LAND USES The appeal letter incorrectly characterizes the Plaza del Sol Shopping Center("Center"), the subject restaurant and the surrounding land uses. A. Plaza del Sol Shopping Center The Center is 17 acres with over 70,000 square feet of commercial development, including retail, restaurants and office. There is 24,500 square feet of additionally entitled office and retail, which will be constructed in one and two story buildings. Indeed, one of the large remaining building pads (Pad B) is located directly in between the multifamily apartment complex where the Appellant resides and the Hacienda Cantina restaurant. Thus, once the Center is built out as entitled, an additional commercial structure will create a further separation between the uses authorized by the LUP and the apartment complex. The Center's consistency with the General Plan was determined when Planned Development District No. 131 ("PDD") was adopted in 1981, through Resolution No. 14025. (Attachment 1.) The uses permitted by the PDD included a market, banks, office, retail and restaurants. The PDD authorizes up to 188,890 square feet of commercial development, including 69,660 square feet of office, 101,575 square feet of retail and market, and 17,655 square feet of restaurant. (Attachment 2.) The Appellant's classification of the Center as a "small residential shopping center" (Appeal, p. 1) is simply false. The Appellant attempts to pigeonhole this Center as a "small residential shopping center" based upon its current General Plan designation of Neighborhood Convenience Center. (Appeal, p. 1.) However, that designation was not placed upon the Center until long after the existing Center structures were built. In 1981, when the PDD was approved, and in 1982, when the development plans for the existing restaurant were approved, the site was designated under the General Plan as "Resort Commercial." (Attachment 3, p. 1.) The Resort Commercial designation was specifically for"tourist commercial services principally servicing resort clientele; these services include restaurants, entertainment and retail uses. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities are closely associated with this designation, but should be designed to be compatible with neighboring developments...." (Attachment 3, p. 3.) It is our understanding that the General Plan designation changed to "Neighborhood 119/031293-0001 6600029.1 a01129/14 80 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 3 Convenience Center" in the 2007 General Plan Update. That change, however, did not transform the nature of the existing Center. B. The Restaurant The PDD did not limit the types of restaurants for the Center. As stated above, the General Plan designation for the restaurant site at the time the restaurant was approved and constructed was Resort Commercial. To suggest that the restaurant may not have entertainment components and should not draw patrons from outside the immediate neighborhood is simply wrong. This is demonstrated not only by the language of the applicable General Plan and the PDD, but how it was interpreted and applied to this very restaurant. The development plans for the restaurant at issue were approved as part of Phase I of the commercial development of the site in Resolution No. 14215, approved on April 21, 1982. It was approved as an 8,000 square foot structure with break out event rooms and a patio area that was used for outdoor dining and entertainment, including live music. Obviously, a restaurant of that size and layout is not intended merely to service the immediate neighborhood. If anyone had an issue with operation of a restaurant of this scope, the time to raise the issue was in 1982, when the plans were approved and found consistent with the PDD. The restaurant was built in approximately 1983. It was operated under different names. It has been shuttered for approximately two years. The Applicant is attempting convert this vacant building into a viable,tax generating restaurant. C. The Surrounding Land Uses The Appellant baldly states that the Center "is surrounded by residential use, with all the expectation of quiet and privacy." (Appeal, p. 1.) The Appellant's description is simply false. The Appellant claims that the "Cantina Project is bordered on the northwest by the Parkview Mobile Estates with 198 lots (55+age tenants)...." In fact, the Parkview Mobile Estates are located at 393 West Mesquite Avenue. While the southeast corner of the park is cattycomer from the currently vacant building pad within the Center located at the comer of Morongo Road and South Belardo Road, the site of the Hacienda Cantina is at an entirely different comer, namely, Morongo Road and South Palm Canyon Drive. The Appellant apparently categorizes the Happy Traveler RV Park as a residential use, and claims that it also borders the Hacienda Cantina "to the north." In actuality, the use to the north of the Hacienda Cantina is a 66-unit hotel (Travelodge). The Happy Traveler RV Park is located at 211 West Mesquite Avenue. A portion of the park extends to the north side of 119/031293-WOI 6600029.1 a01/29/14 Q L7 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 4 Morongo Road, to the northwest of the site. That portion of the RV Park is across the street from the future development pad described in the paragraph above. More fundamentally, the RV Park is not a residential use. Patrons reserve spaces in much the same way as visitors rent rooms at the Travelodge next door. (See happytraveleni,.com.) Indeed, the Park's website boasts that it is "in town" and within walking distance to area restaurants. Interestingly, while the Appellant claims the owner of the Park, Mr. Marantz, "expressed distress" over the project, he apparently did not wish to appeal. Mr. Marantz informed Mr. Meaney that during off season - the time of year during which the pool area will be most frequently used -the Park's occupancy is only 10%. The Appellant claims "[t]here is also a hotel south of the project." This is also incorrect. The uses to the south are the Stein-Mart and other commercial tenants. Most significantly, the Appellant also claims to live "immediately to the west of the planned Hacienda Cantina." (Appeal, p. 1.) This is incorrect. What is "immediately to the west" of the restaurant is a future building pad for a commercial building (Pad B). The Tahquitz Mesa Villas apartment complex is across South Belardo Road from that building pad, not from the Hacienda Cantina. The Appellant's apartment (according to the address on her appeal letter) is in building 5 in the western portion of the complex. She is separated from the restaurant by numerous buildings, two tennis courts, a pool complex, South Belardo Road, and the future building on Pad B. The estimated distance been the Appellant's unit and the patio where the uses covered by the LUP will occur is approximately 700 feet. III. THE APPELLANT'S PROCEDURAL CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT The majority of the Appellant's comments relate to the City's adopted procedures relating to the LUP. The City's land use procedures clearly spell out certain types of decisions that can be made by the Planning Director with no hearing and no notice. The uses authorized by this LUP clearly fall into that category. In Section 92.12.01, subsection C, the PSZC defines "Uses Permitted by Land Use Permit." Subpart 2 of that subsection covers "[o]utdoor uses as an accessory to a permitted main use and located on the same property as the permitted use" and specifically lists "[m]usicians/entertainment (subject to provisions of noise ordinance)." The Appellant has not argued that any other activities were approved by the challenged LUP, nor could she. The language in the LUP tracks the language in the code to the letter. Nor has any plausible argument been advanced to suggest that the music activities are not an accessory use to the restaurant. The music is to entertain the restaurant patrons in the patio/pool area. Thus, the City Council has established the procedure for the approval of this type of use, and City Staff followed that procedure in every respect. What the Appellant is challenging is the 1191031293-0001 M00029.1 a0129/14 82 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 5 procedure itself. There is no question City Staff had the authority to issue the LUP without notice to anyone. The Appellant was aware of the approval and had the opportunity to express her view to the Planning Commission, which considered the matter de novo, unanimously rejected the appeal, and approved the LUP with one additional condition. The Appellant was permitted to speak for more than the allotted time at the beginning of the meeting, was able to submit her prepared comments, and was invited to speak again when the matter was being discussed by the Planning Commission. What the Appellant is really advocating for is a modification of the PSZC to require noticed public hearings for LUPs. That is an issue for another day, and is not a basis for overturning the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the LUP. IV. THE NOISE ISSUE The LUP activities are specifically designed to allow the restaurant to remain viable during the summer season. The conditions of approval place stringent noise restrictions on all live entertainment. Such entertainment must cease by 6:00 p.m. Any instrument amplification is limited, and must be projected away from the nearby residential properties. Noise must be low enough to allow patrons to carry on normal conversations. All activities must strictly comply with the City's noise ordinance, which restricts noise levels to 50 to 60 dBA, depending on the time of day. In addition, a subcommittee of the Architectural Advisory Committee is required to review the plans for the walls and hedges to ensure that they further reduce noise levels. The Planning Commission added an additional condition for there to be an annual review to ensure that the conditions of approval are being followed and that any noise complaints are being properly handled. The condition requires that "Staff shall track noise complaints made to Police and Code Enforcement and provide an annual report, beginning from the date the facility opens." Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the Planning Commission did not"admit"this project is"in character, identical to others, such as the Ace Hotel, Saguaro Hotel, Riviera, etc." (Appeal, p. 2.) This is not a hotel project; it is a restaurant with accessory entertainment. The design of the patio area where the live music would occur will avoid noise problems. In addition to the fencing and landscaping on the patio, the location is on the easternmost portion of the property, approximately 700 feet from the Appellant's apartment. It is adjacent to South Palm Canyon Drive, one of the busiest roadways in the entire Coachella Valley. Currently, the roadway in front of the patio area has over 21,000 vehicles pass by daily. (Attachment 4.) That number is expected to rise over time. Given the ambient traffic noise in this location, impacts from daytime live music that meets the City noise ordinance would be minimal. Finally, the design of the sound system itself will reduce noise spillover onto any adjoining properties. The sound equipment is being professionally designed and installed by an 119/031293-0001 66000221 a0129/14 83 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 6 industry sound expert with years of experience in the sound business, including sound systems for everything from churches to music festivals. The state of the art equipment that the company has provided for Hacienda Cantina will cause ambient and misdirected sound to be dramatically reduced. The technology is specifically designed to control the geographic range of noise impacts. The Appellant's arguments are based upon the assumption that the Applicant will not be complying with the stringent conditions of approval imposed upon the LUP. Such an assumption is contrary to law. (Civ. Code § 3548; Pinello v. Taylor (1933) 128 Cal.App. 508.) In addition, if there are violations, there certainly are consequences. Condition No. 14 of the LUP authorizes revocation of the LUP for failure to comply with the PSMC, City Ordinances, or the conditions of approval of the LUP. Similarly, PSZC Section 94.02.0l.D.5 provides for revocation of the LUP upon 10 days notice for noncompliance with the conditions of approval. V. CEQA The Appellant has also questioned the City's reliance on the Class 3 CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guideline 15303. Her appeal to the Planning Commission quoted only part of that Guideline and also exaggerated the scope of the improvements (which were not even part of the appealed action). Subsection (e) of the Guideline specifically states that it is intended to cover "accessory (appurtenant) structures including ... patios, swimming pools and fences." Before the Planning Commission, the Appellant described the restaurant improvements as "a commercial swimming pool" with "90 cabanas." The Applicant is not constructing a commercial swimming establishment. Instead, a modest-sized pool (15 feet by 70 feet) is being constructed to allow Cantina patrons to cool off in the summer heat. This is certainly not a "commercial pool." Likewise, only 10 (not 90) cabanas are being installed to allow patrons to escape from the afternoon sun. The Appellant has suggested that the project is eliminating parking. While certain parking spaces are eliminated under the now final MAA, others have been added. Specifically, while 26 parking spaces were removed, 39 spaces were added, for a net increase of 13 spaces. In addition, the site is actually over-parked due to the lack of development on some of the existing building pads within the center. Moreover, as explained in the Staff Report presented to the Planning Commission, a parking analysis was completed for the MAA and the site has adequate parking for the new accessory uses. In short, substantial evidence supports staffs determination that the accessory uses are exempt from CEQA. 119/031293-0001 6600029.1'01129/14 84 RUTAN Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palm Springs City Council January 29, 2014 Page 7 VI. ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE THE APPEAL Despite the lack of merit to the appeal, Mr. Meaney has personally met with the Appellant, had telephone conferences with the Appellant, exchanged countless a-mails with her and has tried to address her concerns. In response to a comment by the Appellant about a community workshop, Mr. Meaney proposed to host such a workshop for all interested persons in lieu of this appeal. Mr. Meaney proposed to use the workshop to: (1) explain his plans for the restaurant and outline when he plans to utilize the patio area for live entertainment (off season); and (2) to provide attendees with all of the conditions of approval and the procedures for noise complaints. The Appellant ultimately rejected this offer in favor of this appeal. For the reasons stated herein, the Applicant respectfully requests that Appellant's appeal be denied and that the Planning Commission's approval of the LUP be upheld in all respects. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP M. Katherine Jenson Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 14025 (Approving PDD No. 131),Nov. 4, 1981 2. Staff Report dated Nov. 4, 1981, for PDD No. 131 3. 1993 General Plan, showing Hacienda Cantina as "Resort Commercial" 4. 24-Hour Traffic Volumes for Palm Canyon at Mesquite,April 2, 2013,prepared by Newport Traffic Studies 119/031293-0001 6600029.1.01/29/14 85 RESOLUTION NO. 14025 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO, 131, FOR JOHN WESSMAN FOR A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX ON SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE BETWEEN MORONGO ROAD AND WEST DELARDO ROAD. WHEREAS application has been received from John Wessman for a planned develop- ment district to construct a commercial complex on property located on South Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road and West Belardo Road: and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the application, after holding public hearings in accordance with Ordinance procedures; and WHEREAS the City Council is in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs does hereby approve Planned Development District 131, including the preliminary plot plan for John Wessman on property herein described based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the use at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a planned development district is authorized by this Ordinance. ' 2. That the proposed shopping center is necessary for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to eiisting uses, or to future uses permitted on adjacent properties. 3. That the proposed site, being 16 net acres, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and other features to adjust said use to existing or future uses in the neighborhood. 4. That a site specific traffic analysis has been prepared for the proposal which indicates adjacent streets can be properly designed to handle the type and quantities of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. CONDITIONS: 1. A continued study shall be made of the intersection of South Palm Canyon and East Palm Canyon Drives, and Belardo Read, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2. All conditions of the Development Committee shall be met. ' 3. Final parking facilities plan shall he designed in conformance with Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance with a 10% overall reduction in the number of parking spaces provided the 10% reduction is averaged throughout the site. 4. The westerly elevations shall be reviewed for sun control by the Archi- tectural Advisory Committee and the Development Committee, 5. All mitigative measures outlined in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study shall be implemented. 4 c 1 Attachment No 1, Page 1 86 4 c 2 Res. No. 14025 Page 2 6. A detailed phasing program shall be submitted as part of final develop- ment plans with all off-site improvements being installed with Phase I. 7, A General Plan amendment shall be required for the downsizing of Belardo Road from Morongo Road to the intersection of South Palm Canyon Drive (from an BO foot secondary thoroughfare to a 60 foot collector) to be completed prior to the approval of final development plans for Phase I. B. A bus turnout and/or alternative method of providing public transpor- tation shall be provided with a bus shelter to be designed and constructed by the applicant. 9. The preject shall be responsible for implementation of the adjacent portions of the Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage and/or payment of drainage fees when adopted by the City Council. ADOPTED this 4th day of November , 1981. AYES: Councilmembers Beirich, Field, Rose and Mayor Doyle NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Couucilmember ortner ATTEST: CITY OF PAL 'PRINGS, CALIPORNIA By City Clerk City/Manager REVIEWED & APPROVED: MILL_ WP 3245 Attachment No 1, Page 2 87 w � 4- � ftltJla►® - - 61TE 1 Poor MARK( I I • K,SAV.41 Lo", OFFICE AND RMII. 6PAGF� AND L' RESTAURANT I ( SOwbRA Rv. I I sk ' I ul g A eL svm z Z I i SITE z � Y fflSED BANK, I I TAUCAW AV6. OLAM/WA OFFICE ANP ci -Mit- SPACE. 2: I r6-r AREA of ECM ente, = tS.sSA4. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS SE 140. 5.0177-PD-131 APPROYED BY PLAN. CONY. DATE PLIGANT J. Kessman APPROVED BY COUNCIL OATE 11/4 81 MARKS Section 22 ORD. NO. RESDL. N0. 14025 Attachment No 1, Page 3 8g DATE: November 4, 1981 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Director via Director of Community Development CASE 5.0177-PO-131 - J. WESSMAN RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of a planned development district for John Wessman to allow development of an 16-acre retail complex located on South Palm Canyon Drive between Morongo Road and West Belardo Road, Section 22. BACKGROUND: The subject property has been in use for many years as Rancho Trailer Park. The applicant has proceeded with terminating the trailer park occupancy per the provisions of State Law governing conversion of such uses and has developed plans covering the majority of the park. The final date of residency for park tenants is around December 1 1981. The_proposed site plan includes a supermarket use (Ralph'sf and Nome Savings and Loan as specific tenants along with additional retail, office, financial and restaurant uses. The total building area initially proposed is 188,890 sq. ft. STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN: - Proposed Building Area: Office 69,660 sq. ft. Retail & Market 101,575 sq. ft. Restaurant 17,655 sq. ft. TOTAL 188,890 sq. ft. Surface Area Coverage: Building 139,790 sq. ft. - 20% . Parking & Drives _ 323,800 sq. ft.. 47% Landscaping 222,632 sq, ft, 33% - TOTAL 6�2f sq. ft, - (15+ acres) Parking provided: 900 spaces Parking required: 978 spaces (It must be noted that until detailed floor plans are submitted, staff is ... unable to provide an exact calcu- - latlon of parking requirements.) Among the concerns surfacing in the hearings were relocation impacts, traffic, streets,-and drainage. Special reports were prepared in conjunction with each of these areas of concern and mitigative measures were developed to offset anticipated impacts. One of the mitigations suggested in the traffic study was the downgrading of _ Belardo Road between Morongo Road and South Palm Canyon Drive from an 80-foot secondary thoroughfare to a 60-foot collector street. This recommendation was supported by the Traffic Engineer but rebuked by the Tribal Council and further hearings will have to be held. 4 a 1 Attachment No 2, Page 1 89 4 a 2 November 4, 1981 Page 2 PD-131 - J. WESSMAN - The Planning Commission, at-its meeting of October 14, 1981, voted 4 - 1, two absent, to order the filing of a Negative Declaration (with mitigation) and to approve Planned Development District 131 subject to conditions outlined in the attach resolution. RVIN�� - APPROVE�� . R0p5 JO A. NM 0 E Planning Direc r Direc r of Community Dellopment APPROVED City n ger ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map - - 2. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/14/81 - 3. Resolution WP 3244 Attachment No 2, Page 2 90 CL 4. - MOWSO ROAD 61TV, � :L I fm!ym6f.v tMRKET, I O3Ap1K,SAV.+,LOAN, I I OFFICE AND RMIL SPACE ANO �LE67A�RAN7 I 50NDRA 2v. 4 I I I Sl 1 AV8_PALMERA p SM zic. Z I 1 � IYE z j Y . °.4�-D BANK, I RF6TAMANTI I :wrnnws 4I AVE. OLA"IAA OKFIL.I; ANO VerAIL. 6FA4E. t,V-T PAA OF 6 94 51 5 IS.gbu. QQ � ExALE I" ZOO' CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 140. 5.0177-PO APPROVED !Y PLAN. COMM. DATE APPLkCANT J..Wessman APPROVED SY COUNCIL OATE REMARKS Section 22 ORD. NO. RESOL. N 4 a 3 s— Attachment No 2, Page 3 91 4 a 4 October 14, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 (C,ASE 5.0177-PD-131. plication by O. WESSMAN for a planed development 5trictruction of a shopping center on High ay 111 betweenrongo Road/Belard"bad, C-1 A R-3 Zones (IU, Section 22� TCommi ssf on response to written comments on draft Negative Declaration, action for filing, and project approval.) f (No comments received.) f Planning Director gave the staff report including (findings, recommenda- tions, and direction for Commission action. He ated that the traffic issues,will be addressed in final development pla s, and that the Tribal Council recommendations would be resolved by Ord' ance requirements. He stated that the staff recommendation would be fir final approval of the preliminary PD, and that the energy problem on he west elevations would be addressed in the final development plan stage. , Discussion followed on the parking deficiency, he ght limits, and setbacks. In reply to question by Commissioner D. Ha.ris, Housing Administrator stated that relocation of tenants from the m bilehome park will be ac- complished by December 1, with the number of tenants- of the park equalling the number of spaces being developed. I - Discussion followed on the intersection of last and South Palm Canyon. Traffic Engineer stated that the present desitn as Belardo- downsized to a collector street. - Discussion followed on the traffic movement t the intersection, parking calculations for the shopping center, setba s frontage ,landscaping, use of the buildings, retail use on Belardo, dra na;e of the site, flooding on S. Palm Canyon.. in front of the project, d project phasing. Planning Director stated that all off-site improveme is will be installed with the completion of Phase 1. - Vice Chairman declared the hearing open. t P. Selzer, 600 E. Tahquitz-McCallum, representing the applicant, stated that ali off-site improvements would be co 6tructed with Phase 1, and that all staff recooendatfons were acceptable e�cept the requirement for drain- age fees. He stated that since the amoun* of drainage fees were unknown, it is unfair that fees were made a conditAn of approval, that all develop- ments in the area should participate in the fees, that the project will not affect the drainage any more than tho current use of the land, that the height is required for the aesthetics lof the project, and that traffic - studies will demonstrate that Belardo sho Id be designated as a collector street. - - Vice Chairman stated that the best time to effect an upgrading of facilities is at the time there is a ch nge of use. Mr. Selzer, stated that the system as a whole should be dealt with, and that the applicant is amenable to posting a bond for drainage. i Vice Chairman stated that the drainage fee issue is a City Council f Attachment No 2, Page 4 92 I' October 14, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 CASE 5.0177-PD-131 (Cont'd.). �• / decision. - Commissioner Allan stated that when a new project is,proposed with a higher use, problems of the site should be resolved; that conditions have been put on other projects; and that perhaps building should be stopped until the needs of an area are known. She stated that ;Morongo Road residents will be impacted by a traffic signal;. that the project will impact the area; and that the need for the center should be ;balanced with total needs of the community. - Mr. Selzer reiterated 4e that the resolution of t '-drainage fees will ulti- mately be the decision of the Council; and that he will appear before the Council. 1 L. Olinger, 1496 Maricopa Drive, stated he wad not opposed to the project, but requested that the Indian Planning Commi sion recommendations be consi- dered. He stated that there was a severe! traffic problem, and that it appears to the Indians that the traffic ccogestion problem is being solved after the development of the project, not before development as it should be. He stated that on the Master Plan, Pelardo-is shown as a secondary thoroughfare, and if it is downsized„traffic will impact the area across the street as he -plans to build on his;property with R-3 densities and did not want to appear before the Commission to be told that the downsized- - street will not handle the traffic voluoe. He stated that a gain of 10 feet on the Wessman project will allow:more parking, and if 10 feet is not given - to the Wessman project, the°pe will be a parking deficiency. He requested that further scrutiny be made of the downsizing. Discussion followed regarding the downsizing of Belardo. P. Selzer (rebuttal) stated that the 10 feet gained will be in landscaping and not parking and will make the project more pleasing from Palm Canyon. There being no further appearances, thehearing was closed-. i Commissioner D. Harris stated that he was not satisfied that jhe applicant had addressed drainage, parking, and height problems and was not ready to vote for the project. I Discussion followed regarding drainage. fee requirements. Commissioner Allan stated that the signal at Morohgo is not in the best interests of the residents on Morongo, but since ithe experts feel that Morongo is the correct location, she would not disagree with the decision. Discussion followed on the problems 5nd impacts of the project. Planning Director stated that a General Plan a)nendment study will be undertaken for Belardo, and that the Belardo question must be answered before approval of final development plans for Phase I. Discussion continued on the traffic problems. 4 a 5 i Commissioner Koetting requested that the parking deficiency be defined. li Attachment No 2, Page 5 93 4 a 6 October 14, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - Page 8 _ CASE 5.0177-PO-131 (font-d.), Commission consensus was that the traffic pr,6blem should be addressed immediately. Motion was made by Allan, seconded by Kcettfhg, and ca.ried (D. Harris dissented; Madsen, M. Harris absent) orderi the filing of a Negative Declaration, and approving PD-131 subject to t�e following conditions: 1. That a continued study be made of the intersection of S. Palm Canyon lip E. Palm Canyon, and Belardo, to be reviewed and approved by the Plan- ning Commission. - 2. That all conditions of the Development�Committee be met. 3. That the final parking facilities plan be designed in conformance with Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance with a 10 percent overall re- duction in the number of parking spaces provided the 10 percent reduction is averaged throughout the site. 4. That the westerly elevations be reviewed for sun control by the AAC and the Development Committee. R- 5. That all mitigative measures outlined in the Environmental Assessment/ Initial Study be implemented. 6. That a detailed phasing program be submitted as,part of final develop- ment plans with all off-site improvements being installed with Phase I. 7. That a General Plan amendment;; be 'required for the downsizing of Belardo Road from Morongo -Road to the intersection of S. Palm Canyon . (from an 80 foot secondary thoroughfare to a 60 foot collector) to be completed prior to the approval of final development plans for Phase 1. 8. That a bus turnout and/or alterno'tive method of providing.public trans- portation be provided with a buskshelter to be designed and constructed by the applicant. 9. That the project be responsible for implementation of the .adjacent portions of the Master Plan of Vood Control and Drainage and/or pay- ment of drainage fees when adopteY by the City Council. Tribal. Council comments: gg�. "In memorandum dated September 22, 1pel, the Tribal Council requested that this case be continued pending Indiai Planning Commission and Tribal Plan- ning Consultant review and comments. on the Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan and dated September 17, 1981. g€ After consideration of the recommendations of the Indian Planning Commis- sion, the Tribal Council submitted thi following reconnMndations; - 1. That. Belardo Road, between Ramon3,Road and South Palm Canyon Drive, be 'retained on the General Plan Street Plan as a Secondary thoroughfare - (80, R/w). { . - 2. That studies be initiated to determine the possibility and cost/benefit Attachment No 2, Page 6 94 I- October 14, 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 CASE 5.0177-PD-131 (Cont'd.). of extending Belardo Road southerly'to`, connect with West Palm Canyor, at South Palm Canyon Drive. 3. That the determination of the location of the traffic signal I' recommended by the traffic consultant include an in-depth study of the need to provide direct access from Belardo Road to a connection with I South Palm Canyon Drive at a signalized .intersection. A. signal at Morongo Road and South Palm Canyon Drive would address this need and - would present minimal impact in the shopping center plan. The alternatives would include a signal at Sonora Road and South Palm Can- yon Drive and the extension of Sandra Road through the shopping I- center, to Belardo Road. While; Sonora Road is a planned east-west collector street,. and provides .better service to the area easterly of South Palm Canyon Drive, the adverse impacts of this alternative on the center are obvious. ti 4. That future planning and developmeA of the area include the extension of Belardo Road northerly to Sunny dines Road. 5. That the off-street parking deficiencies noted in the staff report be resolved. 6. That the attached recommendations f the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Planning Consultant rely ive to lighting, driveway design, channelization, signing, etc., be i',ncorporated into the design of the Center. - d 7. That the site plan for the shopping center be continued for further review after the matters as outline above have been addressed. CASE 5,0202 (MISC.). Initiation by the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS for traffic modifications on Riverside Drivg North, Section 23, in response to a request by residents in and around Riverside Drive North. (Environmental assessment and tentative approval.) Planning Director stated that Commission had requested staff to return with alternative solutions to North Riverside Drive regarding volume and speed of traffic; read letters in -opposition to the barricading of North Riverside Drive; and stated that the Commission could remove the item from the agenda since the assessment district formed to pay far the barricades has apparently been dissolved. - Traffic Engineer stated that Alternative d2 which considered neighbor- hood input for solution to the problems would be the most viable. He stated that other solutions, such as !doing nothing; prohibiting left turns off Sunrise; and installation :of stop signs are not viable especially since installation of stop signs would set a precedent. . Commissioner Keetting stated that the jCity of Indian Wells installed stop signs on.. a similar type street 'and the solution seemed to be 4 a 7 satisfactory. Commissioner D. Harris stated that there should be a _signal light or Attachment No 2, Page 7 95 - I . . ` b 1WC1— K NJS . MK Ma sK15RG MIS 44 1.4 -- SVNNY 1 OUNE'e Iu rN(NU?i. .W I RC L4 Nt g la ABM •'1L�4Q+ ,•.. N41A ^� I PR W1 It l/11 �w f)/11 Nfl/17 J! Iq RC i4 I 17.; 4 Y.1 rp,. I RL L4 itc 17 L4 $ 44 'r4rfi1&u�ylYui� L4 Iw � I lilt Lf. SONaAA Zt 44 d AC _•__� l f+N 4,4 L4 I r�IRL` \\ 74s/z7 flfirl 443AI Nos/cL v 0(43/21 U.) Nfl/Rr� 4!L; .__ — N431ju ——— RG,— — NLC /boa N4MS� C 1 L L4. U 44 Ic MrS r M A' I ' Moot TIiYl4� I 4 I IS\ 1 � _ I fbl 1 I j WA VERNS ` Cf Lz, I I Lf ,rfEM.l Y/, 1 a 3 MIS sr< 11 JOS \ 1 'Y I C I 0¢ r 4/r/1YY 43 `PA Yli1At 44 rsia � L.4 I S,L_t � cP�,,,�, � �,.• • L4 h 44PA 11} 44 LI J i l I^`� 0,21 PA Attachment No 3, Page 1 96 - R. ivf li 1 t .. t CENTRAL CITY �_- - iT1AL COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL NITS PER ACRE) C$A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT i AMC NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER CSC COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER RC RESORT COMMERCIAL G C GENERAL COMMERCIAL. i P PROFESSIONAL INL� BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL r' �) PC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL r. 30) IOLLED ' RESORT OPEN SPACE C CONSERVATION (t UNIT PER 20 ACRES) ff p DESERT I PR PARKS AND RECREATION �s r'V r�rw`fV,v w iv, � wi7 Wsu riai-r: Attachment No 3, Page 2 97 Resort Commercial O 'ective 3.22. The Resat Commercial(R-C)land use designation provides for resort hotels,including a broad range of convenience and tourist commercial services principally saving resort clientele; these services include restaurants, entertainment and retail uses. Commercial recreation and entertainment facilities are closely associated with this designation,but should be designed to be compatible with neighboring development and to assure safe and adequate access from the highway and off-street parking. Resort Commercial facilities are most appropriate for the Palm Canyon Drivermquitz Canyon Drive corridors outside the downtown area where an auto-oriented scale is established. Policy 3.22.1. Accommodate a full diversity of commercial uses,including retail, office,food sales and service, general merchandise, apparel and accessories,dry goods,financial services, and personal services which provide for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents and visitors. 3.22.2. Accommodate the development of hotels and other visitor-serving residential uses at a maximum density of 43 guest rooms per net acre. 3.22.3. Accommodate commercial recreation now which cater to both the City's residents and its visitors. 3.22.4. Special attention to setbacks,landscaping,architecture and signs shall be required to empbasize the City's unique resort character. 3.22.5. Structures shall be a maximum of thirty-five(35)feet in height.A minimum of five percent(5%)of any property or project shall be reserved for open space or recreation areas. Tahtruitz Canyon Corridor (See Subarea 7 of Summary of Downtown Development Policies) This area's recent development activity is due to the Palm Springs Convention Center. This area has the potential for a substantial amount of additional tourist-oriented retail, restaurant and hotel development. Tahquitz Canyon Way is the major, east-west, axis, a broad boulevard with a median lined with palm trees, linking downtown with the airport. This area has direct access to the Downtown to the west and is flanked by areas, to the north and south, with a potential for high-density residential and hotel uses. 3/3193 I-62 Attachment No 3, Page 3 98 Objective 3.23, Establishment of a unique district which capitalizes on the presence of the Palm Springs Convention Center as a major economic and cultural use, expanding its role as a principal public activity center and accommodating the introduction of convention-related supporting uses, including restaurants, retail commercial and entertainment, theaters,hotels and limited offices. policies 3.23.1. Encourage and accommodate a full diversity of commercial uses, including retail, office, food sales add service, general merchandise; apparel and accessories, dry goods, financial services, personal services, entertainment and cultural which provide for the day-today service needs of the nearby residents, employees and visitors. 3.23.2. Encourage the establishment of additional full-service hotels and quality restaurants. Provide for quality medium-and high-density residential uses at the edges of this district. 3.23.3. Encourage high-intensity uses on the street level of buildings which have Tahquitz Canyon Way frontage between Downtown and Avenida Caballeros to promote an active pedestrian link between the Convention Center and Downtown. 3.23A. Integrated permanent residential uses with commercial activities may be considered provided that the residential and commercial spaces are fully separated, the impacts of noise, odor and other adverse characteristics of commercial activity can be adequately mitigated,and a healthy,safe and well-designed environment is achieved for the residential units. Residential uses shall not be located along the street level frontage of Tahquitz Canyon Way. 3.23.5. permit an increase in height for entertainment production facilities requiring greater than normal floor heights in concert with related uses, provided that a planned development is submitted and approved by the City which demonstrates that the project: a. contains activities and functions which will be a significant asset for the City; b. achieves a higher level of amititecmnd design performance than would normally occur; C. adequately mitigates all impacts attributable to the increase in height; d. conveys the some of"the Village" in its siting of structures, massing, scale, use of open space incorporating 'pedestrian-friendly" uses and architectural character; and e. provides benefits to the adjacent area and the greater City above those which can be exacted to account for its direct impacts. 3.23.6. Require that all uses and buildings enhance pedestrian activity along Tahquitz Canyon Way in accordance with the land use and design policies and standards specified in this section. Strengthen the pedestrian I inkage along Tahquitz Canyon Way toward the Mstoric V iiiage Center of the downtown through improved lighting and expanded sidewalk area and encouragement of complementary retail, office and restaurant uses. 3.23.7. Continue to explore the pedestrian linkage along Andreas Road toward the focus area of the downtown through increased landscaping and widened sidewalks and encouragenut of complementary retail,office and restaurant uses. 3/3/93 I-63 Attachment No 3, Page 4 99 3.23.8. Encourage that new structures be designed to creak a"villago-like"environment,by the siting and massing of buildings around common pedestrian areas and open spaces which are linked to Tahquitz Canyon Way and other circulation links to the focus area of downtown, inclusion of pedestrian-oriented uses at the ground elevation, and use of vertical setbacks of buildings in excess of 2 stories or 30 feet above grade. 3.23.9. Accommodate expanded development of the Palm Springs Convention Center. 3.23,10. Develop a view corridor study, when feasible, for Tahquitz Canyon Way, for the purpose of maintaining the natural views along this major entrance to the downtown,between Sunrise Way and Avenida Caballeros and allow additional or reduced height for hotels within the parameters of such study. Gallery District This area has regained vitality in recent years from the influx of art galleries and decorative arts professions. The area also contains numerous offices. The area is typified by low-rise buildings and is primarily auto-oriented. Landmark buildings include the Pacific Building in the heart of this area and the E1 Mirador Garage, a recently-renovated historic structure, currently occupied by Desert Hospital, at its northern boundary. These structures are the centerpieces for the City's first historic district, the Las Palmas Business Historic District. - A This area is flanked on each side by low-density, high-end residential areas. Several quality small hotels as well as a number of run-down motels are located along Indian Canyon Drive in and to the north of the area. The Desert Hospital, the City's largest employer, is immediately northeast of this area. Obiective 3,24. Enhancement of the unique role and Identity of Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo Road and Taehevah Drive as a corridor of regional-serving art galleries,design futaisbiogs establishments,speoWty shops and restaurants as primary uses and maintenance of its low-rife, "village-like' and pedestrian character. A uniform and consistent pattern of development which serves adjacent residents and continues the character of specialty uses. Policies 3.24.1. Accommodate a full diversity of commercial uses,including retail, office, food sales and service,general merchandise, apparel and accessories, dry goods, furniture, financial services, personal services and cultural which provides;for the day-to-day service needs of nearby residents,employees and visitors. r � 3/3/93 I-64 Attachment No 3, Page 5 100 3.24.2. Encourage and accommodate the development of specialty (boutiques, gift shops, ate.), arts-related (galleries, print shops, bookstores,etc.), restaurant and entertainment, interior decorators, architects and other designers, and similar uses. 3.24.3. Accommodate housing units on the second level or higher or to the rear of building,provided the impact of noise, odor and other adverse characteristics of commercial activity can be adequately mitigated,and a healthy, safe and well-designed environment is achieved for the residential units.Provide opportunities for artists to have studios in concert with residential units. 3.24.4. Investigate the development of a parking district to encourage higher-density re-use of appropriate properties with such uses as offices and restaurants. 3.24.5. Encourage cooperative advertising and promotion of the area. 3.24.6. Encourage the outdoor display of art objects. 3.24.7. Encourage the development of quality outdoor dining facilities. 3.24.8. Establish a unified landscape and/or banner theme for the area. 3.24.9. Provide pedestrian linkage with the medicaVhospital-related uses to the immediate north,especially to the restaurants. 3/3/93 2-65 Attachment No 3, Page 6 101 i 24 HOUR VOLUMES STREET : PALM CANYON PS LOCATION S/0 MESQUITE DATE : 04-02-13 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL 12:00 56 71 127 1:00 38 57 95 2:00 36 22 58 3:0 0 22 23 45 JI 4:00 48 32 80 5:00 109 84 193 6;00 228 229 457 7:00 400 346 746 8: 00 605 458 1,063 9.00 763 571 1,334 la:aa � 813 669 1,482 �l 11:00 AM 904 789 1,693 12:00 PM 861 755 1,616 1;00 ' 776 840 1,616 2: 00 800 830 1,638 3:00 748 798 1,546 4;00 753 692 1,445 5:00 673 633 1,306 6:00 712 559 1,271 7:00 554 554 11108 8:00 j 349 487 836 9:00 250 437 687 i 10.00 I 170 240 410 �j_.. 11:00 80 107 187 12:00 10,756 10,293 21,039 Prepared by NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES i Attachment No 4, Page 1 102 O 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME c Lm:t t .. �" i t7• ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Receipt#: 201400063 State Clearinghouse#(if applicable): Lead Agency: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Date: 02/04/2014 County Agency of Filing: Riverside Document No: 201400063 Project Title: 131 RIDGE MOUNTAIN DRIVE-4,675 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME Project Applicant Name: EHRLICH ARCHITECTS Phone Number. 310 838-9700 Project Applicant Address: 10865 WASHINGTON BLVD CULVER CITY,CA 90232-3617 Project Applicant: Private Entity I CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑Environmental Impact Report ❑Negative Declaration ❑Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑Project Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs X❑County Administration Fee $50.00 ❑Project that is exempt from fees(DFG No Effect Determination(Form Attached)) 0 Project that is exempt from fees(Notice of Exemption) Total Received $50.00 Signature and title ofperson receiving payment: Notes: Notice of Exemp tion Form D TO: Office of Planning & Research FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street-Room 212 City of Palm Springs Sacramento, California 95812-3044 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Califor-0 92262 X County Clerk-County of Riverside 2720 Gateway Drive �0CJ^17'� _ . Riverside, California 92507 'FR 04 201h Project Title: 131 Ridge Mountain Drive—4,675-square foot single-family house v C��put; Project Location: 131 Ridge Mountain Drive-APN 513-570-009. Description of Project: Construction of a 4,675-square foot single-family residence on a hillside lot within the Ridge Mountain subdivision. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palm Springs, Planning Department Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Jean Gold—Property Owner leg h Exempt Status: (Check One ' Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268: X Categorical Exemption CEQA Section 15332 FEB 0 , Declared Emergency(Section 21080 (b)(3); 15269(a); Emergency Project(Section 21080 (b)(4); 15269(b)(c); Reasons why project is exempt: The project qualifies as a Categorical Exen4ptiom pursu"- o Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects of the California Environmental Quality Act. Per the General Rule ex ption criteria, the City first determined that the activity is a project subject to CEQA (Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1), but after review of the project determined that it does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Categorical Exemption Section 15332 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the following conditions: (a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b)The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c)The pro iect site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d)Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e)The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The subject project site has a General Plan designation of ER (Estate Residential) and is zoned R-2 (Multi-Family and Hotel) zone. This project is consistent with both the General Plan and Zoning with the approval that was granted for the construction of a 4,675-square foot residence in an established subdivision. The subject lot is 2.72-acres. The subject site has not been identified as a site that has value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The approval of this project would not result in any significant effect relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water Quality. The site will be served by Southern California Edison Company (Electric), Veolia Water Company (Sewer), Desert Water Agency (Water), Verizon (Telephone), Southern California Gas Company (Gas), and the City of Palm Springs Police And Fire Departments. Lead Agency goqtact Person: genn Mlaker Telephone: (760) 323-8245 Signature -. � �//�� Date: