HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2009 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.C. � F�ALMgp4 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
u 4i
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
OyS 1F0
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 1, 2009
To: David H. Ready, City Manager
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject: Case 5.1204 - Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan; Northwest Corner of
N. Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way, and Other Nearby
Properties.
Establishment of Fees to Defray Plan Costs
Following completion of the report for this item, staff determined that an additional issue
related to future fees should be considered. Government Code Section 65456 allows
the City to impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals
that are required to be consistent with a specific plan. All applications for actions that
require city approval, including a determination that such approval is consistent with the
specific plan, can be required to pay the proportionate fair share for the cost of
developing the specific plan, including the preparation of any supporting environmental
documentation. Staff believes that such a fee should be considered and should be
identified in the Specific Plan under Section V "Finance
Recommendation: Include language under Section V "Finance" that allows the
City to consider a fee to be for project applications within the Specific Plan area.
Specific Plan Fee
To defray the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the
specific plan, including all related studies and environmental
documentation, the City Council should consider the adoption of a fee to
be imposed upon all persons seeking approvals of the City or the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs which are required to
be consistent with the specific plan in the manner provided under
Government Code Section 65456. A portion of any amounts collected
pursuant to such fee may be used to reimburse any person who advanced
costs for the preparation of the specific plan in excess of such person's
fair share of such costs as determined under the provisions of
Government Code Section 65456. Joi Zr�pc
/fU>Z/iJ4)IV
Support for hybrid of Preservation Alternative & Alternative A
Mr. Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers:
As you know, the Palm Springs Modern Committee has made the
preservation and rehabilitation of the Town & Country Center a
centerpiece of our advocacy efforts in recent years. At long last, a
feasible alternative to the historic property's demolition has been
proposed in the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR.
PS ModCom believes that the most sensible approach to
incorporating a rehabilitated Town & Country Center into a
revitalized downtown is to approve a hybrid of the Preservation
Alternative and Alternative A, which we call-the "Reduced Density
Preservation Alternative."
This approach would include the rehabilitation of the Town &
Country Center and removal of the Center's south building to allow
for the public plaza proposed in the Preservation Alternative
combined with the reduced density proposed in Alternative A. The
Town & Country Center's public plaza would then flow into
Alternative A's public park, further enhancing the pedestrian
:Friendly focus of the project.
Under the hybrid "Reduced Density Preservation Alternative" the
City obtains the benefits of reduced densities and heights along
with the Town & Country Center's rehabilitation and opening of
the Center's Plaza. As a result, under the provisions of CEQA,
significant cultural resource impacts would be eliminated and no
potential legal action would be necessary -- a big Win-Win for Palm
Springs! _
Uu: ( �Id ci+� lPhr `ems M��? �u✓ Cpi++lvvy 7icr
�h e� b� lle�1' �a r�-i-r !`e t a-j-e �-o � arjr��•( p� u
SPec:firz ► via-1 �n � l �s oi .ho.� p� d To
Co���yqq &,,for AAA w4t C�6"4 �,,hrt XVCG' aJ aG {�0' x 4
• CEQA prohibits approval of a project with adverse environmental impacts
if there are feasible alternatives that would reduce those impacts.
• To approve a project with significant adverse impacts, such as the proposed
Specific Plan, you must make an explicit finding that there are no feasible
alternatives that would lesson any of the significant adverse impacts.
• An alternative is feasible if it does not make it economically impossible to
proceed with the project and if it accomplishes most of the project
objectives. Courts have specifically held that an alternative does not need
to meet all of the project objectives to be feasible.
ra. Due to the historic significance of the Town and Country Center, and the
significant adverse impact that would result from its demolition, you cannot
legally approve any alternative that includes the extension of Museum Way
from Palm Canyon Drive to Indian Canyon Drive because there are several
feasible alternatives that do not include demolition.
` The Preservation Alternative, the Less Intense Alternative A, and the
hybrid of these two alternatives proposed by the Palm Springs Modem
Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center are all
economically feasible alternatives that would accomplish most of the
project objectives and would eliminate the project's significant cultural
resource and aesthetic impacts.
Thus, approval of any project alternative that includes extension of
?,j' Museum Way between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive
''^ would be in clear violation of CEQA.
✓`Pc/Tk- Y•.J -(�r '0� tmw—
`yuoz r,
T�rrsyt llil ofet z
?A LM SA?
� ry
U N
Fn �Ceq tl
c9lIF001 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 1, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENTS) FOR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA (CASE 5.1204) TO ALLOW
UP TO 955 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UP TO 400,000 SQUARE
FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE, AND UP TO 620
HOTEL ROOMS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF N. PALM
CANYON DRIVE AND TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, AND OTHER NEARBY
PROPERTIES
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
On January 14, 2009, the City Council conducted a public hearing, received testimony and
continued action on the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan. Subsequently, staff has met with
each Council member to receive individual comments, which have been compiled and
summarized in this memo. The Council will re-open the public hearing, take any additional
testimony and, at its option, direct staff with regard to final action on the draft Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, accept any testimony, and close the hearing.
2. Direct staff to prepare draft resolutions/ordinance based on Council direction, including
the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Statement of
Overriding Considerations, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Report, and approval of
the Specific Plan, including any amendments, as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
• On April 30, 2008 Wessman Development, Inc. presented to the City a draft Specific
Plan for the Museum Market Plaza.
• On May 21, 2008, the City Council initiated a Specific Plan review process and directed
staff to report on the conformance of the draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan with
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
the Palm Springs General Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines, and Palm Springs
Zoning Code.
• On June 4, 2008, staff presented to the City council an initial look at the draft Specific
Plan in light of the City's existing regulations, including staff comments and
recommendations for subsequent review.
• On June 13, 2008, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on
the project indicating that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be
prepared on the proposed Specific Plan. The NOP comment period ran from June 16 to
July 17, 2008.
• On July 1, 2008 a public Scoping Meeting was held to receive comments on preparation
of the draft Environmental Impact Report.
• On July 16, 2008, the City Council received the list "alternatives" to the project that
would be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report.
• On October 22, 2008, a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for
public comment. The 45-day comment period ends on December 8, 2008.
• On December 3, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the Specific Plan. The
resolution was approved by the Commission on December 17, 2008.
• On January 14, 2009, the City Council conducted a public hearing, accepted testimony,
and continued the matter.
It should be noted that on February 17, 2009, the applicant completed a "pre-application" for a
remodel of the existing center. No subsequent project application has been submitted.
ANALYSIS
Introduction
Following the receipt of public testimony at the noticed hearing of January 14, 2009, the City
Council continued action on the matter. The Council also directed staff to consolidate the
comments of the City Council and develop recommendations for the Council's review (see
attached meeting minutes). Additional background information is contained in the
attachments.
Following the January hearing, staff met or communicated with each Council member and
received individual comments, which are summarized below. From these comments, staff has
identified areas where it believes there may be consensus and areas where additional
discussion may be needed. By working through each if the issues discussed below, the
Council may develop an overall direction for the Specific Plan and thereby identify its preferred
action.
-~ �J
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
Council Comments
The following Council comments were provided to staff after the January hearing:
Councilmember Hutcheson:
Highlights:
• Reduce number of condos, hotel rooms, retail square footage and other uses from
that proposed in the original plan; increase open space; preserve flexibility.
• Preserve the open space-village square concept; it is key to the whole project area,
and is the one thing the City is certain to be able to deliver.
• Identify removal of blight as an important project goal.
• Set overriding objective of"great" architecture, preferably consistent with our existing
architectural palette (Modern or Spanish Colonial Revival)
Changes / Amendments:
• Reduce Specific Plan boundaries; delete Blocks J, K1 / K2 and L.
• Extend Plaza shown in Block "B" through to Museum by including Block E-G-H
• Support extended Plaza with a 75% open space requirement in Block E-G-H, as well
as same height restrictions as in Block "B"
• Maintain maximum height of 60 feet, with lower heights (30 to 45 feet) along project
boundaries / edges.
• Modify Appendix A to accommodate the above concerns before incorporating into
action findings.
Councilmember Weigel
Highlights:
• Allow variety of architectural styles, with no predetermined architecture.
• Establish street setbacks and stepping of buildings as key goals of Plan.
Changes /Amendments:
• Exclude Block J in averaging of overall heights,
• Establish setbacks and stepping of buildings in specific ways.
Councilmember Foat
Highlights:
• Preserve the Town & Country center
• Allow variety of architectural styles, with no predetermined architecture.
• Introduce more public space into the main area of Block B and surroundings.
Changes /Amendments:
• Delete Blocks J and L from Specific Plan boundaries
• Reduce maximum allowed heights
• Reduce maximum allowed densities
Mayor Pro Tern Mills
Highlights:
• Provide open space on Block B to preserve view corridor
V,c
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
• Allow angle parking on Belardo
Changes / Amendments:
• Consider deletion of Blocks J and L; keep Block K in Plan
• Allow 64 feet maximum height for residential buildings.
• Eliminate any enclosed floor area in Block B; allow kiosks
• Create additional street level open space on corners.
• Allow balconies, but not enclosed spaces over right-of-way.
• Allow "contemporary" architecture - more stylistic flexibility than "modern"
Mayor Pougnet
Highlights:
• Use setbacks on Palm Canyon Drive to create welcome feeling
Changes /Amendments
• Consider deletion of Blocks L and J
• Establish height limit of 60 feet.
Based on these comments and the issues raised in the January 14, 2009 staff report and
hearing, staff has identified the following issues for Council consideration. If the Council finds
consensus on these issues, and any others it identifies, it may direct staff to prepare final
resolutions for Council adoption
Overall Vision
The Council appears to accept the Plan's overall vision. One comment seeks to include the
"removal of blight" as a project goal. Another seeks to include street setbacks and building
stepping as key goals. Some modifications to Appendix A may be needed, based on final
Council action.
Recommendation: Consider adding removal of blight and building setbacks to Specific
Plan vision, and include Appendix A, as may be modified.
Project Scope
Council comments show an interest in reducing the project's boundaries
• Two seek to delete Block J (Mercado Parking Lot) and L (SW Cahuilla & Tahquitz);
two others willing to consider their removal
• One seeks to delete Block K-1 / K-2 (Town & Country); one seeks to retain it
Deletion of the non-contiguous blocks (Blocks J, K-1 / K-2 and L) could be accomplished with
without undermining the overall vision. Deletion of any block from the Plan would return it to
the control of the General Plan, Downtown Urban Design Plan and Zoning Code, as follows:
Block Current General Plan Current Zoning Proposed Specific Plan
J Central Bus. District C-D-B Multi-Level Parking
K-1 / K-2 Central Bus. District C-D-B Hotel
L Small Hotel R 3 Hi-Density Res'] / Hotel
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 6.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
Recommendation: Consider deletion of outlying Blocks J and L. Consider retention of
Block K-1 / K-2.
Land Use
Council comments on land use tended to focus on Block B and the significance of a village
square within the project:
• Three comments sought to expand the open space of Block B, either by enlarging
Block B, or extending the open space into Block E-F-H, or by restricting
development within Block B to kiosks.
• One comment sought to preserve the Town & Country Center.
Staff notes that a widened view corridor along the "Museum Way" street may still retain a
desirable pedestrian street scale; however, larger open spaces will reduce the amount of land
available for economic activity, as well as require a permanent maintenance effort to keep the
space vibrant, clean and safe. Staff believes that the size of Block B is sufficient open space
within the project area, especially as the nearby O'Donnell Golf Course will revert to public use
in a few decades.
In the proposed Plan, the Town & Country Center would be replaced by a hotel. If Block K-1 /
K-2 is deleted, the Specific Plan would not have any authority over the Center and it would be
regulated by the existing General Plan and zoning Ordinance. If these Blocks are retained in
the Plan, the Plan may identify the City's policy regarding the existing buildings. The EIR
identifies that demolition of the Center would have a significant impact. The Council can
identify its preference in the matter and direct staff accordingly.
No Council comments were offered on the list of permitted uses (see January staff report).
Recommendation_ Establish a wider promenade along Museum Way; consider
reducing the development potential of Block B to unenclosed structures and kiosks;
identify the City's position on the issue of the Town & Country Center; and adjust the list
of permitted uses, as identified in the January 14, 2009 report.
Densities
Two comments were provided on the project's densities, both suggesting that they should be
reduced. One included a recommendation for preserving flexibility. As proposed, the Plan
provides some flexibility by allowing higher densities for individual uses, but anticipating that
the final mix of uses will be determined by the timing of market forces — and at lower overall
densities.
As noted in January, densities are affected by decisions regarding maximum height and open
space. In the discussion of height (below) the final Plan could establish a lower maximum
height than currently proposed; if so, less development (and density) will result. Based on the
Council's apparent consensus around a height limit of about 60 feet, staff believes that the
density recommendations proposed by staff in the January 2009 report — including a bias
toward more hotel rooms and less residential — remain valid and viable:
� v
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5A 204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
Type of Use Proposed Draft Project Staff
Specific Plan Alternative "B" Recommendation
Residential Units 955 765 300
Commercial / Office SF 400,000 300,000 300,000
Hotel Rooms 620 255 600
Recommendation: Approve the maximum densities, as recommended by staff above.
Height
The strongest consensus was expressed around the issue of building height:
• All five Council members soughL a lower maximum height: Two prefer a maximum
of 60 feet; one set a height of 64 feet for residential buildings, one would delete
Block J from the 60-foot averaging scheme (thereby bringing the height of other
buildings closer to 60); and one gave no specific number. One comment sought to
reduce the maximum height of Block E-G-H to 24 feet.
As previously stated, staff does not support the height-averaging concept, but does believe
that individual blocks can have different heights appropriate to their size, location and
orientation to surrounding properties and views.
The suggestion of a 64-foot limit for residential buildings would allow for higher first floors,
which may be advantageous for street front retailing needs. Staff believes that hotels (instead
of residential could warrant a taller building, as noted in the provisions recommended below.
Recommendation: Adopt a revised maximum buildin hei ht standard as follows:
• Block A 45
• Block B 24
• Block C 60
• Block D & F 60/45
• Block E, G, H 60
• Block J (if retained in the Plan) 34
• Block K ( " `° « ) 45
• Block L ) 45
Additional provisions:
1. Buildings shall be lower(30 to 45 feet) as they approach the edges of
the Specific Plan boundaries, especially along Tahquitz Canyon Way,
east of Belardo, and along Palm Canyon Drive.
2. An exception to the "edge" policy is allowed at the corner of Tahquitz
and Palm Canyon to create a landmark intersection statement,
subject to approval by the City Council.
3. Blocks containing hotels may exceed the above height limits, subject
to approval by the City Council.
09
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 6,1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
Setbacks, Open Space and other Standards
A variety of comments were offered on the issues of setbacks and related standards:
• One seeks to establish setbacks and the stepping of buildings in specific ways, while
another identified the setbacks on Palm Canyon as a "welcoming" feature. One
comment noted that street-level open space at the corners is needed, and one
supported allowing open balconies to project into the right-of-way.
The Specific Plan provides a block-by-block set of standards for setbacks, open space,
maximum square footage, projections, outdoor uses, walls and fences, parking and other
incidental issues (see Pages III — 10-17). Staff notes that the Plan's standards are similar or
the same as the underlying C-B-D zone.
A complex "step-back" scheme for each of the streets is also proposed to replace the uniform
setback standard of the "high-rise" ordinance. Staff believes the step-backs proposed in the
plan allow two story buildings on most street frontages to provide a reasonable relationship
between building and street.
Open space requirements are 35% minimum for all Blocks, except the open plaza on Block B,
This plaza space would be 75% open space, allowing for some low-rise retail / restaurant
uses. (As noted above, one Council comment recommended a 75% open space requirement
for Block E-G-H.) Staff supports the open space limit on Block B, but not Block E-G-H.
Lastly, staff believes that the heights, densities, setbacks and parking requirements provide
sufficient guidance to development of the site and that the building mass chart may be
superfluous.
Parking is treated in the Plan at a base standard of one space for each 325 square feet of floor
area for most commercial uses. This compares with the same standard for mixed use
development in the Zoning Code's C-B-D zone. Hotel uses are to be parked at a slightly
higher ratio than called for in the zoning code, and residential uses are generally identical.
Signage is to conform to the provisions of Section 93.20.00 et seq. of the Zoning Code
("Signs"). Street sign banners and kiosk signs would be allowed, which staff support subject to
approval of a program for each defining location, size and lighting, as necessary.
Recommendation: Approve the development standards, as adjusted for the height
limits sought by the Council, with the deletion of the maximum square footage table.
Consider the allowance for open balconies to project into the right-of-way.
Design —Architecture and Landscaping
The Council addressed the issue of architectural and landscape design by focusing on the
Plan's direction on architectural style:
• Four comments agree that concentrating on "Modern" architecture is too limiting:
One sought to emphasize "great" architecture regardless of style (but preferably
consistent with Modern and Spanish Colonial Revival); two preferred no
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
predetermined style; and one substituted "contemporary" for "Modern" to allow
greater flexibility.
Staff believes that adopting an open approach to architectural design allows more variety;
however, staff remains persuaded that sustainability and conservation features will lead most
designers to choose modern or contemporary styles. Again, most architectural styles
developed in the last century will incorporate photo-voltaics and other sustainable technologies
with greater elegance and integrity.
Recommendation: Identify the primary architectural goals or theme for the Specific
Plan.
Road Network
Among the Council members, only one comment was offered on the Plan's proposed road
network:
• Allow angle parking on Belardo Road.
The Plan presently includes angle parking on Belardo within the project area (west of Blocks A,
B and C) so this comment is satisfied. (The EIR's Traffic Study recommends deletion of the
angle parking shown along Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives.)
As previously noted, staff believes that the creation of an internal street grid is the best way to
establish a pedestrian-oriented downtown center. Also noted is the unique situation presented
by Block K1 / K2. One of the most important decisions facing the Council in this project is
weighing the trade-offs between preserving the Town & Country Center and the developing
Museum Way from Indian Canyon Drive to the museum.
The draft EIR fully explains the historic value of the Town & Country Center (see pages III —
61-69 of the draft EIR). In contrast, completion of the street as proposed in the Plan provides
the following benefits:
• Creates a visual link to the Desert Art Museum from Indian Canyon Drive and the Spa
Hotel,
• Provides a more complete street grid to facilitate traffic movement and allow more
flexible access routes, and
• Fulfills one of the project's goals, as stated in the draft EIR:
"Reintegrate the pedestrian and automobile back into the core of downtown by
reconnecting Belardo Road and creating a new boulevard (Museum Way) from the
Museum to Indian Canyon."
Staff recommends that the Council carefully weigh these competing values, as well as the
requirements for adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration on the draft EIR prior to
deciding Its position on this issue.
Recommendation: Approve the street plan, except for deletion of angle parking from
Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives. Identify the Council's preference regarding
the proposed street in Block K1 / K2.
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
Administration
No comments were offered on the Administration of the Plan; however, recommends that the
City's current arrangement of AAC recommendation, Planning Commission review and City
Council oversight is appropriate.
Recommendation: Delete the Museum Market Plaza Review Commission.
Phasing
No Council comments were provided regarding phasing. As previously noted, staff believes
that establishment of the street grid is a key element for any "first phase". The property owner
has indicated that the Plan needs to accommodate lesser renovation and remodel concepts
without need for a wholesale Specific Plan amendment. Staff agrees, and notes that the
scope and ambition of the Plan will likely take years to complete. Consequently, staff
proposes that the Plan allow incremental improvements which move toward fulfillment of the
Plan. Such projects could be reviewed by the Council and approved as conforming. If
acceptable to the Council, staff will incorporate language to allow such determination.
Recommendation: Add sub-part D, entitled "Conformity Review Procedure" to Section
V of the Specific Plan to read:
"D. Conformity Review Procedure.
1. A property owner within the specific plan boundary area may request a
determination that a proposed project consisting in part of the rehabilitation, renovation,
and/or remodel of existing buildings and facilities within the Specific Plan is generally
consistent with the Specific Plan.
2. The property owner shall fully complete and file a request for Conformity
Review describing the proposed project and identifying the rehabilitation, renovation,
and remodel components and file such other information as the Planning Director may
require. The filing may be schematic and conceptual; precise plans or drawings shall
not be required unless the submission is proposed to be processed concurrently with an
entitlement provided under the City's zoning Ordinance. The filing and processing fees
shall be assessed according to the City's resolution of fees and charges.
3. The Planning Director shall consider the request for Conformity Review
and shall prepare written findings and recommendations to the City Council. The
request for Conformity Review shall be considered by the City Council at a noticed
public hearing pursuant Government Code section 6061. The City Council shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request. The decision of the Council is
final.
4. In the review and consideration of the Conformity Request, the City
Council shall consider whether:
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5,1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
(i) The proposal reasonably furthers the goals or objectives of the
Specific Plan;
(ii) There are unique circumstances or components of the proposal
that will enhance or benefit the Specific Plan area or neighboring
properties or businesses;
(iii) The proposal will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of
the community.
5. Any approval or conditional approval of a request for Conformity Review
shall be valid for up to 36 months. The property owner may request an extension by
submitting by submitting such request to the Planning Director at least 45 days prior to
expiration of such approval. The request for extension shall be submitted to the City
Council and the City Council shall review and consider the proposal under the general
criteria described in paragraph 4 of this sub-part D. The City Council may grant,
conditionally grant, or deny the request. An extension granted pursuant to this
paragraph shall not exceed 24 months. The decision of the Council is final.
6. Nothing in this sub-part D shall be construed as allowing or permitting any
deviation from the maximum height or density requirements of the Specific Plan."
Plan Organization
No comments received.
Recommendation: Based on Council direction, staff will prepare the necessary
ordinances and code language for final action.
NOTICE
Notice was provided to properties owners within 400 feet of the project and by advertisement
in the Desert Sun. No written communications on the project have been received at the time
this report was prepared. Any communications received subsequently will be presented at the
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
(Note: This section is a complete reprint from the report of January 14, 2009)
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the project and distributed
to the City Council. The Environmental Summary Matrix (Section "M" of the DEIR) provides a
brief overview of the anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Staff
believes that the FEIR provides an adequate and complete description of the future
environmental condition should the Specific Plan, as proposed, be implemented.
rG
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
The FEIR identifies three areas in which the proposed Specific Plan would create "significant
and unavoidable (i.e., unmitigatable) impacts":
• Aesthetics - Partial blockage of mountain views would be caused by the taller buildings;
the Town & Country Center would be eliminated by development on Block K1 / K2.
• Air Quality - Projected levels of emissions during construction (nitrogen oxides) and
during operations (carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides) would exceed State
standards.
• Cultural Resources - The Town & Country Center - a historic resource, as defined by
CEQA - would be eliminated by development of Block K1 / K2.
All other impacts can be adequately reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation
measures outlined in the FEIR.
Significant, Unavoidable Impacts and Project Alternatives
The FEIR also examines a set of Project Alternatives to see if there are other ways to
implement the overall project objectives while reducing potentially significant environmental
impact - especially those which are considered significant and unavoidable. An analysis of
several alternatives (see section V of the FEIR) shows that all alternatives - even the No
Project option (re-use of the existing center) - results in significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts.
Impacts to Aesthetics and Cultural Resources are reduced by each of the alternatives, in some
degrees to less than significant levels. For example, all alternatives include a reduction in
maximum building height from the draft Specific Plan:
• Draft Specific Plan: 74 feet
• Preserve Town & Country: 74 feet
• Alternative B : 65 feet
• Staffs Recommendation: 60 feet
• Alternative A: 57 feet
• No Project 35 feet
Therefore, staff anticipates that as building height is reduced, there will be a reduced adverse
impact on scenic views. However, except for the No Project alternative, the impact will remain
significant and unavoidable; the No Project alternative will have a less than significant impact.
Additionally, all projects will introduce additional light, glare, sensitive receptors into the area;
again the No Project alternative will have the lowest impact.
As regards Cultural Resources, those alternatives that preserve the Town & Country Center
adequately reduce the impacts to Cultural Resources. Staff believes that its set of
recommendations, as contained in this report, also eliminates adverse, unavoidable impacts to
Cultural Resources because it anticipates the preservation of the Town & Country Center.
However, any alternative that preserves the Town & Country Center leaves one of the project
objectives partially unfilled: Creation of a direct vehicular connection between Indian Canyon
Drive and the Desert Art Museum. As previously noted, this is a key decision for
redevelopment of the project area.
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
"Statement of Overriding Considerations"
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City may approve a
project that results in significant and unavoidable impacts, including those mentioned above.
CEQA is an information disclosure law, not a mandate to achieve a particular environmental
outcome. Section 21002 of the State Public Resources Code identifies the Legislature's intent
in adopting CEQA:
21002. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that
public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the
procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and
declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make
infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.
The City may conclude that "specific economic, social or other conditions" exist to override the
concerns regarding one or more significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. If so, it
must adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that identifies those conditions that
warrant the acceptance of the resulting environmental impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines
are more specific on the matter:
15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence
of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
City Council Staff Report April 1, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be founded upon
"economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project". In addition,
they must be explicit and must be based on "substantial evidence". One area that is
recognized as a basis for an override is the set of project objectives. The City may determine
that the project objectives are of such importance that their benefits "outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects".
As noted in Section V of the FEIR, the project objectives are as follows:
1. Reintegrate the site into the economic, social and environmental fabric of the
downtown.
2. provide direct access to the Desert Art Museum from Downtown and Section 14.
3. Create an upscale, vibrant mixed use lifestyle center, including boutique shops,
galleries, neighborhood conveniences, restaurants, residential units and boutique
hotels, serving visitors and local residents.
4. Enhance the pedestrian environment and lower the dependence on the
automobile by providing living, shopping and entertainment venues in a central
location.
5. Encourage a variety of architectural designs, styles and heights with materials
that include plaster, glass, stone, iron, masonry and concrete to create visual
interest while utilizing the latest in green technology.
6. Reintegrate the pedestrian and automobile back into the core of downtown by
reconnecting Belardo Road and creating a new boulevard (Museum Way) from
the Museum to Indian Canyon.
The question of an override must be addressed by the Council, because the proposed
Specific Plan and all project alternatives adversely affect Air Quality. The Council may also
determine that the project objectives — such as a through road from Indian Canyon Drive to
the Desert Art Museum — or other factors support an override on Aesthetics (for building
height and loss of the Town & Country Center) or Cultural Resources (again, the loss of the
Town & Country Center). As previously noted, this is a key question raised by this project.
Staff recommends the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the issue of Air Quality and
will prepare a Statement on Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, should that be the direction
of the Council.
City Council Staff Report April 1. 2009
Case No. 5.1204--Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza
C f . Ewing, 4C Thomas J. Wils16n,
`6ire&or o Plan,' ing Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Services
David H. Ready, City Man
Attachments:
1. Staff Report (January 14, 2009)
2. City Council Meeting Minutes (January 14, 2009)
3. Draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (previously distributed)
4. Draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR (previously distributed)
5. Comments from January 14, 2009 public hearing (previously distributed)
JW_
pALMsa
ti 4�
Y N
w w
cgl \P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 14, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENTS) FOR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA (CASE 5.1204) TO
ALLOW UP TO 955 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UP TO 400,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE, AND UP
TO 620 HOTEL ROOMS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF N.
PALM CANYON DRIVE AND TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, AND OTHER
NEARBY PROPERTIES
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
In April, 2008 the City Council initiated General Plan and Zoning Text Amendments in
response to a draft Specific Plan prepared and submitted to the City by the Wessman
Development Company, titled the "Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan". The draft Specific
Plan revises the development policies and standards for the Desert Fashion Plaza and
certain adjacent properties. On December 3, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and voted 4 to 2 (Cohen & Donenfeld opposed; Conrad abstained) to adopt
a recommendation to deny the proposed Specific Plan. A public hearing is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, accept any testimony and close the hearing.
2. Direct staff to prepare draft resolutions based on Council direction, including the
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adoption of Statement of
Overriding Considerations, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Report, and approval
of the Specific Plan, including any amendments, as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
• On April 30, 2008 Wessman Development, Inc. presented to the City a draft Specific
Plan for the Museum Market Plaza.
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 2 of 19
■ On May 21, 2008, the City Council initiated a Specific Plan review process and
directed staff to report on the conformance of the draft Museum Market Plaza
Specific Plan with the Palm Springs General Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines and
Palm Springs Zoning Code.
• On June 4, 2008, staff presented to the City council an initial look at the draft
Specific Plan in light of the City's existing regulations, including staff comments and
recommendations for subsequent review,
• On June 13, 2008, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on
the project indicating that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) would be
prepared on the proposed Specific Plan. The NOP comment period ran from June
16 to July 17, 2008.
• On July 1, 2008 a public Scoping Meeting was held to receive comments on
preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report.
• On July 16, 2008, the City Council received the list "alternatives" to the project that
would be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report.
• On October 22, 2008, a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for
public comment. The 45-day comment period ends on December 8, 2008.
• On December 3, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the Specific Plan. The
resolution was approved by the Commission on December 17, 2008.
ANALYSIS
Introduction
The draft Specific Plan for the Museum Market Plaza (the "Plan") was presented to the City
Council by Wessman Development, Inc. to facilitate and support the redevelopment of
about twenty acres in the City's downtown core. In response, the Council initiated an
amendment to both the Palm Springs General Plan and the Palm Springs Zoning Code.
This is because the draft Specific Plan proposes goals and policies like a General Plan, as
well as the technical development standards of a Zoning Code.
It is important to remember that the Specific Plan has the potential to amend the City's
fundamental land use and community development policies as they apply to the site. To
express it another way, even though we compare the Specific Plan to the existing General
Plan and Zoning Code, the Specific Plan can also amend each of these documents.
Therefore, the Specific Plan can — and should be — evaluated on its own merits. Key
questions for the Council are: Does the proposed Specific Plan provide the right guidance
to developing the properties it encompasses — both as an expression of General Plan goals
and as a stand-alone document? If not, what changes are needed to make it right?
I'
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 3 of 19
As noted above, staff has reviewed the Plan and conducted a comparison of the Plan with
the General Plan, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code. In
addition to the overall question of "right guidance", staff has considered two other
questions:
• Does the Plan meet the Council's objectives for the area, as contained in the
General Plan, Downtown Guidelines and Zoning Code?
• Does the Plan provide for effective and efficient review of future development
proposals?
This staff report is only one element to be considered by the City Council in its review.
Additional analysis is contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), including
an evaluation of alternative plans and responses to comments. This staff report, the FEIR,
the Planning Commission recommendation and public comments comprise the base of
information on which the Council will conduct its discussion and make its decision.
To provide a working outline for the Council's deliberations, staff has evaluated the Specific
Plan from several perspectives. The report is organized around the following topics:
• Overall Vision • Setbacks, Open Space and other Standards
• Project Scope • Design -Architecture and Landscaping
• Land Use • Street Network
• Densities • Administration
• Height • Phasing
• Plan Organization
The report concludes with a discussion of the Planning Commission's action and the
Environmental Impact Report, including significant, unavoidable impacts, project alternatives
and the "Statement of Overriding Considerations",
Overall Vision
The draft Plan's vision for the Museum Market Plaza generally conforms to that of the General
Plan and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for the Downtown core. All three documents
envision a lively center for the community based on the historic street pattern and pedestrian
orientation of the area. Dispersed throughout the opening sections of the Plan are goal-
oriented phrases such as, "...lively, pedestrian-oriented townscape...' "...ground floor
activity_,_" "_..extending the hours of active use...", and "...restore the circulation grid in the
Downtown area"(see pages I -- 1-2, II - 2-3, 6-7, and -9).
These statements match many of the intent statements of the General Plan and Downtown
Guidelines. The Plan includes Appendix A, which offers a consistency analysis between the
Plan and the goals and policies of the Palm Springs General Plan. Staff believes that
Appendix A is makes a reasoned and accurate comparison between the intentions of the draft
Specific Plan and of the General Plan.
The Plan also seeks to ensure high-quality design and to implement LEED conservation
principles; however, these are not identified in the front of the report (see pages III - 41-42).
Staff believes that the sustainability goals could be more prominently featured in the opening
1 17
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 4 of 19
sections, but their inclusion allows staff to determine that the Plan's vision conforms to that of
the City's adopted General Plan.
Recommendation: Approve the Specific Plan vision, and include Appendix A as a part
of the findings for a resolution of recommendation.
Project Scope
Three "Planning Areas" are identified in the draft Plan (see Pages I - 3-4, and II - 1-3 and -6
and Exhibits I - 2 and -3, II - 3 and III - 1). Planning Area 1 ("PA-1") is the site of the Desert
Fashion Plaza and comprises about 18.5 of the Plan's total 20.6 acres. PA-1 is comprised of
"blocks" which are bounded by existing and proposed streets. Blocks A through H, and Blocks
K1 and K2 are found here.
Planning Area 2 (Block L) is a vacant site at the southwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way
and Cahuilla Road -the site of the proposed Palm Hotel. Planning Area 3 (Block J) is located
at the northeast corner of Arenas and Belardo Roads, and is presently the back parking lot for
the Mercado Plaza which fronts on South Palm Canyon Drive. The Plan proposes
development on each of these sites.'
The Plan's scope is within a fully developed area, but it does not provide a complete
description of the existing conditions. Further, references to the setting's context are scattered
throughout the Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission carefully review the draft EIR for
a more complete assessment of the project's existing conditions.
The project scope was determined by the Wessman Development Company as part of the
initial submittal. In initiating the General Plan and Zoning Code amendments, the City Council
made no change to the project scope. However, the City Council directed staff to include a
project alternative in the EIR that has the effect of deleting Blocks K1 and K2 from any
significant new development. While this can be seen as reducing the project scope, staff does
not believe any change is needed to the Specific Plan's boundaries or scope. Staff also notes
that public comment has been received seeking removal of Block L, site of the proposed Palm
Hotelz.
Recommendation: Approve the Specific Plan's boundaries, as proposed.
Land Use
Underlying land uses permitted by the General Plan and the Zoning Cade are carried forward
in the draft Specific Plan (see Pages II - 6-7). The Plan shares the overall goal of creating a
downtown center that includes hotels, first-floor retail, upper-floor office and residential, multi-
level parking and a compact grid of streets to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular access to
a dense urban setting.
Staff notes that Planning Areas 2 and 3 are left off some exhibits (see Exhibits II—3, and III—5 and -6).
2 See attached letter from Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization (Dec. 8, 2008).
- D
J-3
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5 1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market.Plaza Page 5 of 19
The creation of blocks allows certain activities to be directed in the Plan, and it is noted that
Block B is proposed to be a landscaped public plaza, with some low-rise retail development;
Block J is designated for a parking structure, and Block L is designated for hotel use. The
remaining blocks are designated for dense urban use, including retail, office, hotel, residential
structured parking and related activities (see page III - 2).
Permitted Uses
Allowable uses appear to closely match the City's C-B-D (Central Business District) Zone (see
pages III - 4-9). Certain uses which are currently subject to a Land Use Permit in the C-B-D
zone are permitted by right in the Plan. Staff believes that the following uses should be subject
to a Land Use Permit (LUP), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or specific development standards,
instead of being permitted by right. The basis for these recommendations is either to preserve
the street frontage for retail uses or to assure that conditions on specific applications can be
imposed:
Commercial and Retail
Art Schools - Not on Street Frontage
Cocktail Lounges - LUP
Commercial Recreational Facilities -- Not on Street Frontage
Dance Studios - Not on Street Frontage
Discotheques -- LUP
Drive-thru Coffee Shops, Drug Stores - CUP
Gym, Fitness Center- Not on Street Frontage
Liquor Stores -- LUP
Movie, Radio, TV Production & Broadcast Facilities - CUP
Pet Shop, including Pet Grooming - LUP
Private Clubs - Not on Street Frontage
Slimming Salons, Health Clubs, Athletic Clubs -Not on Street Frontage
Spa - LUP
Video /Amusement Arcades & Machines - LUP
Office and Related
No changes
Residential and Related
No changes
Resort Residential
No changes
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 6 of 19
Services
No changes
Public /Semi-public
Festivals and Exhibits - LUP
Lodges, Meeting Halls, Private Clubs - Not on Street Frontage
Automotive
No changes
Accessory Uses
Outdoor Uses, All - LUP
Staff has no concerns with the sections regarding "Similar Uses" or 'Prohibited Uses"
Recommendation: Adjust the list of permitted uses, as identified above.
Densities
One of the most prominent features of the Plan is the amount of development that it envisions.
The Plan expresses the density of permitted development through several measures:
Numbers of units, amount of square footage, overall bulk and maximum height. A key element
of the Plan is the establishment of"maximum land use intensities" for overall build-out:
Table II-1 / Page II-6
Maximum Land Use Intensities
Land Use Planning Planning Planning Total
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Retail or Office (square feet 385,000 15,000 N/A 400,000
Residential (dwelling units 900 55 N/A 955
Hotel rooms 565 55 N/A 620
Under this concept, there are overall maximum numbers set for retail / office (in square feet),
residential (in dwelling units) and hotels (in rooms). The Plan intends for actual development
to be less than these totals due to other limits on height and bulk. The potential densities allow
future development to be adjusted to contemporary market conditions; the exact proportion of
each use will not be known until development comes on line. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable approach to addressing mixed-use zoning, which is not addressed effectively by
traditional zones such as R-1 and C-B-D.3
3 The City has typically used the Planned Development District to establish and regulate mixed use projects.
r
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 7 of 19
Proposed Plan v. Current Zoning
The basic limits of the current Central Business District (C-B-D) Zone are a floor area ratio
(FAR) of 1.0 and a maximum height of 30 feet, and the Plan allows more development than
permitted under these provisions. The Plan argues that it permits less development than could
be allowed under the current "high-rise" regulations, as modified by Planned Development
District approval (see Table III - 3, page III - 13).
It is not clear that this is actually the case as the Plan does not provide sufficient calculations to
reliably support this argument. However, the underlying difference between the proposed
Specific Plan and the "high-rise" ordinance (Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.04) is that
the Specific Plan establishes these higher densities as a by-right condition, as compared with
the requirement for a CUP or PI] for the additional height allowed under the current code.
Clearly one of the key decisions associated with adopting of the Specific Plan is how much
additional density is desired by the City on these properties.
The Question of Density
Staff believes that additional density -- both commercial and residential - is needed to facilitate
a revival of the City's downtown. However, allowing additional density and actually achieving it
are two different matters. Economic and demographic factors figure more prominently in the
redevelopment of the community than the adoption of zoning rules - the City cannot
"command" the economy with only a General Plan and zoning code; at best, it can only 'nudge'
it a little. Further, the City has already experienced the results of approving higher density,
mixed-use projects: They are difficult to accomplish even in the best of economic times.
If adding more density alone is no guarantee of a desired outcome, what should be the basis
for the Specific Plan's density limits? Going from, say, 200 residential units to 500 or 955 will
not solve the problems of mismatched demographics or a weakened economy. Instead, staff
believes that the Specific Plan should seek a density that provides a reasonable opportunity for
economic success, while achieving the community's other goals of a vibrant downtown,
appropriate physical scale and suitable public services (transportation, etc.)
A Density for the "Center of the Center"
The long-term perspective of the Specific Plan allows the City to establish a maximum density,
and then work over time with land owners and developers to achieve a project that succeeds
at all levels. In order to suggest an appropriate maximum density, staff considered that the
Desert Fashion Plaza site and surroundings is recognized as the "center of the center" of the
City. Physically, this typically means that it should also the most dense, concentrated, and, by
extension, tallest part of the community.
Staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan densities do not add value to the community for
simply being higher numbers. Instead, staff has concluded that a range of densities closer to -
but perhaps lower than -- Alternative B of the draft EIR is more appropriate to the long-range
benefit of the City:
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204--Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 8 of 19
Type of Use Proposed Draft Project Staff
S ecific Plan Alternative "B" Recommendation
Residential Units 955 765 300
Commercial / Office SF 400,000 300,000 300,000
Hotel Rooms 620 255 600
Note that staff recommends that the proportion of permanent residential versus hotel rooms,
should be reversed from that proposed in either the project or Alternative "B". We believe that
this is a better land use arrangement for several reasons:
Downtown living is more likely to appeal to short-term visitors than permanent residents,
• Hotel guests are found shopping in a downtown retail environment more than
permanent residents,
• Hotel rooms are typically smaller which reduces overall building mass, and
• Many of the residential units will be occupied only part-time, while hotels will work to fill
rooms as much as possible — more activity throughout the year is likely.
Recommendation: Approve the maximum densities, as recommended by staff above.
Height
Within Planning Area 1 (site of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza) five of the six blocks
propose building heights in excess of the 60 feet. Sixty feet is the maximum height allowed in
the high-rise ordinance and envisioned in the Downtown Guidelines. The maximum proposed
height in Blocks A and C is 67 feet, while 79 feet would be permitted within Blocks D/F, E/G/H
and K1/2. (The remaining Block B is proposed as an open plaza with small, one-story
restaurants.) In Planning Area 2 (Block L) the maximum height would be 44 feee and in
Planning Area 3 (Block J) no more than 34 feet would be allowed.
Table III-2 (Part) / Page III-10
Development Standards
PA1 PA2 PA3
Max. Building Height (Feet)
• Build Out Overall Average 60 44 34
• Block A 67
• Block B 24
• Block C 67
• Block D & F 67/79
• Block E, G, H 67179
• Block J 34
• Block K 79
44
• Block L
The Plan notes that, taken together, the overall average height of all buildings within the
Specific Plan would be 60 feet. The use of "average height" over different sites is not part of
4The"Palm Hotel'was previously approved for this site by the City at a height of 44 feet.
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 9 of 19
the Guidelines or Zoning Code, and the Plan introduces a new logic to the regulation of height
-- that taller and shorter buildings can be averaged to meet a single standard. Staff does not
support this concept, but does believe that individual blocks can have different heights
appropriate to their size, location and orientation to surrounding properties and views.
The Specific Plan provides a means by which the City Council could allow alternative height
standards for the area. Staff believes that the heights proposed are more than required for
staff's recommended density for residential, but that additional heights can be justified for hotel
uses. A maximum height of 60 feet overall should be maintained, with the following additional
provisions:
1. Buildings should be lower (30 to 45 feet) as they approach the edges of the
Specific Plan boundaries, especially along Tahquitz Canyon Way, east of
Belardo, and along Palm Canyon Drive.
2. An exception to the "edge" policy should be allowed at the corner of Tahquitz and
Palm Canyon to create a landmark intersection statement.
3. Blocks containing hotels may exceed the height limits established in the Specific
Plan, subject to approval by the City Council.
Block K1 / K2 presents a special condition: It is proposed to be allowed a maximum height of
45 feet, but is developed with structures identified in the draft EIR as meeting the CEQA
definition of a "historic resource". The draft EIR concludes that a significant and unmitigatable
adverse impact on cultural resources would result from the Block's redevelopment. Depending
on the Council's decisions regarding Block K1 / K2, little to no new development may result on
the site. Nevertheless, staff believes that a maximum height limit does not preclude protection
of the structures and may provide for adaptive re-use in the future.
Recommendation: Adopt a revised maximum buil ing height standard as follows:
• Block A 45
• Block B 24
• Block C 60
• Block D & F 60/45
• Block E, G, H 60
• Block J 34
• Block K 45
• Block L 45
Additional provisions:
1. Buildings shall be lower (30 to 45 feet) as they approach the edges of
the Specific Plan boundaries, especially along Tahquitz Canyon Way,
east of Belardo, and along Palm Canyon Drive-
2- An exception to the "edge" policy is allowed at the corner of Tahquitz
and Palm Canyon to create a landmark intersection statement,
subject to approval by the City Council.
3. Blocks containing hotels may exceed the above height limits, subject
to approval by the City Council,
r r.
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 10 of 19
Setbacks Open Space and other Standards
The Specific Plan provides a block-by-block set of standards for setbacks, open space,
maximum square footage, projections, outdoor uses, walls and fences, parking and other
incidental issues (see Pages III — 10-17). Staff has conducted a comparison with the
provisions of the C-B-D zone and notes that generally the Plan's standards are similar or the
same.
One noteworthy deviation is a complex "step-back" scheme for each of the streets when
buildings exceed 30, 45 and 67 feet, where such additional height is allowed (see Table III —
2). These would replace the uniform setback standard of the "high-rise" ordinance (three feet
horizontal setback for each foot of height) which is often modified for taller buildings through
the approval of Planned Development Districts. Staff believes the step-backs proposed in the
plan allow two story buildings on most street frontages to provide a reasonable relationship
between building and street.
Open space requirements are 35% minimum for all Blocks, except the open plaza on Block B,
This plaza space would be 75% open space, allowing for some low-rise retail / restaurant
uses. Staff supports allowing limited low-rise development on this block as it has been shown
that people tend to make more use of plazas that are 'activated' with restaurants, kiosks,
entertainment and other organized uses than they do with vacant, landscaped space.
Building mass is directed by Table III — 3, which shows the maximum square footage allowed
in each Block. Staff's recommendation for lower densities and heights would modify this chart
as would each of the project alternatives considered in the draft Environmental Impact Report
(see below). Staff believes that the heights, densities, setbacks and parking requirements
provide sufficient guidance to development of the site and that this chart may be superfluous.
In any event, the numbers shown on Table III — 3 do not add up correctly and the Table would
need to be modified based on the actions of the Commission and Council on density and
height.
The Plan provides standards that allow upper floor balconies to extend over the sidewalk right-
of-way. Staff believes such projections contradict the idea of stepping back from the street and
recommends that they be eliminated.
Parking is treated in the Plan at a base standard of one space for each 325 square feet of floor
area for most commercial uses. This compares with the same standard for mixed use
development in the Zoning Code's C-B-D zone. Hotel uses are to be parked at a slightly
higher ratio than called for in the zoning code, and residential uses are generally identical.
Signage is to conform to the provisions of Section 93.20.00 et seq. of the Zoning Code
("Signs"). Street sign banners and kiosk signs would be allowed, which staff support subject to
approval of a program for each defining location, size and lighting, as necessary.
Recommendation: Approve the development standards, with the deletion of the
maximum square footage table and deletion of the allowance for balconies to project
into the right-of-way.
`r t�
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 11 of 19
Design —Architecture and Landscaping
A significant portion of the draft Plan is devoted to a discussion of architecture and
landscaping, including massing and style of buildings, streetscapes and open spaces, and
landscaping. An overall design theme is suggested, but the text allows such a variety of
architectural treatments — Modernist, Spanish and Mediterranean are considered acceptable —
that no "theme" for design is actually proposed.
It may be better to avoid identifying a single, adopted architectural style in the Specific Plan.
However, Modernism has demonstrated a lasting and powerful influence on development in
the community for most of the last sixty years, and it provides a number of significant benefits
to the redevelopment of downtown over other styles:
• Reinforces the architectural uniqueness of Palm Springs,
• Provides a sufficiently wide "palette" for creativity within the genre,
• Allows lower cost structures to display elegance and creativity, and
• Allows an easier integration of photo-voltaics and other sustainable technologies into
building design
Staff believes the Council should consider the option of establishing a Modernism theme for
the Specific Plan,
The Specific Plan is more successful in its discussion of individual design features and
objectives, such as distinctive corner treatments, well-defined entries, upper-story street
setbacks, and articulated facades. These provisions should be retained regardless of whether
or not a specific architectural style is adopted for the Plan.
The Plan recognizes the importance of certain elevations based on their contextual setting,
including those facing the Palm Spring Art Museum, and the O'Donnel Golf Course. A
discussion of landscaping includes Major and Minor entries, Major and Minor focal points, and
three landscape "zones" (Streetscape, Transition and Open Space),
Recommendation: Consider establishing a Modern architectural theme for the Specific
Plan.
Road Network
A key element of the draft Plan's redevelopment program is the establishment of a grid
roadway network within Planning Area 1 (existing Desert Fashion Plaza) that brings the
surrounding street pattern into and through the site, as follows:
• Belardo Road would be connected through the site to its current alignments north of site
(behind the Hyatt Hotel) and south of the site at Tahquitz Canyon Way.
• A new east-west street dubbed "Museum Way" would be constructed from Indian
Canyon Way to its terminus in front of the Desert Art Museum.
• A short secondary east-west street would be built along the north edge of Block B
("Main Plaza") between North Palm Canyon Drive and the future Belardo Road.
• A portion of the existing Museum Drive along the O'Donnel Golf Course is proposed to
be abandoned, with the land incorporated into the Block H parking structure.
. �u
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 12 of 19
The Plan's street grid is generally consistent with the General Plan Circulation Map, but will
amend portions of the Circulation Map based on the changes described above.
Staff believes that the street network is the single most important feature of the draft Plan,
because the street layout establishes and secures the pattern, form and relationships of future
buildings. The proposed grid retains and extends the use of small blocks found downtown, but
moves beyond the linear form set by Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives. In the Plan, a
collection of small blocks defined by multiple north-south and east-west streets sets the stage
for a pedestrian-friendly setting, with multiple storefronts, a variety of points of interests, and
opportunities for exploration and discovery. Regardless of the ultimate build-out (height,
massing, density, etc.) the layout of the streets is the foundation for the future of the Museum
Market Plaza area.
Similar to the discussion of height (above), Block K1 / K2 presents a unique situation. The
Plan proposes a new street — Museum Way — from Indian Canyon Drive to its terminus in front
of the Desert Art Museum. There appears to be no way to implement this concept without
eliminating the Town & Country Center. However, the draft EIR identifies the buildings on
Block K1 / K2 as meeting the definition of a "historic resource" under CEQA and that their
removal would be a significant, unmitigatable adverse impact. Consequently, one of the most
important decisions facing the Council in this project is weighing the trade-offs between
preserving the Town & Country Center and the developing Museum Way from Indian Canyon
Drive to the museum.
The draft EIR fully explains the historic value of the Town & Country Center (see pages III —
61-69 of the draft EIR). In contrast, completion of the street as proposed in the Plan provides
the following benefits:
• Creates a visual link to the Desert Art Museum from Indian Canyon Drive and the Spa
Hotel,
• Provides a more complete street grid to facilitate traffic movement and allow more
flexible access routes, and
• Fulfills one of the project's goals, as stated in the draft EIR:
"Reintegrate the pedestrian and automobile back into the core of downtown by
reconnecting Belardo Road and creating a new boulevard (Museum Way) from the
Museum to Indian Canyon."
Staff recommends that the Council carefully weigh these competing values, as well as the
requirements for adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration on the draft EIR (see
below) prior to deciding its position on this issue.
The street sections found on Exhibits IV — 1A-1 B (pages IV — 3-4) coincide with the expected
hierarchy of the street grid system. Street parking — both angle and parallel — are provided
within the Plan's street circulation system. Angle parking has several impacts:
• Ease of entry,
• Difficulty of exiting,
• A calming effect on through traffic,
• A greater separation between sidewalk pedestrians and moving vehicles, and
• The potential to provide more spaces (in longer, uninterrupted blocks).
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 13 of 19
However, the conflict between angle parking motions and higher-speed through-traffic can
create potential hazards. As noted in the Traffic Study prepared for the Environmental Impact
Report, angle parking is not recommended for Palm Canyon or Indian Canyon Drives. Within
the secondary roads (Museum Way, Belardo Road, etc.) angle parking can safely considered.
Staff supports the use of angle parking on these streets, where it can be shown to be safe and
effective, but in no case on Palm Canyon or Indian Canyon Drives.
The Plan indicates that the new streets in Planning Area 1 will be private. The decision on
whether they are public or private is reserved to the City Council; at this time only the location,
alignment and width are of importance.
Recommendation: Approve the street plan, except for deletion of angle parking from
Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives.
Administration
As a Specific Plan, there are no buildings proposed at this time. Instead, the Plan sets the
rules for future development projects, including a set of rules for the review process, including
special application requirements and a dedicated review body. Cumulative density, use and
parking calculations will be required by each application to assure that overall development
under the "potential maximum densities" is monitored.
A "Museum Market Plaza Review Commission" is proposed to conduct hearings and adopt
recommendations on development applications. While this Commission is proposed to be
comprised of members of the Architectural Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and
City Council, it would allow projects to bypass review by the AAC and PC. Staff believes that
the proposed commission would not benefit the future project, and that it is not constituted as
proposed to meet the City's current ordinances governing Boards and Commissions. Further,
staff believes that the current arrangement of AAC review and Planning Commission
recommendation is appropriate and will provide effective and efficient review of future
proposals.
Recommendation: Delete the Museum Market Plaza Review Commission.
Phasing
The redevelopment of the Museum Market Plaza will require several years, and an
"anticipated" phasing plan is proposed. However, the Plan discusses phasing as a function of
market forces, and staff considered the proposed phasing plan to be only an example of how
phasing might occur rather than as a mandated schedule. That said, any phasing plan should
include as its first element the construction of the street grid and public plaza, followed by the
various blocks of buildings. Staff supports the completion of the street grid as the first step in
redevelopment of the area. Subsequent development activity may be more difficult to predict
and staff does not recommend establishing a particular order for development of the resulting
blocks.
Recommendation: Approve only a Phase 1 requirement to establish the full street grid;
delete any requirements for subsequent phasing.
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 14 of 19
Plan Organization
As an amendment to both the General Plan and Zoning Code, the draft Plan relies primarily on
narrative texts, charts and exhibits to describe the rules for redeveloping the area. Many of the
provisions of the Plan need to be restated as regulations in the same way that zoning
standards are written in the City's Code. Staff will work to identify and express these rules in
a more regulatory format following Council action on the project.
Recommendation: No actions at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On December 3, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft
Specific Plan and draft Environmental Impact Report. At that time, the Commission received
public testimony from the Wessman Development Company about a proposed refurbishment
of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza shopping center, as well as testimony from others (see
attached draft meeting minutes). The Commission concluded that the draft Specific Plan
would not be necessary in light of the commitment by Wessman to re-open the Desert Fashion
Plaza and recommended that the Specific Plan be denied (see attached resolution).
NOTICE
Notice was provided to properties owners within 400 feet of the project and by advertisement
in the Desert Sun. Written communications on the project received prior to the preparation of
this report are attached. Any additional communications will be presented at the meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for the project and distributed
to the City Council, The Environmental Summary Matrix (Section "M" of the DEIR) provides a
brief overview of the anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Staff
believes that the FEIR provides an adequate and complete description of the future
environmental condition should the Specific Plan, as proposed, be implemented.
The FEIR identifies three areas in which the proposed Specific Plan would create "significant
and unavoidable (i.e., unmitigatable) impacts":
• Aesthetics — Partial blockage of mountain views would be caused by the taller buildings;
the Town & Country Center would be eliminated by development on Block K1 / K2.
• Air Quality — Projected levels of emissions during construction (nitrogen oxides) and
during operations (carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides) would exceed State
standards.
„1d V
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 15 of 19
• Cultural Resources - The Town & Country Center - a historic resource, as defined by
CEQA-would be eliminated by development of Block K1 / K2.
All other impacts can be adequately reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation
measures outlined in the FEIR.
Significant, Unavoidable Impacts and Project Alternatives
The FEIR also examines a set of Project Alternatives to see if there are other ways to
implement the overall project objectives while reducing potentially significant environmental
impact - especially those which are considered significant and unavoidable. An analysis of
several alternatives (see section V of the FEIR) shows that all alternatives - even the No
Project option (re-use of the existing center) -- results in significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts.
Impacts to Aesthetics and Cultural Resources are reduced by each of the alternatives, in some
degrees to less than significant levels. For example, all alternatives include a reduction in
maximum building height from the draft Specific Plan:
• Draft Specific Plan: 74 feet
• Preserve Town & Country: 74 feet
• Alternative B : 65 feet
• Staffs Recommendation: 60 feet
• Alternative A: 57 feet
• No Project 35 feet
Therefore, staff anticipates that as building height is reduced, there will be a reduced adverse
impact on scenic views. However, except for the No Project alternative, the impact will remain
significant and unavoidable; the No Project alternative will have a less than significant impact.
Additionally, all projects will introduce additional light, glare, sensitive receptors into the area;
again the No Project alternative will have the lowest impact,
As regards Cultural Resources, those alternatives that preserve the Town & Country Center
adequately reduce the impacts to Cultural Resources. Staff believes that its set of
recommendations, as contained in this report, also eliminates adverse, unavoidable impacts to
Cultural Resources because it anticipates the preservation of the Town & Country Center.
However, any alternative that preserves the Town & Country Center leaves one of the project
objectives partially unfilled: Creation of a direct vehicular connection between Indian Canyon
Drive and the Desert Art Museum. As previously noted, this is a key decision for
redevelopment of the project area.
"Statement of Overriding Considerations"
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City may approve a
project that results in significant and unavoidable impacts, including those mentioned above.
CEQA is an information disclosure law, not a mandate to achieve a particular environmental
outcome. Section 21002 of the State Public Resources Code identifies the Legislature's intent
in adopting CEQA:
r; ?
(w �
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 16 of 19
21002. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that
public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the
procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in
systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or
substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and
declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make
infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual
projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof
The City may conclude that "specific economic, social or other conditions" exist to override the
concerns regarding one or more significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. If so, it
must adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that identifies those conditions that
warrant the acceptance of the resulting environmental impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines
are more specific on the matter:
15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to
approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence
of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for and shall
be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091,
The decision to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be founded upon
"economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project". In addition,
they must be explicit and must be based on "substantial evidence". One area that is
recognized as a basis for an override is the set of project objectives. The City may determine
that the project objectives are of such importance that their benefits "outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects".
u �
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204-Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 17 of 19
As noted in Section V of the FEIR, the project objectives are as follows:
1. Reintegrate the site into the economic, social and environmental fabric of the
downtown.
2. Provide direct access to the Desert Art Museum from Downtown and Section 14.
3. Create an upscale, vibrant mixed use lifestyle center, including boutique shops,
galleries, neighborhood conveniences, restaurants, residential units and boutique
hotels, serving visitors and local residents.
4. Enhance the pedestrian environment and lower the dependence on the
automobile by providing living, shopping and entertainment venues in a central
location.
5. Encourage a variety of architectural designs, styles and heights with materials
that include plaster, glass, stone, iron, masonry and concrete to create visual
interest while utilizing the latest in green technology.
6. Reintegrate the pedestrian and automobile back into the core of downtown by
reconnecting Belardo Road and creating a new boulevard (Museum Way) from
the Museum to Indian Canyon.
The question of an override must be addressed by the Council, because the proposed
Specific Plan and all project alternatives adversely affect Air Quality. The Council may also
determine that the project objectives -- such as a through road from Indian Canyon Drive to
the Desert Art Museum - or other factors support an override on Aesthetics (for building
height and loss of the Town & Country Center) or Cultural Resources (again, the loss of the
Town & Country Center), As previously noted, this is a key question raised by this project.
Staff recommends the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the issue of Air Quality and
will prepare a Statement on Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, should that be the direction
of the Council.
Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Thomas J. Wilson,
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Services
David H. Ready, City Manager
City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009
Case No. 5.1204—Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 18 of 19
Attachments:
1. Draft Museum Market Specific Plan (previously distributed)
2. Environmental Impact Report, Final / Comments and Responses (attached)
3. Environmental Impact Report; Draft (previously distributed)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7187
5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, draft excerpts (Dec. 3 and 17, 2008)
6. Letter from Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization (Dec. 8, 2008)
City Council Meeting Page 1 of 5
PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pougnet called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pougnet led the Pledge.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember
Weigel, Mayor Pro Tern Mills, and Mayor Pougnet.
ABSENT: None.
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ready, City Attorney Holland, City Clerk Thompson.
PRESENTATIONS: David Hill, Palm Springs Hyatt Regency Suites, provided an update
to the City Council on the current progress of the renovations at the Hyatt. Mayor
Pougnet announced the recipients of the 2009 Human Rights Awards.
REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Holland reported that at 4:30 p.m. the
meeting was called to order and the City Council recessed into Closed Session to
discuss Items on the posted Closed Session Agenda. No reportable actions were taken.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
ACTION: Accept the Agenda as presented. Motion Mayor Pro Tom Mills, seconded
by Councilmember Foat and unanimously carried on a roll call vote.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
I.A. PROPOSED DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENTS) FOR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA TO ALLOW
UP TO 955 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UP TO 400,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE, AND
UP TO 620 HOTEL ROOMS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND TAHQUITZ
CANYON WAY, AND OTHER NEARBY PROPERTIES, CASE 5.1204:
Staff Report Item 1.A.
Mayor Pougnet presented an introduction and history of the Desert
Fashion Plaza and the need for a specific plan, requested staff address
the purpose of the specific plan, stated the action for the City Council
decision does not entitle a project, but the initiation of the Specific Plan.
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background
information as outlined in the staff report dated January 14, 2009.
0
,.fl
http://palmsprings.granicus.com/MiiiutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=623 3/25/2009
City Council Meeting Page 2 of 5
Councilmember Foat requested staff clarify the staff recommendation for
not removing Block L from the Specific Plan, requested staff explain any
impact to the EIR based on the alternatives and changes being proposed,
and to address the traffic report with respect to parking for Indian Canyon
Drive.
Mayor Pougnet opened the public hearing, and the following speakers
addressed the City Council.
EMILY HEMPHILL, Representing Wessman Development, stated
Wessman Development submitted a letter withdrawing the decision,
commented on the discrepancies between the Specific Plan and the
Wessman Development Desert Fashion Plan Remodel Plan, requested
the continuance for the consideration of the Specific Plan for 90-days for
the City to review the Remodel Plan, commented on the Specific Plan and
the alternatives in the EIR based on residential units which cannot
support the project, stated the EIR does not reflect the timing delay and
provides inaccurate timetables due to the current economic conditions,
commented on Alternative A for the reservation of land for use as park
space, commented on the change in the Specific Plan for use of the
O'Donnell Golf Course, the arbitrary reduction of units, density and
height, and reiterated the request to continue the Public Hearing for 90-
days,
CHARLES CANTRELL, stated the City has an immediate need for a
vibrant shopping experience in Downtown as soon as possible, and the
need for other types of entertainment.
CHRIS LUHRS, stated Wessman Development should be provided the
opportunity to present and move forward with his Remodel Plan.
VIC GAINER, stated the Specific Plan is a pipe dream and the City needs
to get back to reality, and requested the City Council delay the plan for
90-days to consider the Remodel Plan.
KAREN TABBAH, stated she has been disappointed by the lack of
activity on the Desert Fashion Plaza, and urged the City Council to fast
track the new Remodel Plan.
MARSHALL ROATH, commented on the inclusion of Block L in the Plan,
recommended the City not include Block L in the Specific Plan, stated his
opposition to closing the street near and along the Museum, stated
Amado should go through to Belardo, and stated the Town and County
Center should be removed from the Plan.
SHERYL HAMLIN, stated the projects under the Specific Plan will
probably not be built, stated the City does not need a Specific Plan as the
City has the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, the Specific Plan is
c :
u .
http://palmsprings.granicus.com/MiiiutesViewer.plip?view_id=2&clip_id=623 3/25/2009
City Council Meeting Page 3 of 5
flawed in many ways, and recommended the City Council abandon the
Specific Plan.
PAULA AUBURN, stated the Specific Plan will narrow the future
Development in the Downtown area, and the City needs a project that is
unique and with scale-ability that enhances creativity with developers.
TODD LARSON, provided his vision of the Downtown and the use of the
current buildings in the area, and stated the Remodel Plan can start in 6-
months-
CLINTON GREENE, stated the City is not moving forward, and
recommended that the City Council delay the adoption of the Specific
Plan for 6-months-
JOY MEREDITH, requested the City Council postpone going forward with
the Specific Plan for 6-months to review the Remodel Plan, and stated the
General Plan and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines are sufficient.
G.P. GERBER, stated his support of the Wessman Remodel Plan, and
the Specific Plan has not been effective.
RON MARSHALL, stated his support for the designation of the Town and
Country Center as a Class 1 Historic Site.
LAURA WALSH, stated we have wonderful stores in the Downtown area,
and requested the City Council delay the Specific Plan and review the
Remodel Plan.
LEONARD SAGER, commented on the problems with developments
retaining financing and capital to develop, stated his support to open
Museum Drive through to the Museum.
DAVID CYR, stated his support for fast tracking the Wessman Remodel
Plan.
BOB HELBLING, stated the City needs to move forward, but the City
should not adopt a Specific Plan if it would hinder the Wessman Remodel
Plan, requested the City Council delay the Specific Plan.
SHEILA CHRISTENSON, stated her support to delay the adoption of the
Specific Plan to review the Remodel Plan.
FRANK TYSEN, commented on the Planning Commission
recommendations and stated the recommendations should be drastically
scaled down in terms of density and height, stated his support for a
boutique hotel, and recommended the City move fonNard with the scaled
down Specific Plan as it would not hinder the Remodel Plan.
J
http://palmsprings.granicus.coma/MinutesViewer.plxp?view_id=2&clip_id=623 3/25/2009
City Council Meeting Page 4 of 5
CODY STOUGHTON, stated his support for the preservation of the Town
and Country Center.
No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Foat stated the City Council is not voting on any
action tonight, commented on the previous City Council direction to create
movement and action by Wessman Development toward the development
of the Desert Fashion Plaza.
City Attorney Holland commented on issues by Wessman
Development as to the inconsistency between the Specific Plan and the
Remodel Plan, and stated the Specific Plan would not hinder any
Remodel Plan.
Councilmember Hutcheson stated the Remodel Plan should be reviewed
in a timely manner by the AAC and Planning Commission, stated his
support for the Specific Plan for opportunities and alternatives for the
Downtown area, and requested staff address the opportunity to modify
the Specific Plan.
Mayor Pro Tern Mills commented on the numerous plans and changes to
previous plans submitted by Wessman Development, commented on the
expedient review and preparation of the Specific Plan by staff, the
importance of the project as the central hub area of the City, and stated
the Plan is for the future development of Downtown and not a plan or
vision based on the current economic conditions and problems.
The City Council recessed at 7:47 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Weigel requested staff address how long, and the
process from this point forward, to get Wessman through the process for
the Remodel Plan, requested staff comment on the right to the
entitlements for the Remodel Plan and for amendments to the current
entitlements, requested staff address the hybrid Specific Plan as
recommended by staff, the differences between the current Downtown
Urban Design Guidelines, thanked Wessman Development for bringing
something forward and challenged Wessman Development to bring forth
a viable project to move forward.
Councilmember Hutcheson recommended the City Council refer
comments to staff and the Downtown Subcommittee to compile
comments and make further recommendations.
Mayor Pro Tern Mills requested Planning Staff, the City Attorney, and
Wessman Development meet to determine the Remodel Plan objectives,
requested the Remodel Plan be expedited through the process with the
http://palmspzings.granicus.conn/MinutesViewer.php?view id=2&clip_id=623 3/25/2009
City Council Meeting Page 5 of 5
Subcommittees of the AAC, the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
ACTION: Direct staff and the City Council Downtown Subcommittee to
consolidate City Council comments and compile further recommendations
for the City Council. Motion Councilmember Hutcheson, seconded by
Councilmember Foat and unanimously carried on a roll call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
SHERYL HAMLIN, thanked the City Council for the support of the Opera in the Park
event scheduled in April, 2009.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS:
Councilmember Foat commented on the upcoming Dog Day Afternoon event at the
Palm Springs Stadium.
Mayor Pougnet commented on the recent City of Palm Springs Juried Art Show at the
Palm Springs Library.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: None.
ADJOURNMENT: The City Council adjourned at 8:12 p.m. to a Regular Meeting,
Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall,
preceded by a Closed Session at 4:30 p.m., Small Conference Room, City Hall, 3200
East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
http://palmsprings.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=623 3/25/2009
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
0
CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
James Thompson, City Clerk
Meeting Date: April 1, 2009
Subject: Museum Market Plaza, Case 5.1204 CPZ/Zone Code Amendment
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and
every person on the attached list on March 20, 2008, in a sealed envelope, with postage
prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (131 notices)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Kathie Hart, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby
certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun
on March 21 2009.
1ud_1eccllaree under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Y'
Kathie Hart, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify
that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E.
Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the
City Clerk on March 20, 2009.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dolores Strickstein '
Secretary
sir
NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS
Case 5.1204 SP/CZ MR PETE MORUZZI
Museum Market Plaza MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
PHN for CC Meeting 04.01.09 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PO BOX 4738
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 5,1204 SP/CZ
VERIFICATION NOTICE I 1 I ATTN SECRETARY MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS
PO BOX 2743 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
MS MARGARET PARK
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
INDIANS I I I I 1 1 777 E.TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,#301
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
MR JOHN WESSMAN MR MICHAEL BRAUN
PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC
SPONSORS 300 S. PALM CANYON DRIVE 300 S. PALM CANYON DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
MRS NICOLE S. CRISTE MR JEFF HALPIN MR MARVIN ROOS
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH NELSEN PARTNERS, INC. MSA CONSULTING
400 S. FARRELL DRIVE, STE. B-205 15210 N. SCOTTSDALE ROAD, STE. 300 34200 505 HOPE DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85254 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
MR TOM DOCZI
TKO ASSOCIATES
71780 SAN JACINTO DRIVE, STE. F-2
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
MS AMY MINTEER MR GARY FRANK
CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2679 15T"AVENUE
INTERESTED PARTIES I 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD, #205 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
0 W�?
s ' ��1,d�
508-041-007. 508-041-002 R M 508-041-003 N'
Keith Mccormick United S es Of America&Agu United St as Of America&Agu
244 N Indian Canyon Dr 208 N idian Canyon Dr 208 N than Canyon Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pal Springs, CA 92262 Pal Springs, CA 92262
508-041-007 506-041-00 506-041-012
United Sta s of America&Agu Plaza Mo- rs Inc � Usa 503
208 N I Ian Canyon Dr NM 290 N ndian Canyon Dr PO Sox 2245
Palm rings, CA 92262 Pal Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263
508-053-00 508-081�-002 508-0/PectslcRd
8
Agua Ca ente Spa Inc Plaza Welmas Inc Aphm 901 ahquitz Canyon way 115 S Indian Canyon Dr 4484
Pa Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 La Vegas, NV 69121
513-070-009 513-070-010 513-091-001
O Donnell Golf Club 0 Donnell Golf Club Albert A & Flora Simay
301 N Belardo Rd 301 N Belardo Rd 2445 Brant St 502
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Diego, CA 92101
513-091-002 513-091-003 513-091-004
Pro3ect 92 Redevelopment Agency City Pa Redevelopment Agency City Of
303 N Indian Canyon Dr 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way PO Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-091-005 513-091-008 513-091-010
Broughton Palm Springs Llc Lori. L Simmons Roland Adass
20241 SW Birch St 201 939 N Camino Condor 6639 Norwich Ave
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Van Nuys, CA 91405
513-091-011 513-091-012 513-091-016
Charles & Charlotte Grone Mob Prop Ralph G & Hazel Gaytan
1454 E Gem Cir B44 N Mission Rd 850 Avenida Acapulco
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672
513-091-017 513-091-018 513-091-020
Alfred J & Cheryl Mcbride White Brothers Inv Henry Frank
296 N Palm Canyon Dr 71905 Highway 111 E 550 N Cahullla Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-091-021 513-091-022 513-091-023
City Of Palm Springs City Of Palm Springs City Of Palm Springs
PO Box 2743 PO Box 2743 PO Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-091-024 513-091-026 513-092-003
City Of Palm Springs Southern California Edison C, Wessman Holdings
PO Box 2743 PO Box 800 300 S� Palm Canyon Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Rosemead, CA 91770 Palm Springs, CA 92262
c� s. i� ���� LJ7
513-092-004 513-092-005 513-092-006
Henry Frank Frank Prop Earl Stahl
121 S Palm Canyon Dr 216 550 N Cahuilla Rd 808 B Highland Ave
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Redlands, CA 92374
513-092-007 513-092-009 513--092-010
Plaza Investment Inc Wessman Holdings Wessman Holdings
115 S Indian Ave 300 S Palm Canyon Dr 300 S Palm Canyon Dr-
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-094-001 513-094-002 513-094-003
Robert L Brackey Robert h Brackey Robert L Brackey
80 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E
St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117
513-094-004 513-094-005 513-094-006
Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey
80 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E
St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117
513-094-007 513-094-008 513-094-0 �'N
Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey Joel & arbara Rettew
60 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E 1042 Brookshire Ave
St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117 Do ey, CA 90241
513-110-034 513-110-035 513-110-036
Palm Springs Art Museum Inc Paul C Marut Rose C Mihata
101 N Museum ❑r PO Box 56958 468 W Tahqui.tz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sherman Oaks, CA 91113 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-120-058 513-120-059 513-120-075
Cunningham Jay M Chozen Robert T & F Truska
PO Box 1587 27642 Hidden Trai..l. Rd 1218 N Orleans St
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Chicago, IL 60610
513-120-076 513-120-077 513-120-076
David L & Judith Christian M Kruse *M* Harry W Dobrowolsky
431 Villaggio N 3 Rue Fontainbleau PO Box 744
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Laguna Beach, CA 92652
513-120-079 513-120-080 513-120-081
Leonel S Medairos Marian E & Terrill Phillippi Eric J Wohlschlegel
2189 Market St 3 399 Villaggio N 611 Massachusetts Ave Ne
San Francisco, CA 94114 Palm Springs, CA 922G2 Washington, DC 20002
513 120-085 513-120-086 513-120-087
Gregory G & Lori Hollenk *B* Paul Kryn Emmett A & Judith Koelsch
1G25 Delaware Ave 434 Villaggio 3 4912 Keating Rd Nw
Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Olympia, WA 98502
513-120-088 513-120-0 M 513-120-090
Lindsay Personal Steven Manahan Carl F & Wencke Martin
94 W Broadway 2008 800 r:'1 Camino Real 29351 La Hermosa Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84101 S i Clemente, CA 92672 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
513-120-091 513-120-092 513-120-093
Palm Springs Modcrn Homes V Walter C & Judith Marx Delmar & Cheree Aitken
PO Box 1587 398 Villaggic S PO Box 2441
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-120-095 513-120-097 513-120-098
Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V
PO Box 1587 PO Box 1587 PO Box 1567
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-141-001 513-141-004 513-141-005
Paul C Bruggemans Wessman Holdings Prank Tysen
365 W Tahguitz Canyon Way 300 S Palm Canyon Dr 175 S Cahuilla Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-141-011 513-141-012 513-141-013
Wahoo Cal Dba A Hideaway Palm Springs Modern Homes V Wessman Holdings
4109 NE 19Th Ave B 74140 E1 Paseo 4 300 S Palm Canyon Or
Portland, OR 97211 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-141-015 513-141-016 513-141-017
Casa Cody S & B Country Inn Casa Cady B & B Country Inn John R & Campbell Jester
175 S Cahuilla Rd 175 S Cahuilla Rd 100 S Sunrise Way A
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-141-0 8 513-141-019 513-141-020
Jon W all �M William R & Debbie Varccha Palm Springs Modern Homes V
256 Hutton ❑r 444 Seasons Dr PO Box 1587
verly Hills, CA 90210 Grand Junction, CO 81.503 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-141-021 513-141-022 513-141-023
Tutun3ian Katherine Whitney Palm Springs Modern Homes V
334 Villaggio E 342 Villaggio E PO Box 1587
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513-141-024 513-141-025 51.3-141-026
Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Springs Modern Homes V D R & K Hale
PO Box 1587 PO Box 1587 PO Box 697
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
513-141-027 513-141-028 513-142-001
Benson & Nichols Palm Springs Modern Homes V Palm Mountain Resort Dba Hol
879 N Palm Canyon Or PO Box 1587 11250 *kt'Cafiino Real N100
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92130
LrL
513-142-003 513-113-005 513-143-008
Chase Hotcl At Palm Springs John Mcdonald Brandenburg Oasis Plaza
200 W Arenas Rd 49035 Calle Flora 1122 Willow St 200
Palm Springs, CA 92262 La Quinta, CA 92253 San Jose, CA 95125
513-143-009 513-143-011 513-143-019
Brandenburg Oasis Plaza DIDa City Of Palm Springs Plaza Merrado
1122 Wa.Ilow St 200 3200 E TahquiL,z Canyon Way 300 S Palm Canyon Dr
San Jose, CA 95125 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-144-001 513-144-002 513-144-005 �2.30
Plaza Las Flores Plaza Las Flores Mitchell & Joyce Slayman
300 S Palm Canyon Or 300 S Palm Canyon Dr PO Box 190
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm prings, CA 92263
513-144-006 513-144-007 513-144-009
City Of Palm Springs City Of Palm Springs Plaza Investment Cc Dba Plaz
PO Bar. 2743 PO Box 2743 115 S Indian Canyon Or
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513-144-010 513-144-011 513-144-012
Community Redev Agency City Wessman Holdings Wessman Holdings
PO Box 2743 300 S Palm Canyon Or 300 S Palm Canyon Or
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
- - -
513 194-07.3 513 470 001 513-470-002
Wessman Holdings Andalusian CourL Llc John & Maria Gerard
300 5 Palm Canyon Or 458 W Arenas Rd PO Box. 2458
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Covina, CA 91722
G
513-970-003 513-470-004 513-470-0 0
f �
Anne Abercrombie Marc L Herbert Bridge A Bassett
100 Cliff Rd 2864 Tice Creek Or 4 4242 orte De La Siena
Northport, ME 04649 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 S Diego, CA 92130
513-170-006 513-470-007 513-470-008
Carol C Holmes John R & Jean Metzger Thomas Underwood
221 S Patencio Rd 600 Arbolade Or PO Box 1197
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fulle.rtnn, CA 92835 Springville, CA 93265
57.3-470-009 `7 513-470-010 513-470-013
Randall L oose Residual Metzger John J & Maria Gerard
500 E oadway 500 600 Arboladc Or PO Box 2456
Vane ver, WA 9BG60 Fullerton, CA 92835 Covina, CA 91722
513-470-014 "*T 116 Printed ***
John J Gerard
PO Box 2458
Covina, CA 91722 ,, ,�„
CASE 5.1204 513-141-018 513-470-009
JON W. HALL
Randall I Boose RETURNED MAIL: 310 VILLAGIO EAST 6505 NE 209'h Street
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 Battle Ground, WA 99504
613-470-005
BRIDGETT HASSETT
665 SAN RODOLFO DR, STE 124
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
t
c
t
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerlc's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P) No 1128
NOTICE CRY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASG 5 1204 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND ZONING COD&AMENDMENT
MUSEUM MARKETPLAZA SPECIFIC
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the CltY
Council of the City of Palm$pni California,will
STATE OF CALIFORNIA hold a public hounng at its meetmq of April 1,
County of Riverside 2009.The City Council mil begins et 600
NlT11 the ahqulm Canylon WaynPal m Springs.
The 3200
The purpose of the hearing is to consider draft
Specillc Plan initiated by,the Clry of rpals Springs
a; an amendment to t'a Palm Sp p
plan and Zoning Coda As ppmrpsetl the drah—
Specific Plan would allow boo to 955 nigh-danS�N
residential units up to 400,000 sand a fast 0
Ccommarclel retail and office space, p
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident:of _notes rooms The 20-acre alto is genareuy localeOil
d
the County aforesaid;i am over the age of eighteen Dr the
eandrTanqui CanyEr on Wav T Nort he proposed
ears,and not a ail to or interested in the Canyon
Plan also include lends between Palm years,and party Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Dbve,north of
abov"rititled matter. 1 am(he principal cleric of a Road at Canyon iWay and soul of And read
Road at the southwest Corner of Cahuilla Road
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING and Tah ulr,GanYon Way and al me nonYMast
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, corner of�ol3rdc Foad and Arenes Road.
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, "' '
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the -
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ..,
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case �I Number 191236; that the notice,of which The
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller 7'
than non pariel,has been published in each regular I_,_ rA /�L__
. _ ,-
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereofon the following dates,to wit:
March 21`r,2009
-----""—.............
-
All in the year 2009 Faso Environmental
repared ter nls
....--".__--_�_�---------_-""�.. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A
Impact Report (FEIR) has
pmlec[under the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQAI guidelines and
will be rewewud by the City CaunclU at the hearing
i certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Members of the public may view this document at
Plammna Services DepartrI CiN ldall 32W
East Tahi Canyyon way, Palm pangs be•
foregoing 15 true and correct. Iween the bourn of 9 00 a.m end 3:00 p m Mon-
day through Prlday and submit written comments
at,or prior to,the�Iry Council meeting.-
Dated at Paim Springs,California this--23 ,---day -
REVIEW- htk OF-
PROJECT INFORMATION
The:Dra Gpec III c Plan Final ru and other sup•
-_--- porting documents regardlnpp this ppmlec[are also
Of-- ---- March -------------- ,2009 Available for public rawew 11 1 H b 'ri the
hours of 8'0o a.m.and 5:00 p m. Mondayy throI
Freddy. Please contact the Slhca of the C Ly Clerk
sold
323-82041t you would like to schedule an
'- appointment to revlewthosc documents.
------------- "-- —_tee ti _ COMMENT ade ON THIS APPLICATION Re•
spp��se to this notice may be m verbally at the
PL nc Hearing andlor in writing before the hear-
CNJ In .Wnbarl comments may to made to the City,
Council by ledur(for mail or hand uellvery)to.
--+ James Thompson Clry Clerk
+- C7 3200 E.Tai Glanyon Way
i.+S Cr: .� q•f Palm Springs,CA 92262
Any challenge of the gonly those
p ssu m court
may be Ilmrted to raising only Ihose ssuos raised
Z CD pt the pUbllc hoanng descnbad In this notice,or In
-.,� wrlban corrospondum isilvened to the City CIo1R
1 et or pnor, to the public hearing. (Government
LI' Code Gnctlon 65009{b)(2))
An apponumty will be{riven at said hearing for all
�.• , imerestud parsons to beer heard,Oda^dons rcgard-
in this cafe me bn dited to Crain A.Ewenpp,'
b q ( SeNioes at 760)323-
o An P,Director o Planning
N 82AS.
SI nece4lta ayude con ustap�cari podavor Ilame a
Nadull Fle de gcr aefanoprin(760)323 2'45 hauler con
amga om0`on, lty 5erk
Pubilatled:3121109
PALM
- =c City of PaXm Springs
" Office of the City Clerk
* ry�RPOPAYEO ye " 5700 C Tahquirz Canyon Way • Palm Springs.California 92262
C-1ZIF0
V�P Tcl! (760) 323-8204 • Cox 060) 322-8332 • Wcb: wwwpdinsprings-ca.gov
March 20, 2009
Ms, Claudia Salgado
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P. O. Box 2245
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Dear Ms. Salgado:
RE: City Council Meeting —April 1, 2009
Museum Market Plaza — Case 5.1204 GPZ/Zone Code Amendment
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs will be conducting a public hearing relating to the
above referenced on January 7, 2009. Enclosed are 4 copies of the public hearing notice to be
forwarded to the appropriate Indian landowner within the 400 ft. radius of the project location as
listed below:
APN 508-041-12
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns, 323-8206.
Sincerely,
k�
Kathie Hart, CIVIC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
/cab PHN to BIA—MuseumMarketPlaza 04.01.2009.doc
Encl: Public Hearing Notice
n -
Post Office Box 2743 6 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE 5.1204 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN
(DOWNTOWN PALM SPRINGS)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a
public hearing at its meeting of April 1, 2009. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the
Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a draft Specific Plan initiated by the City of Palm Springs as
an amendment to the Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Code. As proposed, the draft Specific
Plan would allow up to 955 high-density residential units, up to 400,000 square feet of commercial
retail and office space, and up to 620 hotel rooms. The 20-acre site is generally located at the
northwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way. The proposed Specific
Plan also include lands between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, north of Tahquitz
Canyon Way and south of Andreas Road; at the southwest corner of Cahuilla Road and Tahquitz
Canyon Way; and at the northeast corner of Belardo Road and Arenas Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL. DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been
prepared for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and will be
reviewed by the City Council at the hearing. Members of the public may view this document at the
Planning Services Department, City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and submit written comments at, or
prior to, the City Council meeting.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The Draft Specific Plan, Final EIR and other supporting
documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760)
323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public
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
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at,
or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)).
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions
regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services'at (760)
323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar can..
Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
mes Thompson, City Clerk
A aeFm spay N
Department of Planning Services W rz
�..,.. Vicinity Map
C9[ FOFH4 S
0
K
rF
a
Q
0
C
Q
7
N
111 TAHRUUZOR w
C
e
x
0
e
ARENAS R❑
ARENAS RD
� J Y
� i cpi
a
e
Legend J
400 Foot Radius don
- ® ProjectSite BARISTO RD
0 Surrounding Parcels
7-7, �' , I '. P 7
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 5.1204 GPA/ZTA DESCRIPTION: To consider a draft Specific Plan proposed
by Wessman Development as an amendment to the Palm
Springs General Plan and Zoning Code. As proposed, the
APPLICANT. Wessman Development draft Specific Plan would allow up to 955 high-density
residential units, up to 400,000 square feet of commercial
retail and office space, and up to 620 hotel rooms. The 20-
acre site is generally located at the northwest corner of North
Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way.