Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/14/2009 - STAFF REPORTS
L4 W OFFICES OF 7 C ; 1 - EALY, HEMPHILL.� IlIlBnn SPft-� LLP A CALIFORNIA LINITEP LIABILITY PAKA✓V Ar4p IN curt Faly Emily Perri Hemphill Diane C. Blasdel January 21, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE & REGULAR MAIL Douglas Holland City Attorney City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Sprirfgs, CA 92262 RE: Museum Market Plaza Dear Mr. Holland: 'JAN 2 M9 2009 71760 San Jacinto Drive, Sulre 1-3 Rancho Mirage, California 92270-55.i8 Telephone: (760) 340.0666 Facslmde: (760)340-4666 C6 , P �6vll /1l ptY _/� S011 T- GU, / S©/► As you know, on January 14, 2009, the City Council of Palm Springs took up consideration of a specific plan ("SP") for the area known as Museum Market Plaza. As the representative of the property owner, John Wessman, I provided comments which included concern that the adoption of the SP was inconsistent with the renovation plan ("Renovation Plan") which my client has submitted for preliminary review and approval. At that meeting, Councilman Mills directed that you, Craig Ewing and I meet to discuss the concerns I expressed about the inconsistencies between the SP and the Renovation Plan. Mr. Ewing's office has since indicated that you would be contacting me to schedule such a meeting, Although I have not yet heard from your office on this issue, I wanted to take a few minutes to express, in more detail, our concerns on the issue of inconsistency between the SP and the Renovation Plan. There are three main areas of inconsistency between the SP and the Renovation Plan. First, the street grid pattern of the SP is not consistent with the street grid pattern set out for the Renovation Plan. The SP provides that Belardo would be built through the project site, necessitating the demolition of the existing mall buildings. The SP also shows two east/west streets, one leading up to the Museum and the other to the north, between blocks A and B. By contrast, the Renovation Plan does not include the demolition of the mall buildings and therefore cannot accommodate putting Belardo through the project site. Additionally, the Renovation Plan provides only one east/west connection leading to the Museum. The difference in the street grid pattern is particularly important since the staff report indicates that the street pattern of the SP is its single most important feature and the SP should be conditioned for construction of the street grid pattern as a necessary first phase of the project. If the SP is adopted, therefore, the buildings which block the LAW OFFICES OF EALY, HEMPHILL & 6LASOEL, LLP January21, 2009 Page 2 construction of the identified street pattern would constitute a pre-existing non -conforming use. A second important difference between the SP and the Renovation Plan is the treatment of Block B. Under the SP, this block is required to have 75% open space. Under the Renovation Plan, that degree of open space cannot be achieved and is not contemplated in that area. To the extent, therefore, that the existing structures within Block B exceed the 75% open space requirement, they are pre-existing non -conforming uses, The third major area of difference between the SP and the Renovation Plan is the treatment of the existing parking garage. Under the SP, this structure is removed, while the Renovation Plan leaves the garage in place and makes use of it. Based upon comments by you and Mr. Ewing at the Council meeting, it appears that you agree that the Renovation Plan would constitute a non -conforming use if the SP is adopted, but you indicated that the Renovation Plan could nonetheless go forward by being "grandfathered", Given the status of both the State law and the City's own ordinances, this "grandfathering" approach is problematic at best, and more likely, unworkable. Under State law, an owner is entitled to continue only a lawful nonconforming use that actually existed at the time the zoning restriction which made it non -conforming was actually adopted. [Hill V. City ofManhatten Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, 285.] An entirely new use, which did not exist when the zoning ordinance is adopted, will not qualify as an existing nonconforming use. Furthermore, structural alterations that would expand a nonconforming use or make it more permanent are similarly prohibited. [Ricciardi v. County of LosAngeies(1953) 115 Call. App.2d 569, 574; aieneitV. County ofMonterey(1952) 113 Cal. App.2d 12-8, 120-131.] The City's own ordinances contain similar provisions which indicate that nonconforming buildings are permitted to continue, "provided that. anv addition. alteration or enlargement thereto shall comply with all orovisions of the zone." [P.S.M.C. §94.05.03(A).] [Emphasis added.] Further, P.S.M.C. §94,05.04(B) states: "Any building, structure or facility used for such nonconforming use shall not be added to. expanded or structurally altered or enlaro_ ed in anv manner, except as required by other provisions of this Zoning Code or; in order to bring the building and its use into conformity or; to restore to a safe condition any part of any building or structure declared unsafe by property city authority." [Emphasis added.] The alterations to the property contemplated by the Renovation Plan do not match the SP's requirements (as indicated above), they include a use that does not exist on the site now (the theater), and the alterations required by the Renovation Plan would serve to make the nonconforming structures more permanent. As such, the City's ability to simply "grandfather" the nonconforming structures is highly suspect under state law. Under the City's ordinances, the alterations contemplated by the Renovation Plan do not comply with the SP zoning, and therefore pursuant to PSMC §§94.05.03 and 94.05.04 if the SP is LAW OFFICES OF EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP January29, 2009 Page 3 adopted, the City does not have the ability to approve the Renovation Plan by simply "grandfathering" it. Another problem with the "grandfathering" approach lies with the fact that P.S.M.C. §§94.05.03(N) & (P) provides that if a nonconforming structure is damaged in excess of fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost, then the repair or reconstruction of the building must conform to all regulations of the district in which it is located and it "shall be treated as a new buildmo or structure." [Emphasis added.] This means that if there is a fire or other catastrophic event which damages 50% or more of the structure, rebuilding as is would not be possible and any reconstruction would require conformity with the new SP, including installation of the new roadway grid. The Renovation Plan, although much more modest that the SP, nonetheless requires a major investment of at least $50 million. This type of investment cannot be financed or justified if there is uncertainty as to the project's ability to rebuild in the event of damage. Requiring the Renovation Plan to proceed under the SP as a "grandfathered" nonconforming use makes it more difficult to finance the project and is therefore counter productive to the mutual goal of revitalizing downtown as soon as possible. Another major problem with attempting to "grandfather" the Renovation Plan after approval of the SP Iles with P.S.M.C. §94.05.042(A) which provides that any nonconforming use must be removed or converted and the premises thereafter devoted only to uses consistent with the zoning of the property within ten (10) years from the date that the use became nonconforming, unless the time is extended by the Planning Commission, which has no obligation to grant such an extension. If the Renovation Plan must go forward as a nonconforming use, therefore, there is a very real risk that the nonconforming use must be phased out within ten (10) years. Such a deadline makes it impossible to finance the Renovation Plan and extremely difficult to find tenants who are concerned about the uncertainty caused by the "grandfathered" status of the buildings. Much was made at the January 14 meeting of how the Riviera obtained financing for its renovation and is now reopening and the Wyndham was completing its renovation. The implication being that if they could find financing, so could Wessman and therefore our concerns about the state of the economy were merely a ruse. I would point out, however, that both the Riviera and the Wyndham had their financing arranged and funded for their renovation programs before the sweeping declines in the financial markets occurred. To focus on those projects, whose investment is smaller than is required here and whose loan funds were granted in a different market, is to ignore the reality of the world today. As the local paper has reported, the Part Lawrence project and the Hard Rock in Palm Springs, the Ritz -Carlton in Rancho Mirage and two hotels in Palm Desert have clearly been stopped in their tracks because of the economy. I can give you numerous examples of other projects which I have been working on that have similarly been halted. By all accounts in the media, and by working with several clients who are seeking financing for approved projects, I can assure you that financing in today's market is an enormously daunting task. There is little money available for lending, and therefore lenders are looking at projects very carefully, and are unwilling to fund anything which has ambiguities, doubts or questions associated with its entitlements. By suggesting that the SP must be adopted LAW OPPICES OF EALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP January 21, 2009 Page 4 now to guide "future development" while the Renovation Plan can simply go forward as a "grandfathered" nonconforming use creates such ambiguity and doubt about the project entitlement that do nothing but throw yet more impediments into the path of financing for the Renovation Plan. The statement was made at the January 14 council meeting that the SP needed adoption now in case Wessman did not go forward with the Renovation Plan, then some other developer could simply step in and build according to the SP. This statement seems to presuppose that the SP, although not economically Feasible for Wessman at this time, will somehow become a feasible project in the hands of some other developer. Such an assumption is simply not supportable under. the circumstances. It is not just Wessman, but the entire real estate industry that has been hamstrung by the changes in the economy, This is obvious in that projects that were promised only months ago such as Port Lawrence and the Hard Rock are now on indefinite hold because of the economy. The idea that a third party developer will walk in and make the SP happen is unrealistic. Wessman owns the Desert Fashion Plaza free and clear, and that equity position dramatically enhances his ability to finance a project on that site. Any third party developer will be unlikely to buy the property for cash, and would therefore have to finance the land value as well as the construction cost. That land value, added to the cost of the project, makes the SP development by a third party even less likely in today's environment. Finally, I would point out that lenders expect not only good projects, and strong equity positions, they also expect developers with proven track records. With the development of the award winning Plaza Mercado, Wessman has the distinction of being the only successful developer of a shopping center in downtown Palm Springs in decades. Clearly therefore, Wessman represents the City's best hope for revitalization of downtown. It is very clear that the community is interested in seeing downtown revitalized with a realistic plan sooner, not later. It is equally clear that they are looking to both Wessman and the City to work cooperatively to achieve that goal, and indeed, in today's market, without that cooperation, any major project faces nearly insurmountable tasks. Given the Council's clearly expressed concern for revitalization of downtown, we would hope that the Council would share the community's enthusiasm for the Renovation Plan and work with us to bring that revitalization to reality as soon as possible. To do that, however, the Council must consider an alternative to simply adapting an SP that is inconsistent with the Renovation Plan and hope that the Renovation Plan can nonetheless achieve success as a "grandfathered" use. Instead, I believe it is imperative for Wessman and the City to work together to adopt the Renovation Plan and market it, cooperatively, to end users. If the City is determined to adopt a larger SP at this time, I would urge them to consider the following approaches: (1) include the Renovation Plan in the adopted SP as the first phase of redevelopment for the area, (2) revise the proposed street grid in the adopted SP to accommodate the Renovation Plan's long term existence, and (3) revise the adopted SP as needed to maximize useful benefits of the property with the Renovation Plan in place. An SP adopted along those lines would truly allow for the Renovation Plan to move forward while keeping the principals of the SP available for the future. LAW OFFICES OF FALY, HEMPHILL & BLASDEL, LLP January 21, 2009 Page 5 I hope this provides some clarity as to our concerns with regard to "grandfathering" Renovation Plan, however, I look forward to hearing from you to set up a meeting between the two of us and Craig Ewing to finalize our discussion on these matters. Sincerely, Emily ephill ill Ealy, Hlasdel, LLPP cc: Mayor Pougnet Mayor Pro Tern Mills Councilman Weigel Councilman Hutcheson Councilwoman Foat Craig Ewing John Wessman fDr4v .filc L lb � Y14fa9 nz, 4 ?Vef-p�vP, .Ali 955 1p 20 —1' b5 N rr:��risc•���•��:zi�irr�olr�a•��:n:�xy�n�n�:��ronrrrro>lar� In reviewing the staff report, I notice that an important event is left out of the chronology, namely, that on December 2, 2008, Wessman submitted a letter to the City withdrawing the Specific Plan application. I am providing a copy of that letter and our Novembe letter on the same topic, and ash: that they be entered into the record in this matter. As our letter states, the SP was submitted to the City in April, 2008. As we all know, economic conditions in this country took a dramatic tarn for the worse in October, 2008, and that downturn has had devastating implications for the housing market, retail sales and credit availability. When originally submitted, the SP was an admittedly ambitious vision for the City's downtown revitalization. In light of the economic downturn, it became clear to Wessman that the SP was a vision that could not be implemented in the foreseeable future. Recognizing the need for downtown revitalization despite the economic downturn, Wessman went back to the drawing board and designed a plan for renovation of the existing Desert Fashion Plaza. We advised the City of this revised plan prior to the circulation of the MMP's EIR, but, at the City's insistence, continued processing the EIR. As time has gone on, it has been even more clear that the economic downturn is one which will impact our country and our community for some time to come. Given that fact, we recognized that continuation of the processing of the SP would not facilitate revitalization of downtown, but rather, delay it by imposing an entitlement that is not ,feasible in today's market. Wishing to avoid unnecessary delay, and recognizing the viability of the renovation plan, Wessman withdrew the SP. When we decided to withdraw the SP, Wessman was hit with criticism that the withdrawal was simply another delaying tactic. To the contrary, withdrawal of the SP in favor of the renovation plan will move the revitalization of downtown along at a faster pace for the following reasons: 1. The SP, and the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, all depend on residential components to act as their "economic engines". Essentially, to be able to pay for the project, including demolition of the parking garage and the required public improvements while still offering retail rental rates reasonable enough to attract quality tenants, the SP and the EIR alternatives all depend on the sale of condominium units to be built above the proposed retail. However, economic viability of such a project demands that the condominium units be sold for approximately 5600 per square foot. At the present time, and in the current market, such a figure is not viable. To give the council a reference point, the St. Baristo condominiums, which are a luxury condo product built within the last few years by Wessman, is currently being marketed at a price of S350 per square foot. In today's market, the St. Baristo tondo's are not selling, and it is therefore wholly unrealistic to expect that tondo's in the same vicinity at twice the price will be viable at any time in the foreseeable frzture. 2. Financing for condominium projects typically includes requirements that a certain munber of units must be "pre sold" before loan funds for construction will be released. In the case of the SP, given the poor housing market, achievement of the required "pre sell" will likely take years to achieve. Because the SP and the EIR alternatives all feature residential units above the retail, if financing is delayed for the residential, it is likewise delayed for the retail below. As a result, the Fashion Plaza will sit, unimproved until financing for the entire project can be achieved, resulting in significant delays. By contrast, the renovation plan does not depend on development of any residential units. Further, the Renovation Plan is must less expensive and therefore financing for it can move forward without being held hostage to an ailing residential market. 3. When the SP was submitted, Wessman learned of significant opposition to the plan's building heights, treatment of the Town & Country Center and use of the "Palm Hotel" property. Comments received by the City to the EIR confirm that opposition. In light of that opposition, and based on past history, we believe that adoption of the SP or any of the studied alternatives will lead to litigation because of the controversial elements. Even if the City were to expend its resources to fight such a lawsuit and win, the time involved would result in a delay of nearly an additional year. If the City is not successful in that lawsuit, the City will essentially be sent back to the drawing board, and the delay in downtown revitalization will be even longer. By contrast, the renovation plan does not seek additional building height beyond what is currently approved in the downtown area, it does not affect the Town & Country Center in any way and does not affect the Palm Hotel property. In short, the renovation plan focuses on prompt revitalization of the commercial elements of the old Fashion Plaza while avoiding areas of controversy. 4. The scope of the SP and the EIR alteratives all contemplate the removal of the existing parking garage and construction of a new street grid system. These facts, coupled with the multi story retail/residential buildings to be built will mean that dowrtown will be disrupted for a significant period of time — which is now made even longer because of the expected delays in financing and sales. While such disruption is often the natural consequence of construction activity, subjecting the downtown merchants to that disruption now —when so many are struggling to survive at all in the worst economy since the great depression --places a burden on the downtown merchants that we do not believe they can currently bear. By contrast, the renovation plan could be completed without removal of the parking garage and without demolition of the existing buildings. The level of disruption to the downtown area would therefore be much less and much shorter. This is critical to many of our downtown merchants who are looking to the City in these difficult times to help spur business NOW, not 20 or 30 years from now. 5. in contrast to the SP and the EIR alternatives, the renovation plan uses the existing parking structure. This results in a dramatic cost savings. An appraisal done in June, 2008 by Capital Realty Analysts indicated that the value of the existing parking structure was approximately S32 million, and the cost of replacing it would be approximately S40 million. In addition, the cost of demolition of this structure would run about $5 million. The renovation plan saves the $5 million demo costs and the $40 million replacement costs, and makes use of an existing asset. By so drarnatically lowering the construction costs, the renovation plan results in a more "frnancable" project, and one that could therefore get started and completed in much less time that either the SP or the EIR Alternatives. To those who said that the proposal of the renovation plan was merely delay, I would point out that Wessman, in preparing the SP, has expended significant amounts of time and over $400,000 in consulting fees. If the submission of the SP was merely a delaying tactic, I assure you, Wessman could have found a way to achieve such delay without spending $400,000. On the contrary, when submitted, Wessman had every intention of moving forward with the SP, but even he could not have anticipated the magnitude of the melt down in the financial markets. For those claiming that the withdrawal of the SP is simply delay, I would further point out that as promised, Wessman has submitted the application for the renovation plan and is prepared to move forward with its processing. Given the current economic climate and the fact that the City has before it the renovation plan application, we believe that the best approach for the economic health of the city is to delay the approval of the SP, and instead, move forward with the approval of the renovation plan. Once the renovation plan is approved, Wessman can move forward to revitalize the Fashion Plaza, and the city can consider what entitlements it may want to grant to the surrounding properties in light of the renovation of the fashion plaza. Concurrent processing of SP and Renovation Plan There has been much discussion with staff, council members and in the local paper about the SP and the renovation plan wherein it has been said that the adoption of the SP would not hinder the adoption of the renovation plan. This statement does not accurately reflect reality. The renovation plan, unlike the SP, uses the existing buildings and therefore precludes adoption of the street pattern set forth in the SP. Yet according to the staff report, "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... Regardless of the ultimate build -out the layout of the streets is the foundation for the future of the Museum Market Plaza area. Any phasing plan should include as its first element the construction of the street grid and public playa, followed by the various blocks of buildings." 3 Given that the street grid is "the single most important feature of the SP" and given that the renovation plan eliminates much of the street grid proposed in the SP, it is inconceivable how the City can claim that the renovation plan and the adoption of the SP does not create inconsistencies. In fact, if the SP is adopted with the street grid as proposed, then the renovation plan becomes inconsistent with the SP and it creates further complications and ambiguities in the processing of the renovation plan. The SP and the renovation plan are also inconsistent with regard to their treatment of Block B. Under the SP, Block B would be a plaza area and would be required to maintain 75% open space. This requirement is diametrically opposed to the treatment of this area within the renovation plan, thereby increasing the difficulty of approving the renovation plan if the SP is in place. The SP and the renovation plan are also inconsistent with regard to their treatment of the existing underground parking structure. Under the SP, the parking structure must be removed, but under the renovation plan, the parking structure remains and is used_ The dramatic differences in the parking available, location and cost makes the SP and the renovation plan clearly inconsistent. Adoption of the SP makes the adoption of the renovation plan more complex, potentially requiring a specific plan amendment, and creates additional uncertainty and ambiguity as to the project's actual coning. Tn today's credit climate. nroiects burdened by uncertainty and ambiguous entitlements do not get tenants and do not get financed. Adoption of the SP, therefore endangers the success of the renovation plan and dooms the Fashion Plaza to remain as it is for a far longer period of time. Why is the City going forward with the SP if Wessman withdrew the app? City has responded that the SP is "currently the only project for which an application has been filed with the City." This answer is incorrect in that the SP has been withdrawn and is therefore NOT a pending application with the City. If the City moves forward, it does so on its own initiative, not in response to an application. Secondly, as of yesterday, the only pending application on file is the one for the renovation plan. Therefore, under the city's own reasoning, it is the renovation plan which must be considered, not the SP. (response to comments p 5). In response to the question as to why the city is pressing forward with the SP, the city has responded that it "is obligated to review projects under CLQA, and consider potential impacts prior to approving or denying a project." (response to comments p 5.) Again, this response is not valid as the withdrawal of the SP means that the city has no obligation to review it at all. The city has contended that it is going to proceed with the SP adoption while concurrently reviewing the renovation plan. Aside from the fact that these two entitlements are inconsistent with one another, if the renovation plan is adopted and built, 91 the investment it will require (about $50 million) is not intended as a temporary "fix", but rather, as a permanent quality development. With that in place, the City can then develop an SP that includes the renovated fashion plaza, and that will provide guidance for future development of the surrounding area which is realistic in light of the City's development at the time. The concept that the renovation plan is a temporary "fix" pending demolition and reconstruction of a larger project dooms the project to failure as it would be impossible to obtain reasonable financing or quality tenants with such a temporary "fix". In light of the current economy and the submission of the renovation plan, Wessman is hereby requesting that the City, at a minimutn, continue consideration of the SP for a period of 90 days to allow for reasonable inspection and consideration of the renovation plan and how that plan and the SP differ so that a reasoned decision about the future direction of downtown can be made. The city is not hammed by delaying consideration of the SP. Adoption of the SP, in today's economic climate, will not trigger any immediate building activity on the site. To the contrary, the SP is not currently feasible and its adoption complicates and therefore slows down the possibility of the renovation plan. Given these facts, delaying consideration of the SP until it can be examined in light of the renovation plan does not slow down the revitalization of downtown and causes no harm to the city. On the other hand, if the SP is adopted (or one of the LIR alternatives), they are inconsistent with the renovation plan and therefore complicate its approval, financing and leasing. A Short delay in the adoption of the SP to consider how to avoid these negative impacts cannot hurt the city and is likely to help facilitate a quicker revitalization of downtown. lr JAN-14-2009 WED 01:4B PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. /bO 32b hB4B P. Ue Jt � � .i , _ '/' At t1Cq'rQund-about thete.will•l;e dsdp-dff poirita far ffiv retail psi ui �ha.exigtingd'ozmer � - . T.MTin spac�fatid %r anew theater io loe built in ire satiltwest partuiu aFtfie site. (See Attached Si* Pfan.)r Tholtw ratiofi Plan wili-incliide a complete, arelibbec Ural aevision ia, the eXistitig.structfiie as wells theemolition'regtitiredto create t dried str�etacapes and :✓ S;ontiges; for new�reStautahts�and retailers ali?tY the paseq: 1 he'bttly meek canstmetion _, � •- proposed• in'the Renavatign�'lan, would �e titre ccR{astr�tion �� a 151 scieen tlteitter at`We , u .. f - ` spufhwestetapaiiictt•oi`the sitg.. ° � � r ti y,= ' ' ,. � , . , .'Fhiir9li, which we sabr�tted`to ilie Gityin•April, 2QA8,1vas a visignary � ' , .'-�. r j approarlt to the areatiQn��a `ifesty)e' rceRtc......... in the Gity's dawAtowt;, and included - ;. hode�av•gxdurid 4aoz letarl'- r6stauraftts��Nitl�hig}t:r a coxidpriiinitiufs above. Titer r " pzo�ierty eneompassed.by.the a� inchided•the-e)uting Be9ertTashiioi1 Plaza, the Tf ftl & Y �auut}y Cetfter, t1�6 vac�al Tat ndjacentto l es i%alleiitismnd S4C.pat9tiszg afea fi5rtlie Plaza Y ,lvl6adn`. 'If appioved and implemented the S1' eallFd fbf the ftmo inn o£tha eiristitr, - Desert ]Ghion Rimpnnd-the existing l 1op'space undeegtzuand parRin'g - • -,r, � ,) '' . �`, '' Since`sula�dttiltgrthe Rpplicati6p fai`thp 9P; wehgyfhee�iworigng' , d�enthtq onan BiLviiomftental 1t1 4tp i iort E11 ') for #heproject _tly with Ci lOvusneatvphich3s'Garrentlyavailable for pubb&review \ But in tite interim -the WOP14� its devasta' t on the hstisin uiarke changed: hE erA�is,inthe•oieditmafrlceC ,' tif�g itri�au g 1 tie failiirp of�everul•pf the•coitntr s stajor fnancial'ingtiitrtiotts, tfiedr9p in cb�osuzaez: ' cnn deuce (sm'° Busirte Sec on 1S7Z%O;� apd free-€alli�g�to4ck rnarket'hav� alf ' edntriGut d'to alting.e istirxgdeSe tP jects7arritd-eo�etrugtionhn lceepin entitled projpct9 froru• eydr breaking graluid. '. We avkuflie pose sshion Plaza free and Gleah and have a Iong 6d ` .. •:,.;� _:"sucaessfu�•`cier0lopntenthi�torydnPa 5ptiiigsthat�tteliulas'tlle:ayvardghri�iidgPlaza� ',^ � - . Mra ido. 'ill, 'the W essman cor ip,es bdm and cowrol mdze than a million sgttare' feet of dam(erciai a,ad'ret'a'el o� bE . Iu toda�s eeonq�uic climate however, veri with a -- y� :. • V • ' dey61 er th that kcvcl of'streiigth, the 5naitcing aeeded'toimplement a projecF n� theme' ` - v �nagr`urnlde of the.SP�vauld.tlat l�lcelytie availab)e in the'fateseeable future. . Y Coriside;utg the carzmt ecoz}ainic'climate and -the City's desire that the ` downtown,r4italizatibn proceed as soon as possibtc„t ie_t e5 fi�a OI .Plan is'tlae)beLat approsah because? ' h:e'SP and each off ,lesser intrr`tise alte+rn dves,studjr4 in the Specific flan J r EIR have sigtii•Scantregidenggl cpmportents which were to act.av ituportant "$conoiriic ' engines" for the prd)ect. With t&e catxe"nt drgp in t$e houging p4., , lack cif,credit r, ' availabxl andpeat up sbigRy;.it is now uijlikely,thg (lose residential units could Ibe ; y bzonght'oniline within the foreseeable future: 'Without the residenthd units, neit�er the,, SP nor tlieleisser ihmiq, abmiatives can begin. - • - :- internal courtyard limit its viability for a retail or restaurant site. Renovation therefore requires extensive investment in a building that cannot command the type of quality tenant needed to justify the investment. Adaptation of the building under these conditions is not economically feasible and will not occur. 4. Less Intense Alternative A (the Nexus Plan) —This alternative's infeasibility is exaggerated as compared to the SP as it attempts to spread the extensive costs of the project over a small number of residential units, making those units dramatically unmarketable. Further, this alternative takes more than 55,000 square feet of the most valuable retail land in the city and uses it for a park. This is puzzling in that the alternative fails to discuss who will own and maintain this park. As recently reported in the Desert Sun, this City was forced to sell its Redevelopment Agency about S50 million worth of property in order to try and cover a nearly S1 million budget deficit. Last year I was personally involved in negotiating the buy out of the golf course management contracts from Arnold Palmer Golf management because the City said it could not afford to continue to pay the costs for the golf courses under those contracts. In light of these budget concerns, it is inconceivable that the City would consider taking on the maintenance of yet another park in the downtown area. If the City doesn't maintain this "central park" then its maintenance will fall to the property owners within the Museum Market Plaza —the retailers and condo owners who would have to pay for this maintenance as part of their common area charges. This burden would make both the tondo's and the retail space less attractive and less marketable, as well as placing an unfair burden on those property owners to maintain a park which is essentially a city facility. The energy and water demands associated with maintenance of the park are not fully analyzed in the EIR and must be considered before conclusions can be reached as to the enviromnental impacts of this alternative. The City already experiences a significant problem with congregation of homeless people at several of the existing City parks. Creating the park contemplated by this alternative is likely to encourage such congregations in the downtown area. This alternative also exemplifies poor land use in the sense that the property abutting the O'Donnell Golf Course which features the property"s best views of the golf course and the mountains, is wasted on a parking garage. The grocery store included in this alternative is situated so that the "back of house" must face either the Desert Museum or Tahquitz Canyon Way. In either case, such an orientation creates an eye -sore in locations intended for quality development. Staff Recommendation —The staff report recommends adoption of a specific plan which arbitrarily reduces building heights and the number of residential units while increasing the number of hotel rooms to 600. In making these reductions, staff has provided absolutely no information as to how these recommendations were arrived at and what, if any, analysis was done to determine if the proposed recommendations are feasible economically or physically. Reducing the number of residential units to 300, as suggested by staff, makes the project economically infeasible, as 300 units is insufficient to bear the economic burden necessary to bring the recommended project to reality. Furthermore, the 60 foot height limit recommended by staff makes their recommendation of 600 hotel rooms a physical impossibility. With retail/restaurant uses intended for the ground floor, and those users requiring higher ceilings, the ground floor takes a platform of approximately 20 feet. Each floor of hotel rooms will take an additional 12 feet of height, and therefore, within the staff s suggested 60 foot limit, a maximum of three stories of hotel rooms are possible. There is insufficient space to fit 600 hotel rooms within 3 floors on the 1 tccrc� l Se ck site. For example, the City has previously approved the Ylei�ierrf3 eat 499 rooms, on 10 acres with a height of 100 .feet. Here, staff is recommending as many as 100 more hotel rooms, plus ground floor retail and an extensive street grid in buildings that are 40 feet shorter. It is simply not physically possible to achieve this density and therefore the staff recommendation is unrealistic and infeasible. 8 Why Wessman is the right developer Wessman has been consistently criticized for delaying in renovation of the project, and city officials have openly stated their intention of seeking a condemnation action to place the property in the hands of another developer. Aside from the fact that such a transfer of assets does not constitute a public purpose, particularly in light of the fact that Wessman has submitted an application for renovation of the property, such an action is also counterproductive to the city and its merchants. Wessman currently owns the Fashion Plaza free and clear of encumbrances. This places him in the unique position of being able to begin the renovation project upon obtaining construction financing only. Any other developer who acquires the property would have to finance not only construction but also land acquisition. The value of the parking garage alone, not counting the land and buildings above it, has been established at approximately $32 million by an MAI appraisal done in Rine, 2008, This plus the additional value for land and buildings would burden any other developer with an enormous cost that Wessman would not have to pay. As a result, the feasibility of Wessman being able to complete the renovation project is far greater than the likelihood of a new developer being able to finance both acquisition and construction in today's tight market. The Fashion Plaza is a difficult piece of property to develop. Its promixity to the mountains cuts off the demographics for customers of the site, placing in at the extreme end of the market rather than central to it. The difficulty of making the site work was painfully illustrated when Edward DeBartolo, then the largest shopping center developer in the could not make the project work and lost it in foreclosure. Since that time, two other major developers have purchased the property and attempted to make it work, only to resell it again. Unlike those developers who never had done work in Palm Springs, Wessman has been a mainstay of development in this community for over 30 years. In the last 20 years, Wessman has been the largest private landowner in the city and the only developer that has developed a successful shopping center in the downtown area (Plaza Mercado which won state wide awards for the quality of its design.) Because of his long, successful history in this community, Wessman understands the community and what makes a successful development here —knowledge that out of town developers do not possess. Wessman currently owns and controls more than 1 million square feet of commercial space, giving Trim a unique pipeline to tenants and a thorough understanding of what features tenants demand. Furthermore, Wessman has successfully financed projects in Palm Springs in the past and has a proven track record with lenders in this area. No out of town developer can bring this experience to the project, and therefore the likelihood that a stranger to the community will successfully finance an ambitious project on this difficult parcel is small at best. W JAN-14-2009 WED 01:48 PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. 760 326 5848 Pr 04 — Wpseman Plazf ` ,Temecula West — Palm9pri ga _ � r The`C6ntal` ' pVCOPM�IdiEpMPANY , Promana Plaza Moroado- Canyon Plaza Canyon Blaza'Ndrth and a'buth ~ • _ ,11 , r _ uslnese Park ' S'hopplilg•CBntera Plaza al Sol y '• ' f ',; 1 Tahqult7 Mesa Villa- .I Date Palm 5quarea .,�Plucilloux Plaza. I -' •- - W f •In to Plaza plaza Ia�SQFl2res� ' j, + / •• Halsiwa Soe'sj, " ' - Tahquitz squam y,• L Rancho sin',Paglo Plaza at Sunriss•I, � - . -� Barigtp Plaza �- ' ; : . '. •• ti Nov ember7, 2008 • ' Czaig Ewing 1> H:tNIlMiWERED City dpalni, Spunr55 „ - 32OD $. Tahguttz`Canyon Way v; ! 'Palm 5lprings, CA 92Zi52 . _ All M]LIr vegmMarkeCAlpza z .. ,I �'y• ,DeatCraig: ~� �,.• •I ,`� `I ., ._ � . 'y' � _, jpz k, tgltt of the recent uupreaedented drops in the finangial,'credit'nad J ikott� (tDg marketg, W`rasnan Devglo end Isar se e7[a pitted the ppssible itYsiug for &V!61bpiflekttbf1%Mtisetun ketP�a�aspec}£taplan °i 1"�whiclkth4Cityis C=enft, zek*iewmgg.�Tbat re-examination shows that if we proceed with the SP as proposea it i;iM bA many year before ti7e revitalisation pf Fioz+ratoypn Palm (Spring --- s will . Wirlilp•irre r)ecognize that the City wants to movefozw+{td quickly witli ' adoption \of a pan f& dngvutown, Aye holidve tha, is biporttaat tfigftlta plan grpted b�/ on&wbichcanbeimplenignted�shoneraatherfh�nlaternotQvitjis andingihracurrent Understanding the Cityi"s`neeq td seg the revitalization bf downtovvANOcnur as quickly as possible, and in ligh bftkt lewrit itnpreced0nted d6Wmtfirn in the economy, v Wes.xniimDavelopmept'intendatdpto&ed.withdevelment opotamare-hwoWlyfocused r ieovation plan, for the-e3tistingJ)esiert Fasbioi<Pletza. 1 I. , y Tk?e naW plan (R;Povation Plan ),,which wds previnwed at a Septembrpr, • ' I ,,. 2068'lnternational Confeienoe of Sliapping,G`enter iDi velopers ("ICSC") iu gan,Diego, retains jnost l0f the L? iI wl )exert Fashion Plaza stract re, but Yen!i6ves an aisle of tho 1 , buil ivg, cte�itinp a roadway' at.apprpximatcly the extis�.ng niaE.entiancet going west to 1 a- rdund-about aui then turuin� south j ito,t&:axistiug surface'�arkinglot: The roadway- _ i+3eated would rovide for titvo-Wan y traffic With rdtail ira`ti ge and brolad'pedesRr an -' access on liethsides: The stxcct would be' Oed with retP2 apd sdstamint uses designed- ; With varleCstreetscapes frontag�s tq create ayi"ei vitiugrpaseo thatiuvjtes4he visitor,\ -1, 300. S: PALM QANl/ON DRIVII OPAW SPRINGS, CA 92?PP - PHONE'(760) 325,3050, FAX, U80) 325.6f48 JAN-14-2009 WED 01:4B PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. /bO 32b hB4B P. Ue Jt � � .i , _ '/' At t1Cq'rQund-about thete.will•l;e dsdp-dff poirita far ffiv retail psi ui �ha.exigtingd'ozmer � - . T.MTin spac�fatid %r anew theater io loe built in ire satiltwest partuiu aFtfie site. (See Attached Si* Pfan.)r Tholtw ratiofi Plan wili-incliide a complete, arelibbec Ural aevision ia, the eXistitig.structfiie as wells theemolition'regtitiredto create t dried str�etacapes and :✓ S;ontiges; for new�reStautahts�and retailers ali?tY the paseq: 1 he'bttly meek canstmetion _, � •- proposed• in'the Renavatign�'lan, would �e titre ccR{astr�tion �� a 151 scieen tlteitter at`We , u .. f - ` spufhwestetapaiiictt•oi`the sitg.. ° � � r ti y,= ' ' ,. � , . , .'Fhiir9li, which we sabr�tted`to ilie Gityin•April, 2QA8,1vas a visignary � ' , .'-�. r j approarlt to the areatiQn��a `ifesty)e' rceRtc......... in the Gity's dawAtowt;, and included - ;. hode�av•gxdurid 4aoz letarl'- r6stauraftts��Nitl�hig}t:r a coxidpriiinitiufs above. Titer r " pzo�ierty eneompassed.by.the a� inchided•the-e)uting Be9ertTashiioi1 Plaza, the Tf ftl & Y �auut}y Cetfter, t1�6 vac�al Tat ndjacentto l es i%alleiitismnd S4C.pat9tiszg afea fi5rtlie Plaza Y ,lvl6adn`. 'If appioved and implemented the S1' eallFd fbf the ftmo inn o£tha eiristitr, - Desert ]Ghion Rimpnnd-the existing l 1op'space undeegtzuand parRin'g - • -,r, � ,) '' . �`, '' Since`sula�dttiltgrthe Rpplicati6p fai`thp 9P; wehgyfhee�iworigng' , d�enthtq onan BiLviiomftental 1t1 4tp i iort E11 ') for #heproject _tly with Ci lOvusneatvphich3s'Garrentlyavailable for pubb&review \ But in tite interim -the WOP14� its devasta' t on the hstisin uiarke changed: hE erA�is,inthe•oieditmafrlceC ,' tif�g itri�au g 1 tie failiirp of�everul•pf the•coitntr s stajor fnancial'ingtiitrtiotts, tfiedr9p in cb�osuzaez: ' cnn deuce (sm'° Busirte Sec on 1S7Z%O;� apd free-€alli�g�to4ck rnarket'hav� alf ' edntriGut d'to alting.e istirxgdeSe tP jects7arritd-eo�etrugtionhn lceepin entitled projpct9 froru• eydr breaking graluid. '. We avkuflie pose sshion Plaza free and Gleah and have a Iong 6d ` .. •:,.;� _:"sucaessfu�•`cier0lopntenthi�torydnPa 5ptiiigsthat�tteliulas'tlle:ayvardghri�iidgPlaza� ',^ � - . Mra ido. 'ill, 'the W essman cor ip,es bdm and cowrol mdze than a million sgttare' feet of dam(erciai a,ad'ret'a'el o� bE . Iu toda�s eeonq�uic climate however, veri with a -- y� :. • V • ' dey61 er th that kcvcl of'streiigth, the 5naitcing aeeded'toimplement a projecF n� theme' ` - v �nagr`urnlde of the.SP�vauld.tlat l�lcelytie availab)e in the'fateseeable future. . Y Coriside;utg the carzmt ecoz}ainic'climate and -the City's desire that the ` downtown,r4italizatibn proceed as soon as possibtc„t ie_t e5 fi�a OI .Plan is'tlae)beLat approsah because? ' h:e'SP and each off ,lesser intrr`tise alte+rn dves,studjr4 in the Specific flan J r EIR have sigtii•Scantregidenggl cpmportents which were to act.av ituportant "$conoiriic ' engines" for the prd)ect. With t&e catxe"nt drgp in t$e houging p4., , lack cif,credit r, ' availabxl andpeat up sbigRy;.it is now uijlikely,thg (lose residential units could Ibe ; y bzonght'oniline within the foreseeable future: 'Without the residenthd units, neit�er the,, SP nor tlieleisser ihmiq, abmiatives can begin. - • - :- JHIN-14-000y WCl1 U114U FII WG00IIM11 ULVLLUr11C1Y1 fM IYU. IVU JLJ Ju4u t. UU By contrast, the Renbvafiolp Plan.focv�Cs only on rqn&` atiou of•the,existing Desert Fashion Plaza and has no rrdsidential eomf PnOtI, f Ttis therefbte t,dt Aep6sEnt bn • � `, • ,,,r .tte revital�ration-of�ht e�esideiitittfpnarjcet. � , '• _ '� .1'-. � � .,. , � ". ut The sheer mit¢obille of the' Sp.and, ach ofIlie lesser utr c slterjlatives Y disaassed•W,60 Mwpuld thelarge''fhe - -project, thegreatcr the.dmi the �ore'diit iaalt io &d finat[ciY�g zu Ah alreazly imps' Wb],y ~ tilltsiarlset, TJsoRenovatldn PlitiS deals only with t1i existing Desert FaShioq Plana pmpetty, and l�ops'no'C addres�s.the toida � Country Property, -the lot gdjaceat tb Les. �. Vnllenus ( 4 pf he iq`rrn2kly Vwpased?alm Rdtel) ;ar.the"1?laxa Mercado Parking A:rea..1 _ �- -�'he ltetiovlltion�Ptati, as-compgted,ld•th;`le-SP 4s the lessen intense altetnative9 54udiedin l , ' •, -.f � the E]3tf4�vvuicirequire �ucilless iiti'dno➢n�; anii wool$;th�•ret5re•Ue�easihlexntlrjh seoncr.', Tlie: Zenovafl@z1Plan•pteaeives the existing 110p space parking =cute: .�` ;g`1tltQut considwiii;the viltiE bf tUe I�ud and;otjier buildings on the nits, the clue n£the 1tt - PgLY0e was ecentlys 'et b` an M,4I a iatsaT at $3 a itt the; Cost_. to rep%dq itis estimated at$pj�eoxiingttiAylly $40 mrllian, Bpr'esevsing thu existing, i r _ Jdrltiug; sttuoture; the ltenovatipt41?lail agq caritly t� daces the prolod's cost.ps �oippared tv the,�P or the 1�sset uiteti'se gltematives; arul pfovides bpoly aeeded,l &a ng •1nrtheldowntAEvp'go The'Rena'vati'onPlanwill-befar l as disisiptivo to tlia dn�✓ntawasr�a.RsAt . ' �inc�l do far Tesi'dern4itidn and cotistrda6ciii �an, eould l��rintioipatecl with ,,4i zer.the'SP- "• nr'any iif the leased intense alteraatVes'spudiedhk theEIR ' _ • TIi� Kenot atiplai> ac}�ii vesthe basic gbjec{tves nftiie SF;in kliat'it cregta& , ' f vitiaT•evterinclpding•re�ail�staurant.and.entexjahturentuges in et an aarciting>'syaeCgiStiq� :' _ y eonment Thexreati6 'of the new eAftestzr6adway wip create the dasitedl visual_'' ` eop_nectivn.to the Wseum wbIk dentin WAX citing'Owpm' g environmentEbel _ • 1. � . - � 4' endvatid� Plan.does `not ine'ltide residental;devsl;opbxept; its pioposed theater ared�tes, `• affi'cinto the projecp nd1'.tive gas`dwesfstre�t gives,tha retailers: strFet'frontage---oF of ` F`a ,; ' _ tltc i�iings lackittgan �c sriginal I7as�rt •Paehiori Plaza: ,' ': � J ' rl � •. The R'enovatiott'lan 7tas already gepe atkd signi&ca4tt interest fitim major users _ "tvhozare` looking fdr pxtrjects "h can come. vn•lipe sooner.xather jtau latex. • -' � .. ' ti . • . Tiie &eaovatiga Plan wopld not increase,building-�tciglits on'the'existitr'�, � ~ . _ r s4wwre5. The pJt P&A neVv-ffieiw, •'buiId*_ not. exce would ed tits heighf• of the•xipw Geneia F Lin, ma �� iuldin lieigh t7u9>i�houf the prale siggif c rrtTy le s thA{tha cgntttiuergia]'high=rjse b_q>idoininiums ptdgosed in.the SP aqd tTie lesser'intense _ attematives utudx'e3 izi the FIR. r r ` - By focusing oi7ay on the xenovatioh Of the C{ iat ng Deqett Fas}uon Plaza and)iy . ." eliminating high gs�developmetFt, the Regpvation�lan cari go forward withdutheige, -mired iiu Coptroversp related to building heigjit por other impacts xaised iai *e Specific unn a•i cuum w�u uA-9J III WLori n vL U LLVI IILPII III/1 11vo Ivv vLv .wu w L. vi -] M1 • i -, r - • J• I , r l l ~ ,.. it F ` ` Ptan's E1 'ibis will assure that the entitlement is brplace sopPer and al]•ow. ^ ` • deveIepmen{to pxoceedsooner.- �^.: ly ~ f • Tbe-Renoilaticn Plea, bekause of ita'limit�d demelition, limited constrn'ction- ' n and arnallex seal as comparl dito the' SP or tho to§s'intenso 41t=4aves•studied in the !,EW, Will havieless irn l a:ets in nearly all axcas;ancludiu$ but no't 1YmMd to air quality, isaffib, noise,, aesfhetics gaadtal`tnral resources. We believe thatif tl{e revitalizatioti effort in]ldm Springs is to be r ` successtful, itmust be done'with ft novative,tht and an uadarsta�ing of tIre..: - marketplace both•wRh rospectto &ancing 2ind-pr'ospecd4e consti�S. )Vhile,the SP wouI4 re'pre$entan eitUiordfnarytrariefe ation bf the downtown, its shear inaOir%tuFle ane that ii is nqt• �cely� tole'feae_ibl�for'anj ke--until a very heplthysebMind in flie credit and hoiiping markets`occurs W4 flays held the City's call' for renovation of the dova4o4boner ratheilthan•later: 'F'he approval of the SP pr aiay of theless.inteiise . ." wn•altCIM ves girdled in the )tvuilJ o achieue [iat,objective in today?s financial market: - We have also,hoard the cor 6s expr6W itrforinally tlgus,far-oi Ahe SP. ` We have alsoreceived verygo�sitive reactioAs.from those in the - _ c omuiunitywho have rgview9d the;Renovatian flan, an4 tlibrgfore, are will bee submitting M1 an apphcafion_ for anorchitectuxal m6difiga4on of the Desert Fashicn.pIaza'ia,order td' . ~ - unplement tho;Renovation Tan. From 4jtr cedural•stand tioint eve believe bat tba best ` _ - approuchin this-zasee is to spVeh4,proce`ssiug'gf-the e n{this time sad {nqus our.e farts " ronthe'developmddand-submiesindinf&htarchitecturalmodificatGi. 'direbelievethis. cduld;lieprop�rlj�grocessedwithafnegatWe.declaratioitUnderGE(�A4 , dthereforetl* , resulting. delay, -would not be significaut3 especially in limit ofthe drprent economic -. .: �1rG1n119tance.9. � - _ {- - - -• _ w � � IMV cgtina hs wrWilling "llow that. process:and,,-v shes •tp prdceed h..' witkihe SP anaTysis; tbenve will be subini 6s ap ariaendea andiestated SP •'u`v ich will ` modify the Desert Fashion Plaza portion of tU SP-to w afotan tq the R-enovatiottFla2 _ Tease advise us'at your earliest convenimc;r. which approach you prefer so i}iaC,pve racy -direct opr efforts aceorcfingly. _ r ; ohn Wessuran ' , L � f NORTH MUS r CAHURIA ROAD y 4 a - ���� - - a � f — — S.Be-ARDORO. � I r i r Museum Market Plaza 123 NoM palm Canyon DINS ' FWrnSprbpg Cablemia IVE iNOR TH PALM g 'CANYON _DRIVE 1 � I I NORTH DELARDO ROAD G a 02 o I I g a �N 3 WlllldA 3NAQQ�•IQC81IECi Ail HIM IDI un IIO In nu,LLU31m,mn ulwua�nn nuirrn _ I Desert Fashion Plaza WE55MAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY p a l m s p r i n g s t [ a l i F o r n i a » oaatcr1 zuoo ` 2 N r izxv f' NnX 11 I..........Nw_ _ _ _ L�• ... _µ _..�.• L - '.c��iiZc!.T �i i - 'J .mF. _ ... II'T in• , ^f:�`, ...a i1F :�1" ,:`R'a't-(•��:: .. � i •�.' rail .. _ i ::.1 ;�jJ'•:^F':. ..- V=- -"fin � �ti r• T �_ ��:� �. � � � � � � n . � _r'r— _ . ra'. -� J•iri. __ _ - _=..:'r.: :'•.- _ _ !�'., - _ s::�-d "-- - _- -`s � �c. "��' JAN-14-2009 WED 01:47 PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. 760 325 5848 W4asman Plaza 7eme ula West palm' Springs The Cen4er i DEV ELQPKAENT COMPANY Promenade r )Plaza Mercado I I I 04rlybn Plaza Canyon p12z1 North'and South i I Business Park • Shopping `CenYars Plaza del Sol ,` t \, _ �• r l ,. Aahqult ,Musa Villas .�•Qaiq Palm Square 'Rutitlqux Plaza Indio Plaza' Plaza Fas Flores . , r Halelwa'doe's f J Tahquitz Squaro Rancho San Patio ;l _ T Plaza at.Sunrlse Slarislo Plaza Decegiber 2; 2DOa 4 Craig'Fw�ti� r qty ofPalmuspririgs, r , ' _ f til s I 3200E TahguitzCanyon Way Palu}16riugs, CA 9226Z r u l t RE: Museum Market;Plaza •r l7earlvlr Ewlpg: , L �1,% you know, �Vessrmn Development, currently has pending,befo!re the r City., the MuseumMarket Plaza Specific khan:. In recent wee(lcs; dargelyas the:'result.of the4ltama4c chanps in'tho housing, credit an$ finati'ciaY markets;,we.have advised'tlia City -that it'is oiir intent to move forward\at this time vvrth.a md,e focused redevCliVraeni ' plan that would tatgetthe rdpid revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza C'PFP'% and' leave processing of a Specific Y16 for W4*iA n s other d'gwn'0 }properties 0. be cousiderL after the DPP renov�d= i5 appr6ded, : We advised you of our intentions in a r 'letter dated Noyembex .7, 200& ;Tn fat letter, we explainedihat the most exlaedierit vFay .; e DFP would be to �n, rocess 1lr view proposed o`f moving forward the renovation of th project ("ltenovatidriPlaii"j as an architectural moditcatioTo ach4eve'ihatabjeeiive; plea" a&adeept this letter M formal notificatioti of our withdrawal of the Specific Plan at ^ this tine. Aitachcd please fit the'site plan that we are wgxking'with ou the . "d proposed ];temo�ation Elan, as well tip o6uceptual architectural; drawings for the•pzajact; _ Wessman pevelopinent hghiredtl e architecturaf fizm of Allen+ Philp of Scottsdal_ , 4Z, and that fiFin'is currently yvarlcirig• on refitting'the concephral' drawings so that'a — forrca), submiuion can be made ta6the City a� SQ= as possibler, i 11to Renovation Flan is one,'that if approved; could i'esiilt inrevitalization, of {he DFk mf xh sooner, ereby lending mp& needed suporr to true City,s downtown r :area and other dowiitowm mer4apisi • lu our4etter prNovdmb'er 7th, we provided extensive detail on why, the Renovation Plan is the betreapproach at this point (A copy 300 5: PALM CANWQN DRIVE -PALM SPRING$, CA 9 262 % PI LONE (760)_825-3050 FAX (76D) 325-5648 JAN-14-2009 WED 01:4B PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX N0, 76D 325 5B48 P, 02 ofn}yNovember 71h0etter is aitacbedforyour review, We requesttl at copies ofttte• "November 7th letter and this lorter be placed in the_prnjegt record.) _ = The City response tgour suggestion of the `E 6ovatiap Plan has been to say chat the City intends to move forward v i1 the SpiwiFc Phan iwless we can submit the, ait hitecturaa 12dirCation immediately:. While we recognize the.City's desire to move ` _ -forward as. so6n.as possible, we believe that the focal -gins of the Ciiy'a downtown r revitalization 4eierues'moze than a hurr7ed appioach to.design. W� are thexoiorc providing Yatit.rvith thex6nceptua4(idrawings so that you can review put progress,, however, we are wofting with the architects to structure the best architectural . moth mtion-possible, and will ssubmit•the- application formally whep.that work:•is ` We have been -advised duet the Laity intends to adopt a Specific Plan without regard to'whytlt6t*e -submit the RenCvvaii6n'Plan. We believe that, .to•do so -at_. _ ? this -time does nhtj�irig tti.move�ort%r`td the revitalization of the dorvuto�yn area;-6nd,may' , 1 v in fact, slow-&t prbeessdown. A'Speci�c Plah'adgpted in accordpn e'with out pt'elious - ` `- y application, or etc alternatives studCedln-the project EIR will aof aomform,to or r - ` accommodate the Renovation Plan for several reasons. First, the'Reuovaton�'1an use The existing parking structure while tlta SpedificPlarrand.theEIR z��tematives all call for`. ' removal oftlre pandas si"cture. Second, the streets in1h� Renova�tton Islari differ significantly Ifom t'bc'str'eels shown on'the 5peci5c Plan and the LIR alterrlatitil s. ^ r` �PherePore, iFthe dity'06pts-floe Specific.Plan or the lesser ifitcrise alternatives stitdied`in • ' '; the EIR "then when we,bring, in the R0iovatinn Plan',, to approve that.plin, -the City would _ needt6do•aSpecificPlau-Ame`n&2ni. This;increasestheproces'singueededt�omake - the Renovation Plan work, it does not decrease it.. 1 If the City insists on approving,a`Specific Plaebaped an;our previous, ,• application or he ahematives•stt died in_tbzEIR, we are-all-awat'e'that•certain controversial elements exist, namely, building)eights,_fatp of the Town & Couhtry;. Center and use of the site formerly approved for•the Patin Hotel. 'Based on the - information we'ha'4ereccived-,to date, ikebalieye that these controversial elements raise, a r -very high likelilhooa that the Specific PIah viill be_subject to 4 CEQA challenge. Any possibjjity for renovation or leasing up of a reaovat-ed or ieVdilt downtewit will be - 4 delayed fqrjthe duration of that CEQA: chdII&S'e, if, iriste4 we withdraw t& Specific Plan, aid focus otdy an the Renovation Plau, ive'believe there is little Mcelihood'ol a CEQA tlhalleitge. Ibis would allow us to proceed•rvith }ease 4 ,vf the hew project rail ierr- = r than haViggId wait while we rare being eacumbeied by pending litigot mo •. _ We have presented the Renovation Plan.to groups of zjtercjranls s itali business owners and o eiators inane U and thus f have been,'oof wit _. }t4 P tisr P x ar t�� . univefsal support. The community sees the Renovation Plan.as one w�ich is feasible, will achieve the obj eetiVes i'oi downtown revitaiizaiion, `attd will'do so in � ,hay that` ` miniiuizes the di'srupti_oti to•,the;downtowu: -- r - .. _ 1 i'\ � . � '�. I 1 - 1. � Y � •I`, . L is 1 JAN-14-2009 WED 01:48 PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. 760 325 5848 P. 03 The City has laid tha6tintends to movebrw4a`� rtft't{re Specific Plan in'., ' reorder to provide guidancc for-¢cuVn own devclop�ent. However,•we Haveseviowed the ti r staff teporCand have Mound thavin nearly every case, staff s recommeatla ion into reduc0 4 `tlhe s -fi ifi'c.P7an to pt within the'currently zoned and'orwitted devejWinenf standards. If thg City intends to folf wst�ff zoning and downto - r guidf liunes dteady "provklk',gL adance"' for'dovd a Specific•21an- , ` wlvch simply reiterates those standazas aodeves nothing, ti , ,ram••. � ,`i_ ..-ry,, --4•, � r: •_,�• -- .., `r' _ _,�� '-- -�_ r • ; - ' Tn v✓idtdrawing the 5pecifin Pan, •ot office doeslropL do so lightly J r Wussmari.iaevelopmezzt has spent couidcss hours aild nearly a half million -dollars bringing {he Sjpecitxc Plan audits tm-tc the City: Despite that 4nvdstmeirt, it is clear to . - 't}s Xhai Fhe dramatic changes iii 1be worl markets �bsoluteky'mandate that we review a"nd . , adjgst our plans for surccess in•today's(rriarket, not the'nnarkei of a yeaz ogo., = ..- 1 I - ./. if;we•sirnply letthe'specitic Pljinlgo throiighthe Cityprocess, we not. onlyl _ ena up wtih plan %at doot not conform to the Rqridvatiop Platf,,>�titnny"apptoval of the-'- y•I _ Specific.Plauis likely to be sµbjeGti:to elta�lepge,.under I QFi •Such a'C�f�A.swt will eat- I away at imst:,an adatttional year aud.will.cost �odsands btldollarslt djend. Criv,Gn tb•3t „ - we intend t6 promptly move kWard with $ire ftovatiQii Plan, essman I7evelopmant - ia.i>fiwilling-to •bear e•co'st and burden of a L`'11QA Wt challenging a,SpeGiSc glad `r which will note feasible for manly years. . We believe That the City want"action sooner rather tharrlater and "therefore we believe that's plan'that %sfeaaiblc ndw; allows foz'suture expan ion- r - k I . 4, ;opportii[uties indgwntown and aohievcS•the PiD, pity sue, tali2�tion-oijeciives fpi.6 a _ without siPi ce�nnt litigation risks is the hestaPpraach 9 or the City qt this Lime. 1?or ihis,r@ason, we- are with4iawirig the �pecific''L?lan and will be brjdj" 9 ' 'a-fial, foimai, / submissiD •€or the architeotaral'atodificittion.pf the DF� inene near:fuLu[e. •VJe hive also ' -advised the 1 M cons iltatit of this witV tawal•and'iustructed-'them that�essman _ Devekoptueut will nat`•be responsible -fob• ft AU worlr ou'dat doepment in cannect on . -• ' withth-e.pr6cegsingI)fi SpecifiFplan -. — 1�y .i_�( - — ,�_ •w �,r 1. ,i - ; .. '�, _ , ,d9hnVTegsruan{ 1\ � .� .� `�•- - - - • • Attachments:' :� \ 1!. " .` ,. 4, �� •r , ` > ". '_ � „ �' I _ I - - Novembar 7, 20WLettez Revised"Site Piad�'r r _ ' •_; - ' f .I Pizst B�evR ion Scheme }aatik 3f America r ,r "lrxisting^$an%OF.P merica r_ \ ' • - _ / -- __ . _ .., ice. _ c- ,�. .I .• 7if FAX TRANSMISSION CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD, SUITE 205 SANTA MONICA, C ALIFORMA 90405-3219 TP1:(310)314-8040; F= (310) 314-1050 EMAM; ACM(§C9CK MTHLAW.COM To: I Palm Springs City Council Fax #: (760) 323-8207 From; Amy Minteer Subject: Museum Market Plaza Project Date: January 14, 2009 Pages: 3, including this cover page Confidential Information If there are any problems With this transmalsslon, alease call 010)314-9040 COMNWNTS: d l/ its--J ZOOS �M P- 1'C1 ncnr2rcnrn rn"imp •-•••-• ••- c/a College of Erigireoring, A=hlteciure, and Computer Solences Howard Unlver9ty - School of Architecture and Design 2366 6+e Sheet, N.W. — Room 100 Washington, D.C. 2M9 202,686.27W vnvw,nama,r f �avr*iinxqri January 12, 2009 tisr.�� Avwi, "phN• AIM1 rr se�`neuae.��"Nla'M: TO: Palm Springs City Council oeneN FAq.rN)M1Y{• Fl1M1 r+wlnwl "oMM1 From: Wesley Henderson, Ph,D., AIA, NOMA s.rsF Lecturcron the History of Architecture at Florlda A&M University cn,y,�e, xe.r.wlwt wr Architectural Historian Why D ,%Nq ,HA .rrMa�A rang.+=. Annl�. RE: Town & Country Center by architects Paul R. Williams and A, Quincy Janes •mN.nw,gm,Norn� n...r. wmn.r rmsp.aw.at Nonu•nln Dear Council Members, nnwd.A.�n..w.,a cunlenYemnn,mm�.•.vn This letter is sent to represent the sentiments of the National Organization of Minority MoMA AUA4 oraA�M7AA ro�� mini Architectsl'm, who have over 600 members nationally. We support the efforts of the aAw Palm Springs Modern Committee and endorse their Ideas within the "Town and Mmwoi""' Country Center Preservation Alternative," which seek to preserve the Center, while cvinr ncn, roAu • AIw Arn.+N.a.r preserving opportunities for new commercial development. sa.A Iwn. Npyy, ,y Municipal governments are many times faced with making choices where Issues of the past have an Impact on the prusent and future. The elected officials who must make .rnorM "oar Nrwny 46", these choices are usually citizens who have an intuitive grasp of the value and significance of certain buildings that exist within their communities. It is manifest to many people that the Town and Country Center Is an excellent example of the late ur�wqu�.yf..p, N.kl"•°^'°er•"oM` Maderne style that makes an Important contribution to the historic character of downtown Palm Springs. it Is also manliest that Paul R. Williams and A QuintyJones, e.,,,,nh+ `,,Nc"x'n the architects of this 1948 complex, are of local and'natlonal reputation. The " Nadd�"'"tw N0-h=V obvious question Pacing members of the city council Is how to achieve a balance Aacwimm" between the pressures associated with redevelopment and the civic responslblllty to erdbn Wont lNF4.• AM a.wer1.0N.,*MW champion historic preservation. cwBON•mwaws hnenw.a WN ,, To lose the Town and Country Center would be in the same league as the Maslon House, designed by Richard Neutra and sadly lost to demolition In 2002. If a developer proposed tearing down houses designed by renowned architectJahn Lautner, such as Bob Hope's home and the Elrod house, there would be prompt recognition by bath preservationists and city leaders that their communitywas at risk of losing a Jewel. Ideally, an owner of a landmark property would understand all of The layers of value and significance that append to that property. it Is hoped that members of the Palm Springs City Council have such a grasp, While the current owners of the Town and Country Center may have withdrawn their demolition plans, It is a worry that without substantive local protection, future activity may not be so benign, A great opportunity exists now for the City Council to use the legal powers thPt It possesses to guide development In a positive direction, which In my opinion, includes historic preservation of the Center. The members of the National Organization of Minority Architects view Paul R. Williams As an Inspirational figure, and are committed to the preservation of as many of his Page 2 works as possible. Paul R. Williams (1894-1980) was a noted and successful architect who happened to be African American. Regrettably, NOMA notes that there are few comparable figures In American history. Over many years, Williams mentored and Inspired youth of all races to become architects, and his story continues to Inspire people today. Williams' list of works Is very long and Includes many landmarks In southern California, and across the nation. A few examples Include the Palm springs Tennis Club, of which there are beautiful photographs taken by Julius Shulman that appear In the blography authored by Williams' granddaughter, Karen Hudson; the Spaceship - like Theme Building at LAX Airport; Arrowhead Springs Hotel near San Bernardino; the interiors and additions to Saks Fifth Avenue stare in Beverly Hills, and an addition to the Beverly Hills Hotel. He became known as "architect to the stars" and the list of celebrities with whom he Is associated Is also long, Including Desl Arnaz and Lucille Ball, far wham Williams designed a Palm Springs home, which was the subject of more Shulman photographs. Other star clients for whom he designed homes Include Charles Correll (Amos of Amos and Andy); Bert Lahr (the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz) In Beverly Hills; Bill "Bojangles" Robinson In South Central Los Angeles, and Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, who purchased a Williams' home In Holmby Hills. A. QulncyJones (1913-1979) became a noted architect In his own right. He was Williams' associate on the Palm Springs Tennis club of 1947. He designed the Rancho Mirage home of Walter Annenberg in 1966. He designed several buildings for the University of Callfornla system on several campuses. He was an Influential educator at the University of Southern California (USC) between 1951 to 1967. retlring as Dean of Its School of Architecture. Wlklpedia, the on-line encyclopedia, describes Palm Springs as being noted for Its mid-century modem buildings. Also on the Internet are several websltes that feature the architecture of your commultlty, There is a strong Implication that there are architectural tourists, who visit your community to see the featured works of John Lautner, Albert Frey, Richard Neutra, and the Eichlers. The architectural resources located within the city of Palm Springs are significant, and have been recognized as such. We are most hopeful that the works of Paul R. Williams and A. QulncyJones will be Included among this pantheon of treasures. Sincerely, ramleX110A, -.*/ R. Steven Levels, NOMA, AIA 2009-1 O NOMA President FOR WESLEY HENDERSON, Ph.D., AIA, NOMA To: The Palm Springs Planning Commission Re: Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Hearing December 3, 2008 From: The Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization Our neighborhood organization is very much concerned about the future of the former Fashion Plaza property. Not only is the Desert Fashion Plaza our immediate neighbor but its impacts are intricately intertwined with our neighborhood_ To start off we are in fall sunnort of a renovation rather than a total redevelopment. However, realizing that a specific Plan is needed in case a renovation does not move ahead we wish to make the following comments and suggestions. 1. Foremost the nroiect should be limited to its orieinal Fashion Plaza borders and all additions beyond Arose should be eliminated from the Specific Plan_ On July 15, 2008, in a letter to the Palm Springs City Council we clearly stated our position regarding our residential neighborhood boundaries. In so far as the Specific Plan for this commercial area is concerned we consider Tahquitz our northern border and Belardo our eastern one. a) Consequently the Wessman owned property located on the south-west comer of Cahuilla zoned R3 should not be included. b) The area behind the Mercado Plaza should also not be included. This landscaped parking area along Belardo has been traditionally considered a buffer zone to shield our small hotels from the Palm Canyon commercial area. 2. The sheer volume, density and height of the nr000scd nroiect with 955 condominiums. 620 hotel rooms and 400.000 square feet of commercial is unacceptable being totally out of scale with the area_ 3. Specifically Are nronosed 955 condominiums need a drastic reduction if not total elimination. We wish to point out the overbuilding in town with thousands of new units either unsold or in foreclosure. Furthermore there are already several unsuccessful mixed use projects along Palm Canyon_ The much touted concept of mixed use may be appropriate for big city living but it really does not make sense for a small resort town like Palm Springs where so many opportunities for residential living exist within a few blocks of Palm Canyon and people come here for a more leisurely experience. 4. Reeardina the nronosed 620 hotel rooms with an averaee 50% city occuuancv and many other nroiected hotels: why add more hotel rooms to be empty during much of the year 7 We do believe that there is opportunity here for a substantially scaled down high Quality boutique hotel. One of the great tragedies of Palm Springs was the destruction of the Desert Inn almost bah f a century ago. Why not recreate a miniature reproduction reminiscent of the style and architecture of the old Desert Inn which could be combined with a small condo component? Another concern is potential overbuilding, of commercial space. With the chronically existing vacancy rates and all the proposed commercial developments totaling hundreds of thousands of square feet we cannot afford to have a multitude of new stores sitting empty in the heart of town next to our neighborhood. 6. The emphasis should be on very. very minimal additions to the present configuration since the kind of density and volume proposed would require an incredible amount of demolition including rebuilding the underground garage in order to bring it up to new earthquake standards. Any major additions would no doubt require the demolition of the present garage structure. The impact on our neighborhood, not to speak of our merchants, would be huge in terms of noise, dust, air pollution, truck traffic which one of our knowledgeable neighbors estimated to last between 7 and 15 years. The proposed demolition and reconstruction certainly does not harmonize with the City's intent to become Green considering resulting air pollution, landfill needs and all the new materials needed. 7. Proposed heights of up to 100 feet are totallv unacceptable as the views of any property west of Palm Canyon views are very important. We suggest one story stores along Palm Canyon with buildings gradually increasing to 30 feet if needed, which is the height limit we prefer for the entire project. In no case should any building be taller than 60 feet and only then if they are placed where they won't affect the views and do adhere to the city's three to one open space set back, particularly between the Fashion Plaza and our neighborhood. We feel that there is a clear need for open space and generous lush landscaping. We like the present gardens facing the Museum_ In any refiguration of the project sizable open public space should help restore the heart and soul of Historic Palm Springs_ 9. Soft unobtrusive lighting is of the utmost importance. The present parking lot facing the Tennis Club features such soft type lighting while a thick row of lrcus trees further protects our residential neighborhood. Such standards should characterize the entire project_ 10. Returning to our sunnort for renovation of the existing facilities it of course should be a sensitive treatment which would open the Fashion Plaza to Palm while tastefully refurbislung the existing buildings. It provides a wonderful opportunity to restore "Patin Springs heart and soul." In response to the Excel Plan, almost 10 years ago, the then Neighborhood Coalition which included several of our former board members and was the forerunner of today's Patin Springs Neighborhood Involvement Committee hired a world class designer to come up with a proposal for renovation. Joe Wertheimer who had extensive design experience including the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas, the Palace of the Lost City Resort in South Africa as well as our own Givenchy resort arrived at a creative solution which involved taking down the Bank of America Building opening up the Plaza to the corner of Tahquitz and Palm Canyon as well as creating a Plaza walk between the Museum and Palm Canyon. By overlaying architectural details using the Desert Inn Spanish design it would "pay homage to all that put Palm Springs on the international map in the first place," saving our mountain views and restoring the city's traditional gathering place. It is noteworthy that the developer has been very good at this style of design and that the similarly styled Mercado Plaza has appeared to be a commercial success. We have attached these plans and renderings as well as a explanatory narrative as another option to be considered. Perhaps even a national design competition would be a good idea. We are aware that whatever plan is adopted it will need plenty of massaging. But all in all we would solidly support a creative renovation plan which in addition to all its virtues would also be Green solutions and provide a good neighbor to our Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood as well as bringing in charming elegant shops to reestablish our downtown as a major drawing point. Enclosure: I Map of the proposed Plan by the Palm Springs Neighborhood Coalitions 4 Elevations of the Plan I Narrative of the Plan entitled: "Heart and Soul of Patin Springs" 1 New York Times article: "Retail Darwinism Puts Old Malls in Jeopardy" 1 List of Representatives of Palm Springs Neighborhood Coalition which sponsored the Plan urn r�uscu�� uulvr _ II III i _, c.. I GA RkI I'IG STRJ[I LIRF VI LLd GF. I — THEA1_FE _ ' � f r. D SC T INN P�Az�a �n190 SLA P6 AI•IV WnLVwgY PI&H LIE .0 0. 0�cLAano uu L\ rJ LI YATT 5UiTE5 I (�j F I k✓ SAVS rl rTW avcnou � �I I I I'+AL/ CANYOH VpnE m REAIL L��r� ��{� t ` e% '•,: a n ° � r ut�� ��iy� ✓f;�'/,}�`Y/�� 7 NIEL sal ✓r� _w�j, 1ia �,re f fr T px �r�-.•_. RETAIL RETAIL ma=RIC PLAZA WALK I•IAM6URGER HAMLET CAUFORNIA PIYLA KFCHEN PALM CANYON DRIVE 114-4 i ice. �..�. •. - _ ; �r •=r:: �r'r-� _;ter ::�a•, 'rr" rj�y4'-„'r ray .5 r.-r..,21,� May rl _f��._ gi ■�f�-`� s _"(�4,�,�{°T+*il r���.t yf�•w�a�l '!i� Ilr':�I� l�- RE AIL SAK9 Flf-TH AVENUE PALM CANYON DRIVE RETAIL H_ isd 1-iiii rt g MR 0 r..�r .. _r^ K S � . i. rr ._..� .r _.: .'..., rh.�rv.^Yp•ph� i2Nq�r° «Horn. . V r.. yrktewLb•i„ .r ,, ...•. ... F_.rr _ . . r, - o- .4 r. r. .r ea .,n.x": v4yry4W .. wr hpM1 rmy�y+wrv' r.r ,4„1 1.11.1 nrY n- r I , l., n x. .:P��•�u _ .-5 •.�. rw+.v..._ }q. r.y n.rw., Jw,�.n •• vi.. .. ., .-. - _ .. , � r....e - .�.,� n.. rewvY.•AewiY.�l -- .��.M,p•A•f :- C'oatv�.r. ,i krm ...: r..,.- .v• i-:Ar-'r..,e.,�.: _ ;- - µ _ .r ,�.�.. .J..uYl.9YWi.:Ws4�M`�n� ' � - - ._.:✓i!` .�]��. M,.yiy-. :. r.•n.i: �.x.,,r.xa'tP.pk, . r� mow.. _rr. . :. i- � _ w: i._, .. .r r. .... ...., � rwrlrlxw.rN.�ra, �wrlrWYi�:W+ I . __ ::I`.nV».'�'!.i_.pnEr•�.u'NY ... - _ Y„�2:,: __ � � _ .. �_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. . _ .... . .. - ..w. y'.e.....lwu.,..a7dlk.>W1.JAWu •ra.w.r.y'i.'iJirtna".•�r'�. .. - ._ .. ,•r „r„d�CrY(�y. _ _ - - _ r. _" _, _____ _:_ ., .. _,. .. .. tr. iN .xbl..dbrrWrrawrtA"i 't'�'''t''rn - '-1•,: .di(,lk. '14,.:..a .f .. •^t :.�„_ _-- - _ ], -- ..., - - _ ..r: rr.—r _.vlApbv.-rStMAdir{r.yx.�erwuw.nfrr MFt.iµ,ay'.•c. ..mlrw:.ar }..�r.,__ - - �i,�F,hriM-:^»'-__—::__- _ _ _::: __ - i..�.K... v4..rn,..,/.•.,.Gdn.-wi ppµ. I �r4_'::,C ^.✓w'. _C� dl, ,.+.. _ r... - - - - - - _—__ _ __ _ _- __ _ _ _- _ __ -: _ ___- _ : - n v.•r.o„ �N�-rir-+P, errs=v.i ,Y ,•'lMµy'd do .,py..,r _ _ r�y:a• _ —____ _ _ _ _ _ _-- __ _ _ _— _____ _ - i•'� sh�7leP r - :,,. ..�✓r^:. �. •V 'hF }=r r'!i,• -6�. •,.� . yr.,� :�f:� - - -- �- _ �-- - -_ - `°- -•--- I rI in .ti, ::3••r'�'�. �Y:}y' �5.')F` i'rµ �: fp r_I :r'[ .f r_ i. _t _I f•1}'_ --'} _ .. i fid'`'',.'.]y'^�:� �4,�—,>�:� �ll����, .�:L.-. `n �Jy,�.wA.�r" f„(�i �� ..� .i •r r.F.i!;iilfri .r ,��'_ 4" �, _ _ nr .�r.c ti.. ,_!4i�• ~L" �~ �.I~�r_�'µ r �u G� .----..- Il ! I - ___.. • w�O„r' 1 - lvu,-ci=—`-;ty•h��7Z- ^�; •y ::.;f --"�4 - .4��QyCr_ ,� -;•r� "- -- �k,. 3�:;,{r_- �: z �.•_�—.=��.: � i♦.! � j .. �r,_.� -; .-sue /`-'- : - --_--�'..>' -- Wiz..-'`r`..(ij� �� a•-- _ - - �, _ - _ � i :•s.'. � :�y �.. _r:'P:'�r'�'_,�...�.. �r TT'f^..�`.1� - - ,•rr __ - _I �- ���° id,.y�N`�.�r: '` •y�flr .F .i-=h'.{:r. '-r3'tr...:r. < .j ,,ta::'-•w: _ _ _ $�'`n�ti F. _.` it 2l'Y' __AA ju :71 U. If ..:. i�• .�. .� __ . � ,.� �. f:. �nr .��-�ffjl �- . r , r . -r ' �liyi�1 , � ��'��'��'-_;,'�%"� • �' ` _ r r..w -r:v :_f•. - _ `__ _1 _:_. _! f;P,.:�xd" sr,-, " ��.'=-+�;•,.r., aY.Wi+Ydk�.YW _.-... ..-�,�,.. � .. � ...., .,r.r-�;.?�� lv, `�.�•"_-_-__ ____—__`---__ -. �: .... .. .,y:n >:i^x"'u. _....«. _.....a-�Iw. ,.rw.«r.,.}.Wbp..wiil4. i .. y.., r r•yw'. � .,,. � i -. .. _ r r y ar . r.:.r�•irrMr•N MA - r iL�� _`��'r.�tl�.,l;, I� '�i1�; i r:E ^•,.'""��. r � i:n��^'�r�.iw: 0 . ""..I J; - _ ,W'a H'r�e.r,r.FewlrpMakljl�jl •y"MMW�,hlw'YIWr .,yAtn �t.q{ 1. ..L. .roW+r rl nNll .I .�.o-r'W - ., .. r, r+i c.I, WyW.nlllrr •Idl;ylGy. ,I b• � R. 4iw nr-•d '� '{V„lfr rn:H nlrp rv.. b- 1 Iv dt r•w. ''t Inn ,. u1 r[9 r'rW�j`'4r • to d 'y'N'4 �1''��II'�:V.GR1{,' 11' ,..y�Idd,. ?Wh rPy. r -, ''I i � � „'r r ..F.. .. .r.Ir •, ,,.in •r + eaf .pi`M y_q�Pl'''xar'i,1`^t.V6 ra'�...: p-._ r:{..• +`F44d^?IP � � ,. . n .. 1 .,' „ r re.;.. '.1•y .r �. 1•tW p {. �. I�r t,h;lf'�Y� auj�pn LI:;1'.*'I �:+aa,vn0• :• jj':m't , '! p:,.y',nma 5' 1`rix!1'1.' �r' I •.k^ ' p"9 NrJJ`It y'ryygr,: }f.n ' P._ .II r - . ~' iq' .. .I u i � L'1. h.vltl Ji0.'F °.!'1�R°li?�'�I- {4'GA,'Ur'i�''•`�r$.a :?�; -. C, r.� i''Ma .._' - - - - - - - :.. '.''i - -'h'' .;ill_ r'�•y{i.:�it' -�.•';. a•.`, ILL L- - - - r is 1 - a ,p: • o _ �. _ _ _ ___ / L�.C•�� rk 1 i'_ _ _ y .. rx 70 Hn �4y�dp�i���y rw fir. - ____ __ L,�__:. , � _y'• �,rn`_i �Jy�Vtk�. _y., __ __ ____j_ — _ _ `_ .. � -_y '], k•.YkAk'"b1M'NYi�y -_ -- a� T. ._ - � :��up ���'i`.. Rix,-i. --�1, _ irc��Y': r� rr�l�5 :1'�rl'f4.�1�•.�,�.`Ifr'._ F�.,,.,i INF�;r 4 hw �'7 i �r' _-- I'- -c ""T - .:� t><�ry: :-w•-'_s.___ :;':`k,_ 1�._l L _ X. 1, r'r.,,,:.,p rw•�+ 'rr60001 tow =+A+1 •,h'Fr-^firI, � --_ ,, ,JY.,.•�. `y ��.,.� _. 1 w� " lG,,+ .. 11 .n4 dW.., r.n,cn' [i .ala ,.dltiYir 1�'AII I ,��� �IllAlli + { rt :..{,� 4# � .+I.A .� br; a �, . a.: y&In}•n+.xr.�%ro IH xI t. , i � !;j F qII :'�.4 1: 'J k. � �,` e '�_ -'�.. _ � 'F. `.i �:.' s'- - }u da.'rbn•r,nr¢SJ:n 1 '} I �1�I�. s.L- L.. ' ••r in - •.�. .{ ,_. - ry', :: - :'F-?" _ _ _ __ _\._._ _ _ cr '• J r xr1 NYd,..�AUL -.•yr s" IF'+ �,x1RJniarnM1l "ILL Ln,u�'�'J d: Ir •�r}. r.Y 9uii :e-..r-n>fLa;. .I -ad�, x�;-_ --_ - - - >.;,"li�}j,�.__ _ _ _ _ •'.41 ILLI ILL I - ,rc �P - -.�-�. -,I'��:.-_ .tH�...L-'..�=� ~f �:'•al�'...��.,'..._ _�;`'_..."��- , .�;I: ,:y9rtr'}�Wf� e i0'r;1lL r.r . Nr :p I � - � : •fin': ,,h L . '�! er, 1 - I � f - l.. I „rl jh r M-^"9'TY'x rILL ,L�lu .' mt,l .L� ,iirLu :�y�,•:4;MI'�a.. �1}- �u ,{4iw.n �r �'.d - ..`I' __. --- - .,1 �}, 51 ,., nor Ind,.�.�`Iy �,al'�I•, I4 .IF r:vY'1.1�iWr16+•u r•l. ainr: - .r �; .n r� - � _ �- ve �i tv-L... v+u.,'.a4' l .q; '. dLgnyMi lr.; I ,I��r ruF�i,. I,`.i., , _ \ •-1 rY -r F�F F./ ^,•('Ir •�I�:^°7�'i'w Ar- . ,r. ., i,n'x.0 .I^r�•i � ���. I� iG .L� '.�JC�';=\L1�Y'^ _ .� i h,. ia�l y`4 w,p„�ri.wWl4+•i , n n:Id"`a yt o-{.•.W'd Yr Ili ,r'•W' Fn:rvfnyy.l r - . jjr ^!r+ .'uav r i. .,r i.+... ail.. .i I ,T 1"! J; jr I r�i �I6 I �I W' ''�4✓ I" l d = 0, 1 ILI I, T "IL Ir-I h4� . . . . . . . . . . . 1:1 4VIV".1 I f 11 Ira pt �rq 1 4 1 FRI 14 A Il A., ILI 71 1, r�� �lqt Alry IL, H ear 4,jl,. L4, L4 A.If W I I MA, N 4�,' q.q Lt ill i� jj '41 I AiIIh ........... ..... 1. ml ................. ------------- JOI, 77--W.777- WI -Illy M---------- 7T DEK-TWPTINN E PL4ZA 1 ,5 JDAPkING l.ANDSCAVL AmD 5TRUcl Upu %,lALvWAY 1'aLAry IJa A FT ,51JITES RAI M CAWrOH OPWL Y, 414 HAM6URGFR HAMLET t 44 CALIFaRNIA PIZZA KITCHFN RETAIL PALM CANYON DRIVE i 4U1�"'TThl`� y.F riH j?.TG� tpjS`'P� �Tm&FIT7uga l M ' RETAIL HISTORIC PLAZA WALK RETAIL SAKE FIFTH AVENUE RETAIL RETAIL PALM CANYON DRIVE wa I `lnd�7''i• .l.' �'µ!"'Rv�Y•+.",'."S'r..S'iur, �V fry. _ - - - - �aklwriY�fW I {`.4e��Y ik: a:a: ryl r .�,��1 I 'L: •�j •,e ,L_e!•t ,,...�. �.:e�. - :.I ,I .. .. .'. 'I-.. � _ � •i� ��La II .., ihV`•1"'�" � ! ", �"i ,}. Nj"' ,y�•' �r'irvad. dy, rie��rn._.�'y.:,,'. }-�':,I..rN�Nti, - - , _. � _ _ _. �.,.•js:.r•,.r7, � .. , .,7..,.,,jva':lr .. �' ,tr.�,� �(«f,�l� iyl�'p�C'.r i'S�'�I .� d:r -, �p l,l,k :ri:j�r ,,,.v -. n. ,.:.7•,�. ., .,v.w,.-"".�vf„j„, .M.'� .. 5�,...,.;.i: �..i-W:,hil-��':�f .nr ltI 'D...,I n,�� t.w....,yJyk r�]a.al^�+. rm�.l. j..;, �r- ..;I.w ,. •.J.,,;aMM-. „ : :,;y,�j,. •k 1- A - .. � 5 ..:q�q>yie... ..•nrti,n vl•,• .f1�A r,'µ �,a - ., w. q;,aS�y:..+�.j.w,u,h, s,r-.w• ,,:1� .N.. •d��rtl n.�.leM . _L• tl ✓,{u W7a,i k ML N.i,.,:. --Fjw:4pn �m,wM roue �:.. ++ •'[1° r!•:'rtb-•p'a:i :�4+`�'? .: w�dx.r; � '.�, �?'+4x''ttNtt:.i;.kr^ri-Iy.,_�t,:.{.',.: _d; r':.. .. •d=-�_ ._hn:-+-,:,;..N�w-rvr v,a:+..p�.i�.9rky,a-a,¢_�t.,a.a:,s'3ili"d'(�s. x;k Q%• a: •I 'b EN. 'FAY, en-. ,�,.a- „•, .„, :,v_ r?�rv:ar-u.j=.d.;(r+..W rµ ka:.u; :'e .*,.^a.lpv«w ;v'.,r.. q±La� _:: ,7 "" - � - A�3i•y, r,s<'k•t a yx'n�iF:__�f.: '' -_ - :-S ,_[1:tr+Al-r�'L�M:+fe'• M-_, :a "•'r•:m iv,9" ,Pti{Y '% ty.6 a;.=:.sa•,;a-_ - _ -_--- '',.a+. ,:dF,,:l, •>,n, F tiN. •,.�. _-_- �-';:�f:�►�Tyu2�arls�{�,ztw�;:.w'vu,.d'�,.�,:.��_:,-- -_��_ru�ti�3-:,:r•�r;�staur�k�#,.�,tr>�.,r,vawsww::k�, r .. � 1 � :.:� .,- r<e;,:.7.: :e�L'gr,.w _iF'u�dQ... •&�'2AW�- r:.w!'il+'�• �. �✓Va m.�riiti,hkro:,,rit•�fj;a,I �w ,��'`�_-__ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ �:.3.:ri ��,,; dd��,n"ya,-.�'::.r+x.-:-..1xt;A:.a,:s'�a�f4xC4�. .r • R?' �7�d ,�i,�M1ti:iii��. �.�i;3'i+tilCt_F,i`u:'._�!-�+:. ::/`w=�__ __ — _ _ ________ _____ ___ _ �_�_F-�_xri.,4 .:,a'n4',+•leY'+a..•r.,•S+1' '� 1��• I - •rl�yy�� } �I i,�{/17�f�'�4Y,♦�n�_,c.�.Yvrr.re �.'M =l�i� ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ - _�.bl,� _ 4a� _ l rY4r�,yln �.4. ..P�s.1V�T"�cn9 _. �:L'P �1• '4 "y.a �GY •,din __v ��_ �:a = _ _ _ - �cq.'._->;�.. F\�i Y�.1•i�-flar�•f�Yi' _aR=. _ I'" _ _ _ _ .:y,+".L.r.-`a=-j:�n-:�ryy''.__ _____-_____- _=r��.:!f `j>`-.emu -tl'��7!r�5�•b•y r.. 'iirbx „i, aai.,,�o5� y,yrcy, �_ �• 1� .., i p - J;•♦� c . � �,'ti ..hAi ;A•ilryx �-Nri 'tr � $'P ' ��--'�:,- I'`'.�_-'�-d-- :ncti`d�sl", r``"rq;.7" ,Fi ^�-_F R"��Lti����., r_��_� :.�..i.z. ;'�• =ir - l. 1"�i;;� r5. �L_7 r r__.,�-. d t L!�1 •J�:3,� rs. :,'.�i:1 f '-_ _ _ - .,yr yT,��"'�'�� i_ "+� t.H Karr- ;:%1'-�w-nlj 5,'n.yfr" _a'.I _'_••�=C - - } _ __ - _ 1I nn�yrm,�r ix ,�i-�i� ,Y ✓. �`l�f �A, ___ -__� � Y -1.^ !, FJ� ,+In'wan S Ydt �I re,l �.;.�' 'ytYr" .-;, °: r __ - _ __ � _ _ _ :eL.. - iil.r:. ,a•,,. '•'�(-a _ d I. - - _- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .i-- ',.. - _ _ .'f�:�_.•;'k rt111 - "•mod_ �, y,.. - Myll'e -?-`z __ - - _ -- - - _ __ -_ - _. r ••� �i+llh� a ,.,%�,1,,,.,Kyt, . fit S. .uyi,.96••tlli, r:Ir':i+dsxfl J,• r k•rfii:,wrlpiwr �Yli.a;'E. i 7,:ri,3.._„•„rvy.,Ir:M.,v�:vr:r,•ia�l'1+4'i14J;'JY.n,hA.xtl.r: Wu4 w.Jf•i.+j0,#�,i/l� a.erA A11+.�''4 _ wgaw'•,4oH r. `�.1.,•.:�,0. ....;awM,•�M .'•M ,��.,r-we•Uq.ia.F»-.YkMM�M.+*fM1f11iK1,r4 �f+�WeMa'•.•-: #�knr',:4 a'•x,ar.N, I � .. yi$+L1ks:C� �iYi.,,�r��I�WIj�1c♦I{:S�diw-. �.1: •n.rt.�.,•a ..,1WF-r•dx.nw ,i _ >-„ . .,. yry 'r'Pin„yy�kyA%b�'iikM,�kr�,cr.f...3:wr :.,,�7+wkrv.�Yi1,Ye' i '�eE�wti. ���'l�tl tij.r^T`n��8�6re'k^'Y r.l,b�•ati•�n•: rl�" "1. .. vl.,ai�t�...-�!;"7'ti'�+�'� +y%�V'rG.rk11�4F�tiG;'{- _ f �-+wri.:.;18i � •'rk.,wY�Wo9Yl+%9euh3' tt4l:hMrJ(drmr$4l.4+4-.:. .n 11e,•. u�:I. h::A4,r „�.,� ,.,e-. e. anNlGe!�..x.laFrww:.i+r�lMlwiy,ri+Y.u^7n+�Ys:enorWij¢,.•+t.q.mw _dyW"61"Lk.4.p+.;.L k. ,.. r. ,.r '' (IjiI� 1}R, �fp�Pr1 I jr grgF l�.�+ :fi��yl r.� �•'�. A�4 ,e:M�..MhYi. 4,M�,r'-.•'e�ya+✓'xA.ti�lYy.' t4• :'u.r yfd•yYi4aYn re,�Iwd . ,F • f ilr� I� •• al"�'�` ,1141 L r ., ,a.,. r:-t.�'.: , udl�,W,c'bxdtiW.El � WwtbY•n 1 a J 7. . 4,nr • .prtt ; a '„eau::.�p;hMYralr*n.r.;n'exdi�.yiip�+:INti7;ukf,'D�Yw.a,>-�r, aN•,nan:,rl �.�Y..,. 'r4„ , n - ».a-._.�..:lr�: �„ ; .w, r•y,,.ra,-..r ,,a.,. �:idWrilY+`Aii� p.,,�yeuy4lb.{A�'4�%abfF>•: ,.•.�^'.rgY'A:l.-•:'d �yvrtifi4FirM�"'.'Y:, yea Fr':Y,n� A nqa,, , I.. ,; •w'd0r,}•• • r, ail , a,,:. Ai'A4 r+Fx'SV� -.41 :'SYIWJ!ik;, :b-'y.', rt N, 91`7ir19�ww.�W!iidFN 5'; tit Fi': .:��. _-,•�• - _q.1r �. .,. ¢,. .•i�•.. r�. ,4�, 1d4•,l:iiNriH+mm�.r 't a ;dw>N,falxlry•a�...,v,.•rwiry � nqapr<i,•Q.., „urn.,. 'iil.. r h r :•r .. � . ,.v; � .. y _ w :,ry I ."!",'"' k4gjJ '.v.f'r.$•.d+,.. ,.5, � .,q15 . ..t::•V' 1• ° .. d - - r - r _ . 1 h 9p i Timm W-w �ii R ■w G G'' �' �' fit'. ri'rr . 16- _ -F�'„W!rro,i;: �.'I� "•i'•-i.. �ro�': "�.�I�• �''''_ -'I' �,i. ,'.L :'1'r__7� I..q, ' ,I, 11 ' d. !I'_• „,�';' ,, I,;' � id' r; .,1' N,:, d _ r. , ' o - „r,� .I : li I , L-- I , r,' tittppfy (1�,d„ya„.. ir.A�. �`Iqn aa.��r,M. •,�±�,n,w` In' _,I-' yia - �I'' �',I. ,i'. -�L' 11 ,p, _ ...q,rlt > i.n ll', i�'J ;i ,�PY:'1 J I., :. p:_ ",al:",: n;•: ,'�, .,!IqP .�Il, _ (�r"." di'.'; .,, If ,... rl,;., I�',• _ "' +pw�,r1 r 1 muo}i of �¢J;>u,J .rh'1 ,yN�'•�,,N,P?!r w:rtN It: r; k`r 'y 1,' � r RIJW, � � - ' aq �' � �I• - 1 y_ _ ,1.- �.. _ .,i...�; I- : ,rJ. I I y �I CM. ,� . ' f •� 7^h'v I :vrf, �,( 1,.. : , '1. _ _ -..' :, -, , 'i '--I _ _ •y •i:, '.,,. -d.•I!�F' '';�tiu,,Jyha�yf'a�aal.,f'�'�ai'�R,.�dlv'.��n,�lr*.L:,K'P''ffl�'t•n�ri.; :. ?',vJ'y"'{; I',nl..�.'I �II - .: il, 71 :. .,u' o-,u, . u 1, 1 }'rFN,��.w rl "., r', .'y. r, �'j' ,I`f:pp,p, i,•,:{' PI `; �, i;t, h, ,. ,•{�, ,'„r, „1'.,•lil�l�� ;:I lid'.. '1Lk;4����fi�9'd�J, ��,.' �. _ il� I'e ��dl. 4Yy1 . 1 r 11,'I 'v r 1, ,m. � �:f.: ' '�:i :' 6 ' Ij ,•-' �-,'�"t"p; � I� 111':'"M.i�.M 90vfl��ik�i,S,1-,•�S'r ��Je r�ll:� _- �a _'•.! •il. i v i�.r._�jn`1� , '. �ii,-r. - aa•, YAIP}Jr� Ivd �i�n*•v'•, ;.+�pPr•r.G:]•,'r: llw.: � Ira'y: �',,yl„��'"._,+gLWa_,,.a,pl,.,vl.'.uvb, tilx ,{,,; 1'ii raN;. ul�1 •.�• ,�q � ;� �.�I .•r--IJ ii. '�' v'�;II1°r:5��i�*r�;:'�4va$+ill',,t l,r:r'.di tak.'{w;dfn;l@,ali, tltja.., .r,rr#h' y,rrrll 6idargWke�if�Ki •x%'r'R'N'Nk114�{,;daNfl,lf� �a'-'tir,,: ,ti LK�=6,.,.1 •il :1 �I'4•. p: .�, : rI � e.µl.. oI_ ,:rsei• `'";�rli�� _ �� �li ii�n%!ik IiJr&w'J,rta;ul; :.i'�':::•v,lll,'a � ,li=" ,ti;, �k.e• _ -I:` i�;:ac.nrJ,tm•WIl1yJ::by,, , rWi Mnil'NLj ..eh11 '1!iJa'AIxS`� _ �i7f� _ ,Ik7�{w�'ir�'1�J?�; nzJF?•1 „n"lahy:,4_,.i ;,i.4, -: II,." ': �i`i:' _ �{Ir'�r�1=:ll�rrt".,/ fl rlr�"av,2 'lIli,'. R'.,:'; ..kosadli: _1., i` � u .�n'i', C�'• _ -, _ii,l d,'iaml �. 1F�. - a�l ''IrkL>n; Y,_ �if•1/1 'r 1 — _ �_ )) _ -_ ':.•��•�� •q�,r ��,6, el, 1-a:,.isa�;:��:i�"��.;,���:t,.I�.rulp;;"���fka,,l •'e41 � 1 f :{(Fi��l'i_i•I_�;'I�"�..]h '.:I� iu ��-'��-y�_...I.I"5�:'jn,..ply;'���;IEL,;I�ITi'_y:,g;liter,:'IL'crrcrn�illah��%II,�,F:v�}IVWh'J .�ln•�� �u.'�iN"�Igl}. J,-,`,�... ha 4 11 :r. ... Q. I :i)�c,--. ... ::, ... -.. -- ,! ..._._— .,. ,._,. .,.. N 24 m "'V;�`�„_ i�,�y�h'�:•., qW y�'dNAap"1`'.I,r 9'�Int:.r��y, +ul{�' lr'-14.It .1'.di,'., .;i:•;�: ,, fll• .��.li:�''-a;'`�',�,`i EI�� , -."'9'N7� .161, .ApN.Ftii pl11aia ,.hliig74, YHlO"II .I!CI,' 'fiU1,:,+d._ wl'. --i1• --'q '1!y._ n'.i'�.1i„ n � y i_:t; },;1i •?ICI i i=,ip• i •yirp�•Iv:.br^, iJ'._a;,:.l'I ly:n. }'}M•v�,ll�l>tillr+l�4�'I' }^ tRlia+Iprr�aw+l _.,,�h�+ia, .ty'jm'.I'I!" • ".N ni;n:•„i.•++a'-`QI}' I!rAe�rll'IR'k¢kJLnlR1?'�•+^� y,x�,Ghivr 1pA1 ..; +�', r'�4i•�:,nN';I.vi,�iin:'.:SIIli3��sA�ar<�YHlli�',&NY'in r'ki ,.vd ;i;4"'46NMT!r l knW I 'th_ - 1 „ r. J, -_ " „f :r,ll•:1••rl.l.,9'}t1..'4.Yf.•id4;G•IA+aL r j '16 �"t4ljjt� �.m 1; 'IlIr Irr 4 1,1" 4 ii r %-l'I %'�; I H , ilra-,. 1111, - !, i ,�' I.- lla' a!" ':' . - 11- � .... :ij "Ll 11 .." 11 u J !I (a I!'Ll : , ; , , it The Heart and Soul of Palm Springs In 1929, Nellie Coffman's vision of a "�ualzty place for quali�people"resulted in the creation of the Desert Tnn. Located in the heart of Palm Springs, the Desert Inn was the heartbeat of the city where everyone of note gathered. When the Desert was razed in the 1960's the heart and soul of historic Palm Springs was lost. The city never spiritually recovered. There is a once in a lifetime apiporGrvu�y to rrsloir the heart and roil of Palm Springs. Such a restoration would be a lasting tribute to the Mayor, Council and Planning Department as well as the residents of the city. The Excel plan is a typical anywhere in America box mall. It is inappropriate, Faddish, and ignores the true early history- of our city. Excel's use of "metal frame canopies, painted steel tubular columns, painted metal trellis', aluminum storefront systems, steel frame and mesh signage icons reflective of oil derricks, with no shade from the hot sun is anti pedestrian. It reflect-, the passe building that lacks human scale and warmth. However, a "Plana" design, using authentic Desert Inn Spanish rShitcmire would, as no other building in town, pay homage to all that put Palm Springs on the international map. It is in a human scale, using desert friendly materials and plantings to provide shade. Most importantly such a design would give Palm Springs back our "Town Square". In addition, the greatest asset of Palm Springs, The Nfountaiv Pram, which is currently obscured by the Bank of America and other buildings, will be returned to the City, completely changing the dynamic of Palm Canyon. The Excel design, with huge roofs ensures there twill never be mountain views_ �'I'he "overlaying" of architectural details such as: Old world stucco, balconies, double barrel terra cotta roof tiles, arbors, walkways, iron gates, ums, fountains, fireplaces, rooftop dining and outdoor cafes would give the feel of early Palm Springs. Moorten's Botanical Gardens (Ilnc City', oldest public garden) could supply specimen plants, of cactus, palms, and cascading {lowering vines that would complete the Spanish design, which is renown for masking the hot sun. People would find it inviting to stroll through cool walkways surrounded by vines and flowers. urseVm, dedicated to the city located in the Plaza, would house a vast early Palm Springs Collection made up of a variety of artifacts from the late 1800's to the 1950's_ All the forgotten memorabilia of the people and places that made Palm Springs the watering hole of the world, would be showcased, such as: Hand wrought ironwork, hand painted tiles, furnishings, accessories, local art, photograph collections and fashions. Also, the personal effects from the estates of: Darryl F. Zanuck, A] Jolson, Walt Disney, Tom Mix, Jimmy VanHeusen, Pearl McManus, Clark Gable, and others would be displayed. Artifacts from The Desert Inn Hotel, The El Mirador, Chi Chi Club, The Dollhouse, Deepwell Ranch, Smoke Tree Ranch, The Ranch Club, Desert Circus, Desert Riders, and Vaqueros Desiertos, etc. would feature the colorful years of the City. It would tie together the WeUwood Library and the Desert Museum in a walking promenade. The "authentic" recreation of The Historic Desert Inn architecture, combined with all the artifacts From the historical Palm Springs Collection, would engender international media attention, high -end retail clients, and architectural awards. At last, Palm Springs would have a classic Village Square rather than a faddish and dated mall_ ulrli�q Some a%rslrn'structures can rave money_ Some retail spaces could be launched more quickly. The 40,000-sq.foot I.Magnin building could house a mixed use Villago Theatre, which would "pull people into the Plaza" rather than the current design which dominates Palm Canyon in a garish mariner_ The suggested location of the Village Theatre would 'have direct access to underground parldng. By removing the Bank of America, a walkway can be created to the Desert Museum, which is currently impossible to see and would restore the mountain view. The existing main entrance can be kept. The Desert Inn fountain, using the original vase, would be the focal point making it an official spot for proclamations, music and meetings. Saks, California Pizza, and Hamburger Hamlet could remain in business. By creating higher stucco walls with climbing flowers the outdoor parking ld be mitigaged. There is currently underground parking for 1200 cars and about 300 on ground level. We are concerned that expanding the space by 90,000 + retail feet would overwhelm the streets with traffic. Currently Palm Canyon sees gridlock even with "no real retail, theater, or additional cafes existing in The Desert Fashion Plaza." Santa Barbara, Carmel, Pasadena and other cities have embraced their California Spanish heritage by either preserving their historic plazas or recrcaring successful retail centers. This design is classic, embracing, memorable, and romantic. Santa Barbara's 1988 Nuevo Pasco Development has 100% ocrunancv resulting in revenues of SS400 Per square foot, with Afl% from tourists. (This has a spill -over effect for all of Santa Barbara). Smaller California cities are waking up to the .ity that people come to them for their charm not for yet another over scale box mall that they can find at home. It is clear modem does not work on the most important site in downtown Palm Springs. assons should be learned from the past. It should be noted_ the Redevopment officer of Santa Barbara. stated thev ended un suendine $50 million dollars on the nroiert. when thevwere asked to snend Si20 million. Over 50%was in hidden costs - We are extremely concerned about the "true" costs that the City of Pnlm ST)dnps will he paying,. In addition_ the Citv is still responsible For a vast sum of money on the old Fashion Plaza. Perhaps Palm Springs should consider being a "partner" with the developer to enjoy the proceeds rather than just the risk, ■ We have unrestricted access to museum quality archives of Spanish California/Palm Springs architecture, design details, and fixtures- In addition, a collection of Desert Inn artifacts and memorabilia, including original iron gates, light fixtures, fountains, menus, etc. is available. A 20-bed recreation of The historic Desert Inn. to be located across from the Museum. is supvested as a draw and exceptional use of that current dead area - A local team would consult, with design and construction of the new Plaza and provide endless resources to make certain the details are historically correct in feelingand, application- It would be critical to ensure the Plaza would not be an imitation of Spanish California. We feel a great deal of monev can be saved on architectural and design fees - Hopefully, the rendenngs, discussion, and access to a world class collection of early California and Palm Springs artifacts will spark your imagination and engender a passion to restore the legendary heart and soul of Palm Springs to the heart of r ,ntown- Questions and thoughts: Jane Smith 322-1040 Project plan Marty Newman 320-3346 Palm Springs Collection Joe Wertheimer 320-0255 Design Frank Tysen 220-0707 Adjacent neighborhood Excerpts from the New York Times January 1, 2000 ' Retail Darwinism Puts Old Malls in Jeopardy "Malls have formats that are stale and boring", said the main author of "Emerging Trends in Real Estate" an annual report for institutional property buyers jointly published by Pricewate-rhouseCoopers and Lend Lease Real Estate Investment, Inc., both in New York. ' Even teenagers, whose shopping habits and dialect provided anthropological fodder for a generation of mall sociologists, are getting bored with the old format, e3TMs ' say. "Emerging Trends," said: "Whether mall owners want to admit it or not, malls look the same from one end of the country to the other. same stores, similar merchandise, same food and same movies. If shopping is entertainment, then going to the mall is like watching TV reruns over and over again." ' John Bucksbaum, the CEO of General Growth Properties, the largest manager of shopping malls in the nation, said: "Today people want more. They want to be entertained. They want to be able to sit down and eat, and not just at a food court. They want 5tarbucks." ' A new hybrid, know as the main -street mall, has sprouted throughout the country to great success. These centers are like the village square of old, with single -story stores, coffee shops and restaurants facing a sidewalk, often with a fountain or ' square in the middle, and underground parking. Peter Calthorpe, a Berkeley urban Planner and architect who is one of the nation's ' leading promoters of the "return to village -square -style neighborhoods", says, "Malls are not interesting enough, not diverse enough." He noted. ' Pasadena and Los Angles have take taken old-style downtown shopping centers and replaced them with a series of small shops and cafes, some with loft -style studios above them. Coalition of Palm Springs Neighborhoods Representative Neighborhood Address Phone Fax E-Mail Bob Seale Las Palmas 280 Camino Sur 325-3519 320-0510 Jwbd40a@Prodigy.com Christine Hammond Tennis Club 373 S Monte Vista Dr 778-0041 778-1109 Mgmtdynamo@aol.com Frank Tysen Tennis CIS b BS 175 S. Cahuilla Rd 320-9346 325-8610 Cell 220-0707 " " Business Casa Cady Jahn Hurter Racquet Club P O Box 2824 323-1308 323-9321 Janesmith48@yahoo.com Cell 250-4786 Kaye Manchester Deepwell 1630 S. Calle Marcus 323-7871 Kayemanch@aol.com Cell 503-708-9193 Philip Tedesco Las Palmas 374 Vereda Sur 320-3159 323-8398 Johnhurter@aol com Cell 831-0183 Sharon Lock Deepwell 1517 Sagebrush Rd 320-3175 323-9312 LOG374@aol,com Jane Smith Movie Colony 928 Avenida Palms 322-1040 322-1750 Specbus@aol.com Jim Jones Deepwell 1315 Manzanita 327-5801 327-3274 Jjonesps@aol.com Logan Need Tennis Club 3245 Monte Vista Dr 322-3261 logan_need@prodigy.net Bob Whitehom Movie Colony 322-2791 PrI 5, 07 ��/✓rcee 7G(/.d'6/2dGJ G:.!�!r 7Gr%902.2117 �lw:' i=$ i ii(�'I`I'� �� iP. CITY Cl FPX, January 14, 2009 TO: ✓Mayor Steve Pougnet Chris Mills, Mayor Pro Tern Council members: Foot, Hutcheson, Weigel RE: Public hearing: Draft Specific Plan — Museum Market Plaza Unable to attend the public input portion of the meeting, please accept my written comments for the record on this issue_ I support a scaled -down version of the Specific Plan which will: l . Establish a maximum building height limit not to exceed 60' feet 2. Significantly reduce the number of condominiums proposed 3. Reduce the number of hotel rooms proposed 4. Require 'green' LEER construction guidelines where applicable 5. Limit any city proposed expenditures (benefits) to developers While I applaud the Wessman Development's initial efforts and the possible request to shelve this Specific Plan I encourage the council to move forward and approve/establish guidelines within this site. I fully understand that any new guidelines will affect any future development by any developer but the City of Palm Springs must initiate sound guidelines for our downtown revitalization efforts (regardless of the economic market). Our future retail, hotel, entertainment and business district downtown will recover and I am confident that this Mayor and this council will do what is necessary to ensure our future economic viability. Regards, l D i orenj CC: Craig Ewing, Planning David Ready, City Managerctir Jay Thompson From: tconrad412@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 $:45 PM To: craig@aol.com: ewing@palmsprings-ca.gov Cc: Jay Thompson Subject: O'Donnell Mouse Access Dear Craig and Jay, I would be most grateful if you would please make sure that any adoption of the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan includes consideration of our access to the O'Donnell House. Over the last year I have had several conversations with John Wessman, Michael Braun and Chris Mills (as a member of the Council sub -committee) regarding preserving our access. The O'Donnell House has an easement for access through the Museum parking lot as currently conFgw-ed, and an easement, which I believe confers additional value to the house and was a consideration during our purchase of the property from Ken 5hellan, that allows for direct access to Museum Way through the north parking lot of the Museum along its northern border with the O'Donnell Golf Course. I have been told that Museum Way was being preserved in some form to its northem most extent up to the point where it curves to the east along the Golf Course, allowing for the direct access to the O'Donnell House as provided by the easement. Thank you for your consideration in advance of tonight's hearing. Sincerely, Tracy Conrad r 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:23 PM To: gfinla@msn.com; Jay Thompson Subject: FW: 1A proposed Draft Specific Plan Museum Market Plaza aka Fashion Plaza Importance: High Dear Mayor and Council Member... -----Original Message ----- From: Roxie fmailto:roxiesponies(Daol-com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:26 PM To: Steve Pougnet; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Rick I•Iutcheson; Lee Weigel Subject: 1A proposed Draft Specific Plan Museum Market Plaza aka Fashion Plaza I have attached a statement on the above project. But aside from it I would like to personnally thank all. of you, Mayor, Council Members, and City Staff for your support, guidance and all of the things that you do through out the community that goes unnoticed. I have to say that I attend 99'• of the City Council Meetings and see that you all are working to better the community. I. also attend the Mainstreet meetings, along with the Historical Society Preservation meetings, Chamber of Commerce meetings, BID meetings and as a vendor on the street working to help improve our community, your hard work and influences are noticed. I just wanted to take this time to say thank you. As our community is in a new phase of growth I look forward to the future and am proud to be one of the vendor that as it is right now my be struggling and facing new challenges, feel confident that as our community grows it will he contributed to a strong City Council. I truly believe that it isn't the City that builds a community, but people that build a community- I believe that it is the City who guides us in strength and success. And I just wanted to say thank you for being that guiding light - sincerely Roxanne Mishler Palm Springs Carriges 760 364-4430 www.palmspringscarriages.com p-s- Your staff has a special ,invitation to come and enjoy a carriage ride on Palm Springs Carriages to view the city and see some of the wonders of yesteryear, today and the future. 1 Dolores 5trickstein From: Roxie [roxiesponies@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:29 PM To: cityclerk@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: 1a Museum Plaza Project aka the Fashion Plaza on agenda tonight Dg I=I Dear Mayor and Council Member... I understand that there is a public hearing on the Proposed Museum Market Plaza_ I have attached my thoughts. I know that their might be quite a crowd regarding this matter so I have already send a copy of this over to the Mayor and the Council Members but neglected to send you a copy. Here is your copy of my thoughts. Sincerely Roxanne Mlshler Palm Springs Carriages r1111II11�-I or %/ ' I 1A, 7 li T- f: f - I 7 i.., Dear Mayor and Council Members ' P PjdLii Sf ;IP- CG9. IT, Il 14 F1 2, 32 Council Expected to Approve Development Plans. The besertiSum Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Section: Valley page B2 CITY cL Er!,1, "Wessman woulde prefer city toss out 20 acre downtown project" I am Roxanne Mishler from Palm Springs Carriages. As Financing is tight everywhere and many of Palm Springs projects have been put on hold because of economics it is very important that Palm Springs continues to look forward to the future as we begin a new phase in the communities growth. I am excited to see the "Specific Plan" for the center of downtown Palm Springs and am in support of the new mall project, and would very much like Mr. Wessman to move forward with his project. My concerns are only two. These are the concerns and complaints that I hear on the street frequently: 1. No public restrooms 2. No public parking With the project that are coming/pending and hopefully will begin I am concerned with the flux of the tourist that we are trying to attract that we may be forgetting the specific needs of our guest. 1. a beautiful and attractive environment to shop, visit and enjoy. 2. the ability to locate a public restroom within a reasonable distance to the shopping sights. 3. free public parking, located with the shopping area. (not length of time but amount of parking) As we bring our tourist in to our community and we are partnering with the future our guest have specific needs. We cannot expect with the new flux of guest to continue to ask our restaurants to always open their doors to the public trying to locate a restroom. So when the Council is looking at the architectural renderings as well as the community and that the community knows what it is looking at, lets take a look at and remember that when you invite guest to a community they also have specific needs outside of shopping, and spending money. They have families with children and that we want them to come back again and again. There is also the Guest that have no children that come here to get away and enjoy the "Vibe" that is set up by our community, merchants, hotels and restaurants. We need to take into consideration that the parking problems and locating restrooms are also the needs of our guest. Sincerely Roxanne Mishler Palm Springs Carriages 760 364-4430 www.palmspringscarriages.com Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:52 PM To: Jay Thompson; gfinla@msn.com Subject: FW: Letter to Mr Hochanadel - Proposed Baristo Lofts Project Importance: High -----Original message ----- From; Douglas Chirnside(mailto:douglaschirnsxde@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:39 PM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Craig Ewing; Steve Pougnet; Ginny Foat; Lee Weigel; Rick Hutcheson Subject: Letter to Mr Hochanadel - Proposed Baristo Lofts Project Dear Chairman Hochanadel I wish to express my concern about an action before the City's Planning Commission regarding the proposed Baristo Lofts project and the renowned Santa Fe Savings and Loan Building, now called the Wessman Building, by E Stewart Williams. The proposed Baristo Lofts design impacts inappropriately and unsympathetically on the Wessman Building, which, as you know, is an important element of Palm springs' unique architectural heritage and of the character for which the city remains world famous, though sadly these days that reputation hangs in the balance. I first came to Palm Springs from my home in London 15 years ago precisely because I had seen photographs of, among others, this building. I had the pleasure of meeting Stewart Williams and discussing with him this type of 'floating' structure- This building, in my opinion, is worthy of being designated of special importance and any development around it - and I am all for the right sort of commercial development - should be very carefully considered so that it does not detract from the integrity of this outstanding design. I'm afraid this proposed development will harm the virtues of the original building, and in a very prominent location too - Rare architecture of this quality and period, in its original, unspoilt setting is a huge draw to far flung Americans and Europeans like myself to visit Palm Springs. Many, and I am one of them, come time and again and even end up buying vacation homes in Palm Springs, Contributing to the city economy through our property taxes and our substantial purchasing power- I am sure you will agree with me that to preserve the character of the city that is a draw to the world, both individual gems and whole areas ought to he treated with great care - otherwise supposedly 'commercial' development will damage the appeal of our city and not he commerical at all in the long run for anyone but the builder. Development should add to, not take away, the r.i.ches our city already has in the bank.. I would be grateful if my comments could be entered into the Public Record at your meeting tomorrow. Yours sincerely Douglas Chirnside Home Owner 1540 East Mel Avenue Palm springs 52262 1 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:52 PM To: Jay Thompson Subject: FW: letter to Mr Hochanadel From: Sonnieruttan@aol.com [mailto:Bonnieruttan@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:02 PM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Ginny Foat; Steve Pougnet; Lee Weigel; Rick Hutcheson; Craig Ewing Subject: letter to Mr Hochanadel Please consider the following thoughts regarding the Santa Fe Savings Building....,, Harming pristine, existing architecture for which Palm Springs is acclaimed undermines the economic base that architecture has provided in revitalizing tourism Baristo Lofts would be within one block of more than eight large buildings that have been empty for many years This is not an economic climate to initiate a project of this nature... thinking optimistically, is it not more advised to regenerate our infra -structure before we build more? there is a glut on the market of empty condos and retail already, why not embrace the Stewart Williams architecture and do something great with it Sincerely, Bonnie Rattan 1111 Abrigo Rd PS New year ... new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson Prom: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2:54 PM To: gfinla@msn.com; Jay Thompson Subject: FW: Letter to Mr. Hochanadel Importance: High From: MSpohn53@aol.com [mailto:MSpohn53@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:31 PM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Craig Ewing; Steve Pougnet; Ginny Foat; Lee Weigel; Rick Hutcheson Subject: Letter to Mr. Hochanadel Dear Mr. Hochanadel, I am writing this letter to express my sincere concern about the proposed Baristo Lofts project. I understand that the planning commission is faced with a difficult and complex decision regarding the proposed development of the site versus historic preservation of the Santa Fe Savings building. It seems particularly challenging because the decision must be made within the context of a vision for the future of the city. I am hoping that the planning commission will act responsibly with an eye to the long term. I have been involved in the commercial real estate industry for over 30 years, and I have usually been pro development. I am thoroughly experienced in the industry, and I am predisposed to support new development. However, I truly question why the Baristo Lofts project is even being proposed at this time. THIS PROJECT HAS NO MERIT. It is a really bad idea, and a symbol of the kind of self absorbed greed that has led America into its current dire financial crisis. It is a project conceived of artificial suppositions, and a flawed real estate development model. It's the wrong direction. Those days are over, and we should stop the insanity. I am especially concerned that a convoluted project like the Baristo Lofts could take priority over the proper stewardship of the Santa Fe Savings building. I rarely feel compelled to make this kind of a statement, but this matter is a crossroads, and I ask that the Planning Commission make this difficult decision, and deny the Baristo Lofts project. It's just wrong. Mark Spohn 250 W. Stevens Rd. Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 760-328-0878 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in lust 2 easv steps! 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 2,57 PM To: gflnla@msn.com; Jay Thompson Subject: FW: LETTER TO MR. HOCHANADEL RE' MEETING TODAY - 1:30PM re: - PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION Importance: High From: Grant Monck[ma !Ito:gmonck@pearsoncollege.cal Sent: Wednesday, 7anuary 14, 2009 10:45 AM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Craig Ewing; Steve Pougnet; Ginny Foat; Lee Weigel; Rick Hutcheson Subject: LETTER TO MR. HOCHANADEL RE: MEETING TODAY - 1:30PM re: - PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Mr. Hochandel, As a property owner at 750 East La Verne Way in Palm Springs, I ask that this email be entered into the record at today's meeting noted above. I am unfortunately out of the country and unable to attend the meeting today. My partner, Bob Freedman and I who own a home in Palm Springs object to the proposed Baristo Lofts mixed -use project immediately adjacent to the Wessman Building at 300 South Palm Canyon Drive. In our view this proposal would forever change the downtown footprint and horribly impact the pristine original building. My partner was recently interviewed by Palm Springs Life magazine for an article in their February issue on individuals who have purchased mid-century homes in Palm Springs due to the unique architectural significance of the city. In our view if projects such as Baristo Lofts proceed, the uniqueness of Palm Springs will be endangered and the current economic benefits and future revenue from new residents and visitors interested in mid-century architecture will be threatened. I find it hard to believe that a city such as Buffalo, New York (noted recently in The New York Times) can see a major part of their economic future in preserving its architectural treasures but not Palm Springs. If the Baristo Lofts proposal is accepted, you will be moving down an unfortunate path that could remove a unique marketing niche for Palm Springs and dampen the economic stability and future of the city. Thank you for recording my remarks for today's meeting. Regards, Grant Monck 750 East La Verne Way, Palm Springs c� T•X 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:00 PM To: gfinla@msn.com: Jay Thompson Subject: FW: Letter to Mr. Hochanadel Importance: High From: GeraldHMark@aol.com [mailto:Gera ldHMark@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:56 AM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Craig Ewing; Steve Pougnet; Ginny Foat; Lee Weigel; Rick Hutcheson Subjects Letter to Mr. Hochanadel To: Planning Commission Chairman Larry Hochanadel: Re: Baristo Lofts project As a frequent visitor to Palm Springs, one of the highlights is the architecture of the city. I would encourage you to not jeopardize cultural tourism and the architectural heritage of Palm Springs by approving the Baristo Lofts project. Please enter my comment into the Public Record at the meeting today at 1:30 pm of the Palm Springs Planning Commission. Respectfully, Gerald Markovitz, M.D. 11600 Wilshire Blvd #512 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310-473-5067 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy.gtepsl_ c7ov2aa 9 =7',E/-4 /, A 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Ginny Foat Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:10 PM To: gfinla@msn.com; Jay Thompson Subject: FW: Letter to Mr. Hochanadel Importance: High From: Trinaturk [mailto:Trina@trinaturk.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:03 PM To: Terri Hintz Cc: Craig Ewing; Steve Pougnet; Ginny Foat; Rick.Hutcheson@palmsprings.ca-gov; Lee Weigel Subject: Letter to Mr. Hochanadel T would like the following letter to be entered into the public record at tomorrow's city council meeting. Dear Mr. Hochanadel: 1 own 2 successful retail stores, Trina Turk, and Trina Turk Residential at 891 and 895 North Palm Canyon Blvd. What brought me, and what most often brings my upscale clientele to the city of Palm Springs is the mid-ecntury architecture, The city must recognize the invaluable and irreplaceable resource and tourism draw our modernist architecture represents. The concentration of mid-century modem commercial and residential architecture in Palm Springs is what difi'erentiates us from other desert communities. The opportunity to have stores in an original Albert Frey building are what drew me to Palm Springs instead of El Paseo in Palm Desert For these reasons, the Baristo Lofts project should not go forward. We have limited remaining mid-century commercial structures in our city, and every time one is compromised, we lose a valuable asset that cannot be replaced. Instead of building a new development around the Santa Fe Federal Savings Building, this develnper should make improvements to the Desert Fashion Plaza, which is a black hole eating away at the life of our downtown. 1 want our city to succeed. We are at a tipping point. We can fall to the side of more insensitive development, resulting in the destruction of what brings an upscale clientele to our town, or we can make a commitment io preserve what has made us famous and world renowned. We are not Santa Barbara, nor arc we Santa Fc. We should embrace the modernist architecture that defines oiu city. We should not allow insensitive development to ruin another one of our architectural treasures. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Trina Turk 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Craig Ewing Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:02 AM To: Tracy Conrad Cc: Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Lee Weigel, Rick Hutcheson, Steve Pougnet; David Ready; Tom Wilson; Holland, Douglas; Jay Thompson Subject: RE: Museum Market Plaza and the O'Donnell House easement Tracy, Tharik you for the notification —it is certainly not premature to raise this issue now. The Specific Plan street plan shows the elimination of a portion of 1\Iu.seum Way along O'Donnell Golf Course. It would be helpful i f you can confirm the location of the easement relative to the existing strut network — a map or meets -and -bounds description of the easement would be especially useful. Let me know if you have any questions. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Pahn Springs 3200 G. Tahquitz Carryon Drivc Palen Sprigs, CA 92262 760-323-5245 From: Tracy Conrad [mailto:Tracy@smoketreeranch.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:33 AM To: Craig Ewing Subjects Museum Market Plaza and the O'Donnell House easement Dear Craig, I just wain to get into the official record by reminding the City that the O'Donnell House has an easement to connect to Museum Way through the north end of the Museum parking lot. I have spoken to John Wessman, Michael Braun and Chris Mills in the past to remind them all of the existence of this easement and to see if the street, under the specific plan, does extend to the curve around the golf course, where such a connection would be made, of if it is obliterated by planned buildings. As owner of the O'Donnell House, I would seek to protect the ability to connect to the street at that location. 1 am sure the O'Donnell golf club has similar access concerns and would also seek to preserve its ability to connect straight out to the street, rather than the current circuitous access through the parking lot. I know you have many, many issues regarding the Specific Plan with which to contend and this is all premature. 1 just waited to make sure it was also on your radar screen. Thank you so very much. Tracy Conrad Chief Operating Officer Smoke Tree Ranch www.smoketreeranch.com (760) 327-1221 ext. 419 (760) 327-9490 facsimile �rdf�,Zoo`� 1/14/2009 Jay Thompson From: Craig Ewing Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:44 AM To: Jay Thompson Subject: Fw: Henry Frank Building --Corrected addresses Jay, A corrected e-mail regarding the Museum Market Specific Plan. Please distribute, as appropriate. Thank you. Craig A. Ewing, A1CP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-323-8245 From: Gary Frank [mailto:gfrank828@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:10 AM To: Craig Ewing Subject: Henry Frank Building --Corrected addresses Dear Mr. Ewing, My email to you on 1/8/09 mistakenly identified the address of the Henry Frank building. Below is the same correspondence with the correct addresses. Would you be so kind as to please forward this corrected email to the Mayor and City Council members. Thank you once again for your cooperation. Jay, Gary and Don Fanlc 1/12/09 RE: Case #5.1204 GPA/ZTA, Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment, Wessman Museum Market Plan, Palm Springs. Dear Mr. Ewing, We are the owners of The Henry Frank building at (134), 136, 140 N. Palm Canyon Drive. Several months ago we were assured by Planning that our property was not included in the Wessnlan ivluseUm Market Plan, even though our property appeared to be included in the map of the proposed plan. We have since been advised that the plan that the City Council is voting on January 14th does include our property. We would like to officially go on record to declare that our property has never been a part of the Museum Market Plan. We have never engaged in any dialogue with Mr. Wessman or any of his representatives about this plan, and we have no interest in our property being included in this plan, either in its present or any future version. We request that our property be officially removed from any connection to this plan and we would 1 /12/2009 appreciate receiving a letter from Planning or the City to that effect. Please forward this email to the Mayor and all City Council members as well as any other officials you deem as necessary recipients. If you would like to discuss this further, please call Gary at 415 652-1185. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sizacerely, Jay, Gary and Don Frank 1/12/2009 TELEPHONE (310) 314-8040 FACSIMILE (310)314-8050 Via Finail and Facsimile CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2601 OCEAN PARK BOIII.EVARn SUITE; ens SAN IA NIONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 iriwxbccarthlaw cnm January 12, 2009 Original to Follom, via Overnight Express Honorable City Councilmembers City of Palm Springs 3200 E_ Taltquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 E-MAIL ACMd1'CPCEAR7MAAV COM Re: Comments on Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Final EIR; SCH # 2008061084 and City Council Staff Report Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of the Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center, we provide these comments on the proposed Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (MMPSP), the responses to comments contained in the final environmental impact report (EIR) and the January 14, 2009 City Council Staff Report. Findings Required for a Statement of Overriding Considerations As the EIR for the MMPSP acknowledges, demolition of the historic Town and Country Center would result in a significant cultural resources impact. This demolition would occur if the MMPSP includes as part of its street plan the extension of the new east -west road, Museum Way, through to Indian Canyon Drive. If instead Museum Way were to extend only to Palm Canyon Drive then the Town and Country Center would be spared. The responses to comments and Staff Report do not fully lay out the City's duties regarding this significant cultural resources impact. Both state that the City Council can approve the project if it finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant impact_ This, however, is not the entirety of the findings that the City Council is required to make. 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 enviromilental effects of proposed projects. (Public Resources Code § 21002-) Thus, the City Council cannot approve the proposed project, with its admitted significant adverse impacts, unless the Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that there are no feasible alternatives. (Public Resources Code Palm Springs City Council January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 3 § 21081; see also 00, of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State universih, (2006) 39 Ca1.4`h 341, 368-369.) That finding cannot be made because there are feasible alteratives to the proposed project, the Preservation of the Town and Country Center Alternative ("Preservation Alternative" and Less Intense Alterative A ("Alternative A"), that would preserve the Town and Country Center and thereby substantially lessen the significant cultural resources impacts of the project. Another alternative proposed by the Palm Springs Modem Cornmittee and Friends of the Town and Country Center, a hybrid of the Preservation Alternative's rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center and the reduced density of Alternative A, would also reduce the significant impacts of the project. The Council could approve an alterative such as this hybrid or a combination of the Preservation Alternative's rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center and the moderately reduced density of Alternative B because the components of each have been studied in the EIR for the MMPSP and they have been found to be less impactful than the proposed project. It is unclear from the January 14, 2009 City Council Staff Report what is being recommended to the Council regarding the extension of Museum Way and the preservation of the Town and Country Center. On page 15 of the Staff Report it states that "Staff believes that its set of recommendations ... eliminates adverse, unavoidable impacts to Cultural Resources because it anticipates the preservation of the Town & Country Center'', however, on page 13 the Staff Report recornrmends approving the proposed street plan, which would include extending Museum Way through to Indian Canyon Drive and thus demolition of the Town and Country Center would be required. We urge the Council to approve a feasible alternative to the proposed project that does not require the demolition of the Town and Country Center, Inaccurate Traffic Analysis Additionally, the traffic estimates for the Preservation Alternative are incorrect because they are based on inaccurate estimates of retail development for the proposed project and office development for the Preservation Alternative. The response to comments claims, and the traffic analysis relies upon the claim, that the Preservation Alternative would have 29,390 more square feet of retail commnercial development than the proposed project, however based on figures contained in the EIR, this statement cannot be correct. The only difference between the Preservation Alternative and the proposed project is the development contained in Block K of the MMPSP. The EIR shows that the proposed project would include approximately 32,900 square feet (including the 5,050 square foot restaurant since the traffic analysis bas lumped restaurant space in with retail commercial development traffic estimate) of retail commmercial Patin Springs City Council January 12, 2009 Page 3 of 3 development in Block K. (Draft FIR Exhibit I-5, attached is a blown -up copy of this figure so that the square footage estimates can be seen more clearly.) The FIR also states that the Preservation Alternative would have 32,000 square feet of retail commercial development (including the 15,000 square foot restaurant) in Block K. (Draft FIR p. V- 3.) Based on the figures contained within the EIR, the Preservation Alternative would actually have less retail commercial development than the proposed project and thus should have fewer vehicle trips generated by retail commercial than the proposed project. The traffic analysis also overestimates the amount of traffic from office uses for the Preservation Alternative because it assumes this alternative would include 100,000 square feet of office space. However, the EIR alternatives analysis states that the Preservation Alternative would have only 2,350 square feet of office space. (Draft EIR p. V-3.) If the correct land use allocations had been analyzed for the proposed project and the Preservation Alternative, the traffic analysis would have shown that the Preservation Alternative would generate fewer vehicles trips, resulting in fewer traffic and air quality impacts. Conclusion The Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center strongly urge you to reduce the significant cultural resources impacts of the MMPSP project by approving an alternative to the proposed project that includes preservation and adaptive reuse of the Town and Country Center. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Amy Minteer Attorney at Law Enclosure: Enlarged copy of EIR Exhibit I-5 Cc: Craig Ewhig, Planning Director James Thompson, Palm Springs City Clerk Douglas Rolland, Palm Springs City Attorney Palm Springs Modern Committee Friends of the Town and Country Center vol?rl.f L.E. V- Al W I L ml jmwr N�_ I tit - --- ------- ----------- i CX3 PAL.Al I Prof.0 1 4 FAP DRIVE, dp_-- pALMg ti G1 V N k pr � �OMolniia� 1* 4�IF0 1110v, 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 MILtddd0:Y/ 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. Item No. 1 • A • City Council Staff Report Case No. 5.1204 - Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 18 • 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? City Council Staff Report Case No. 5,1204 -- Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza January 14, 2009 Page 3 of 18 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 City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 - Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 4 of 18 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. Proiect 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, 11 - 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 "Docks" 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 Hote12. Recommendation: Approve the Specific Plan's boundaries, as proposed. V :ul^-1_ Underlying land uses permitted by the General Plan and the Zoning Code 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 It — 3, and III - 5 and -6). x See attached letter from Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization (Dec. 8, 2008). City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 5 of 18 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 — Cocktail Lounges — Not on Street Frontage 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 t Amusement Arcades & Machines — LUP Office and Related No changes Residential and Related No changes Resort Residential No changes p. 5 City Council Staff Report Case No. 5.1204 - Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Services No changes Public / Semi-public Festivals and Exhibits - Lodges, Meeting Halls, Private Clubs - Automotive No changes Accessory Uses Outdoor Uses, All - January14, 2009 Page 6 of 18 LUP Not on Street Frontage 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. City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 -- Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 7 of 18 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 PD 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 Case No. 5.1204 -- Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Type of Use Proposed Draft Specific Plan Residential Units 956 Commercial / Office SF 400,000 Hotel Rooms 620 Project Alternative "B" 765 300,000 255 January14, 2009 Page 8 of 18 Staff Recommendation 300 300,000 600 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 feet4 and in Planning Area 3 (Block J) no more than 34 feet would be allowed. Table III-2 (Part) / Page III-10 Development Standards PAII 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 67/79 • Block J 34 • Block K 79 • Block L 44 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 4 The "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 18 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 staffs 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 building height standarc as follows: • Block A 45 • Block B 24 • Block C 60 • Block D & F 60145 • 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. City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 10 of 18 Setbacks. Onen Space and other Standards The Specific Plan provides a black -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. Staffs 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. -�0 City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 -- Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 11 of 18 Desian —Architecture and Landscapina 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. yI City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 - Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 12 of 18 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 FIR 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 FIR fully explains the historic value of the Town & Country Center (see pages III - 61-69 of the draft FIR). 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 FIR: "Reintegrate the pedestrian and automobile back inot 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 FIR (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). 12 City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 13 of 18 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 Fnvironmental 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 is 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 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 18 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. City Council Staff Report Case No. 5.1204 - Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza January 14, 2009 Page 15 of 18 • 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: City Council Staff Report Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza January 14, 2009 Page 16 of 18 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 FIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final FIR 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 M City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 17 of 18 As noted in Section V of the FDIR, 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. CrI�Uf�ing, AICDirePlannin ervices David H. Ready, City Mari ger Thomas J. Wi on, Assistant City Manager, Dev't Services City Council Staff Report January 14, 2009 Case No. 5.1204 — Specific Plan for Museum Market Plaza Page 18 of 18 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) a CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES MEMORANDUM Date: January 7,2009 To: City Council and City Manager From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Serv,901 Subject: Case No. 5.1204 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan — Final Environmental Impact Report The Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan is attached for your review. The Draft EIR and the draft Specific Plan were previously distributed to the City Council. The attached document together with the Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR. If you need a replacement copy of the Draft EIR, please contact me at 760-323-8269 or craig.ewino(d7Dalmsorinas-ca.aov. PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT r (SCH# 2008061084) Prepared For CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 PREPARED BY J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.' 400 S. FARR.ELL DRIVE, SUITE, B-205 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 January 1, 2009 Museum Marker Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061 U4 January 1, 2009 FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN JANUARY 1, 2009 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.2008061084 AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties have commented on the Draft EIR. Please note that Section I contains verbatim comments from agency and other interested parties, and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full test of commenting agency correspondence. SECTION I: Commenting Agencies/Parties and Responses Page A. Jacques -Pierre Caussin 4 B. Sheryl Hamlin 5 C. Marc IIerbert, AICP 6 D. Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency 7 E. Desert Water Agency 8 F. Pacific Iospitality Group 11 G. Chatten-Brown &; Carstens 12 H. Riverside County Flood Control District 25 I. State of California, State Clearinghouse 27 SECTION II: Commenting Agencies/Partics Letters A. Jacques -Pierre Caussin B. Sheryl Hamlin C. Marc Herbert, AICP D. Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency E. Desert Water Agency F. Pacific Hospitality Group G. Chatten-Brown & Carstens H. Riverside County Flood Control District I. State of California, State Clearinghouse 2 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EiR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 FINAL EIR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SECTION I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following verbatim comments were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. These comments concern aspects of the Draft EIR, including clarification of information, adequacy of analysis, and similar issues. Related comments may occasionally be combined to allow one response to address these related questions. The following responses have been prepared to address issues raised in the agency/interested party comments. 3 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 A. JACQUES-PIERR CAUSSIN Comment A.1: I have read with great interest the article in the Desert Sun regarding the findings of the EIR for the Museum Market Plaza. I couldn't be happier to notice that the Preservation of the Town and Country Alternative was viewed by the EIR as a better project. As a resident, I am very much in favor of whatever plan will "improve my quality of life" especially if it also benefits the tourism industry: sound (sic) like a win -win situation to me !!!! I hope that you will support the "Preservation Alternative" as well. Response A.I. Comment noted. The City Council will consider all components of the EIR in their deliberations on the project. El Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January I, 2009 B. SHERYL HAMLIN Comment B.1: Attached is a comparison chart showing the size and components of the proposed MMP versus several other mixed use development projects. We can conclude from the data that the MMP was conceived for a much large (sic) population base. With the Palm Springs population growth basically static for the last decade, there is no demographic information to support such a large project. Response BA: Comment noted. Comment B.2: In light of the new proposal by Wessman Development to renovate the existing site, I would highly recommend not spending valuable staff and citizen time reviewing the EIR. The size of the MMP and the gerrymandered Specific Plan area do not point to a successful outcome. Response B.2: Comment noted. The City is obligated to review projects under CEQA, and consider potential impacts prior to approving or denying a project. Comment B.3: Furthermore, the 10-15 years of construction will disrupt the city adversely. Time is money and the new, condensed proposal will bring retail on-line sooner and revitalize the downtown. We should move ahead immediately in this direction. Response B.3: Comment noted. The Specific Plan is currently the only project for which an application has been filed with the City. Comment BA; The MMP appears to have been designed for a much larger community. Reducing the size and scope of the NIMP would reduce construction costs and time to market. The scope of the MMP as proposed doesn't make sense for the PS Community whose western boundary is the mountain and whose northern boundary includes Desert Hot Springs and the unincorporated areas of North Palm Springs, both of which are separated by I-10. Response BA: Comment noted. 5 L, Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 C. MARC HERBERT, AICP Comment C.1: This massive project would totally destroy the ambience and character of our downtown Palm Springs. Can the Commission imagine 955 (yes, 955!) high density residential units, plus a huge hotel — 620 rooms (is there any existing hotel in the city with this many rooms?) plus 400,000 square feet of commercial space (picture 15 supermarkets, for example) on this property? This might fit in well with Times Square in New York, but not here. Response C.1: Comment noted. Impacts associated with Aesthetics are addressed in Section III - A and impacts associated with Land Use are addressed in Section Ill -Id of the Draft EIR. G7 � � Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 D. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Comment DA: Thank you for giving the Riverside County Transportation Department the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Museum Marketplace Plaza (sic) Specific Plan. The Transportation Department has no comments on the DEIR. Response D.1: Comment noted. rA Museum Markel Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 E. DESERT WATER AGENCY Comment EA: In Section III-G, page 106, the reported Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) average of 540 mg/L is not representative of the quality of water that will be supplied to the MMP project. The average of 540 mg/L reported in the EIR is higher than the average of 290 mg/L given in DWA's 2007 Water Quality Report (see attached 2007 Water Quality Report). If water samples with TDS of 540 mg/L were found, the statement in the EIR should be qualified to state where the samples were found, and that they are not representative of the quality of water provide (sic) by DWA. Response E.1: Comment noted. The EIR is hereby amended to read: " Historic data collected by the California Department of Water Resources indicate that the quantity of total dissolved solids (TDS) in regional groundwater has increased markedly since the 1930's. TDS concentrations in the Coachella Valley during the 1930's were typically less than 250 mg/L1. Data samples taken from 1989 to 1999 indicate that in the upper aquifer, TDS concentrations average about 540 mg/L. The DWA reports TDS levels of 290 mg/L in 2007.- Higher TDS concentration in this portion of the aquifer are associated with the San Andreas Fault system and imported Colorado River water. 1n the lower Valley aquifer, TDS levels average about 160 mg/L. The lower TDS in this portion of the aquifer is associated with natural recharge of higher quality water. " Comment E.2: In Section IIl-G, page 106, the reported Nitrate levels of 45 mg/L are not representative of the quality of water that will be supplied to the MMP project. The water provided to DWA customers contains an average of 5.3 mg/L of Nitrate (See attached 2007 Water Quality Report), well below the Maximum Contaminate Level Goal (MCLG) of 10 mg/L; 45 mg/L is the Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) for Nitrate. It should be noted the Nitrate levels of 45 mg/L were found in wells outside of D WA's boundary and service area. The EIR should clearly state the location and proximity of the high Nitrate levels, and they are not representative to (sic) the quality of water provided by DWA. Response E.2: Comment noted. The EIR is hereby amended to read: "Historic increases in regional nitrate levels have also been observed. During the 1930's nitrate concentrations were "Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan State," prepared by Coachella Valley Water District, Adopted September 2002. ` `2007 Water Quality Report," published by the Desert Water Agency. 8 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EiR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January I, 2009 typically less than 4 mg/C3 and increased to more than 45 mg/ in wells adjacent to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, outside the DWA's service area, by the 1970's. The DWA currently reports nitrate levels of 5.3 mg/L, well below the Maximum Contaminate Level Goal (MCLG) of 10 mg/L. High nitrate levels are associated with the application of fertilizers on agricultural lands and golf courses, and discharge of effluent from wastewater treatment plants and on -lot septic tanks. The use of recycled water for groundwater recharge is also contributing to high nitrate concentrations. Studies conducted by the University of Riverside indicate that recycled water used for irrigation is preferred to direct recharge because it limits the quantity of fertilizers needed and captures nitrates in the root zone before percolating into the groundwater4. Nitrates can be introduced from project landscaping fertilizers and similar products, and from improper function of septic systems. Comment E.3: In Section III-G, page 108, in the first paragraph, the number of the indicated table is missing. Response E.3: Comment noted. The appropriate Table number is 1II-23. Comment E.4: In Section III-G, page 112, the paragraph should be changed to more clearly indicate that the results of a Single Dry Year Study (SDYS), regardless of the year the dry year occurs, will show a consistent cumulative water balance in the year 2030. Response EA: Comment noted. The EIR is hereby amended to read: "The WSA further estimates that in a single dry year, although the annual demand will exceed supplies after year 2020 and during the single year drought event, the cumulative balance in 2030 would be 26,386 acre-feet. The cumulative balance will be the same regardless of when the dry year occurs, as described in the Water Supply Assessment. The cumulative balance in year 2030 would represent a surplus of 0.61% of the estimated groundwater in storage in the Palm Springs Subarea. As a result, the amount of water that would remain in storage in the Subarea at the end of the modeled period would be approximately 4.38 million acre-feet." Comment E.5: In Section III-G, page 113, Table I11-27 does not accurately show the intention of a Single Dry Year Study (SDYS). The table is a compilation of five different SDYS for five different single dry years, reporting the water balance the year the dry year occurs. The intention of the SDYS is to show the effect of single dry 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 6 L Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 year, in a given year, on the cumulative balance in the year 2030. Showing the water balance in the year the dry year occurs provides no substantive information on the condition of the aquifer or how the project will affect the aquifer in the year 2030. Response E.5: Comment noted. Please see response EA, above. Comment E.6: In Section III-G, page 116, Item 5 mentions the possibility of DWA providing reclaimed water to the project. DWA has no plans to extend the reclaimed water distribution system to the area of the MMP. Response E.6: Comment noted. The mitigation measure specifically states "Should recycled water be made available." There is no mandate to either the project proponent or the DWA to provide recycled water. 10 n� S'y Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1,2009 F. PACIFIC HOSPITALITY GROUP Comment F.1: As you are aware, the EIR identifies several ...... Significant and unavoidable" impacts which cannot be reduced to less than significant levels..."even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures." Some of the unmitigatable impacts are AestheticsNisual Resources (views to the San Jacinto Mountains), Air Quality, and Cultural Resources. Response FA: Comment noted. The commentor correctly identifies those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable. Comment F.2: The variances proposed within this Specific Plan are enormous changes to the DUDP. The character and charm of the City of Palm Springs would be dramatically changed if it were to be adopted. Response F.2: Comment noted. The impacts of the project on Land Use are addressed in Section 1II-H. Comment F.3: We urge the City of Palm Springs to reject this Specific Plan in its entirety and to consider alternative approaches that are less obtrusive and that would reflect sound land planning standards. Response F.3: Comment noted. 11 3',1 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 02008061084 January 1.2009 G. CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS Comment G.1: We are in favor of redevelopment of downtown Palm Springs, but we oppose the unnecessary demolition of the Town and Country Center. As the DEIR acknowledges, demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in significant cultural resource and aesthetic impacts. We urge the City to approve a feasible and less impactful alternative to the Project that does not include the extension of Museum Way from Palm Canyon Drive to Indian Canyon Drive and therefore foes not require demolition of an important historic resource. Because such a feasible alternative exists, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prohibits the approval of the proposed Project without modification to avoid the demolition of the Town and Country Center. Response G.1: The EIR correctly analyzes an Alternative, the Preservation of the Town and Country Alternative, which reduces impacts to this resource to less than significant levels. However, the commentor is incorrect in stating that CEQA prohibits approval of the proposed project. CEQA allows approval of the proposed project, if Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted by the City in conjunction with certification of the EIR. Comment G.2: ...Further, the City's own historic resources survey found that the Center "meets the level of significance necessary for individual National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources eligibility at the local This finding is based on the fact that the Center is a `rare and excellent example of the late Moderne style" with a "good degree of integrity" and no alteration that would impact its significance. Response G.2: Comment noted. The Town and Country Center was found eligible for listing in the survey, but the City has not listed the building. The site specific historic resource analysis prepared for the project found that significant alterations have been made to the buildings, and that they will require restoration. Comment G.3: The DEIR recognizes that the Town and Country Center makes an important contribution to the historic character of downtown Palm Springs. (CEIR p. III-65.) The Center was determined to be historically significant by the City's 2004 survey and the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared as part of the EIR concurs with that finding. (DEIR Cultural Resources Report p. 20) Thus, demolition of the Town and Country Center would be a significant adverse impact. As the DEIR admits, this impact would not be mitigated to a less than significant level by merely recording the existing building and placing commemorative signs at the site. (DEIR p. IIi-69.) We agree with the DEIR's conclusion that demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in a significant adverse impact. However, as discussed below, this impact is not unavoidable and an alternative that allows for preservation of the Center should instead be approved. Response C.3: Comment noted. The Town and Country Center was found eligible for listing in the survey, but the City has not listed the building. 12 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Comment GA: The Project would also have cumulative cultural resource impacts. (DEIR p. VIII- 4.) "As the City develops and redevelops, other historic buildings risk demolition. Each of these projects will be reviewed for significance under CEQA, and each will be mitigated on a case -by -case basis, based on the level of significance found at the time. However, with implementation of the proposed project, since the demolition of the Town and Country Center has been determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact, the proposed project will also have a cumulative impact on cultural resources." (DEIR p. VIII-4.) The Cultural Resources Survey Report recognizes that "over the past few decades a number of buildings that contributed materially to the Modernist character of the area have been demolished or significantly altered ... As the remaining mid-20�' century Modernist buildings continue to age, and as the pressure to revitalize prime downtown commercial properties continues to mount, more redevelopment proposals involving such buildings can be anticipated." (CEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p 23.) The Report recommends "an intensive, systematic historical resources survey to document and evaluate the area traditionally known as "the Village" in its entirety as a potential historic district." (Ibid.) It is appropriate to take on such an endeavor now to ensure the protection of remaining historic resources and to facilitate compatibility of the large Project area with this area's important historic Modern resources (sic). Response GA: Comment noted. The analysis of the downtown area as a historic district is not an appropriate mitigation measure for the proposed project, and is not included as such in the DEIR. The analysis would not mitigate any project impact. Should the City wish to proceed with such an analysis, it should be conducted as a programmatic effort. Comment G.5: As the DEIR discloses, the proposed MMPSP would have a significant aesthetic impact if demolition of the historic Town and Country Center is included as part of the plan. The existing views of this important historic resouce from Views 1, 2 and 11, as defined in the DEIR (p. III-8, 10, 28), as well as from other viewpoints along Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive, would be eliminated by the proposed Project. Response G.5: Comment noted. Comment G.6: The DEIR claims that by demolishing the Town and Country Center to install Museum Way, the proposed Project would allow a new view of the Palm Springs Art Museum (DEIR p. III-10). The DEIR cites the Downtown Urban Development (sic) Plan's (DUDP) Concept Sketch at page 17 of the DUDP as support for its claim that the (sic) "The implementation of the proposed project will implement one of the Key Design Concepts of the DUDP, by opening a new mid -block view corridor at this location." However, the DUDP concept sketch does not show a mid -block pedestrian connection or view corridor extending through the current location of the Town and Country Center. The pedestrian connection/view corridor contemplated by the DUDP does call for the demolition of the Desert Fashion Plaza, but the corridor included in that plan ends at Palm 13 33 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 Canyon Drive. (DUDP p. 17.) Therefore, the DEIR cannot rely upon the DUDP to support the proposed Project's demolition of the historically significant Town and Country Center. Further, as set forth in the previous section, demolition of the Town and Country Center would clearly violate another Key Design concept of the DUDP, which is to encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings. (DUDP p. 16) Response G.6: Comment noted. The Concept Sketch on page 17 of the DUDP shows a view corridor from Palm Canyon to the Museum. The proposed project would extend the view corridor to Indian Canyon Drive. Comment G.7: Additional visual simulations are also necessary to show the potential impacts and claimed benefits of the proposed Project. The EIR should also include visual simulations from other areas in Section 14, including from the Convention Center. These additional visual simulations would demonstrate what is clear from the attached photographs printed from Google Maps Street View: the proposed Plan would only provide new views of the Art Museum from a very limited location in Section 14, at the intersection of Indian Canyon and Museum Way. (Exhibit A, Google Maps Street View Photographs and Google Earth Satellite Image.) Views of the Art Museum are not available from areas further north or further south in Section 14 because all view corridors are oriented directly east -west and views that are further east than Indian Canyon would be blocked by the new ten story Spa Hotel. The EIR should also provide visual simulation for project alternative from relevant view points. Response G.7: Comment noted. The EIR does not claim that the proposed project would be visible from further east in Section 14. The EIR discusses the new roadway as a connection to Section 14, and no more. No additional simulations are required or necessary. The simulations provided are sufficient to allow the public and decision makers to understand the impacts of the project on the scenic vistas and view corridors in the area. Similarly, since the visual impacts of the alternatives are lower than those of the proposed project, no additional simulations are needed for the alternatives, as the simulations depict a worst -case scenario, as required by CEQA. Comment G.& The December 3, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report for the MMPSP recommends establishing a Modernism architecture theme for the Project area. The Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center agree with this recommendation and request that it be included as a mitigation measure for the significant aesthetic impacts the proposed Project would have due to change in visual character. Response G.8: Comment noted. The architectural theme is appropriate as a condition of approval to the project, but not as a mitigation measure for the DEIR, as it would not reduce any of the identified impacts. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposed project to the City Council, and as such has not included any conditions of approval. 14 34 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Comment G.9: The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would have several impacts that would remain significant even after mitigation, claiming these significant impacts are unavoidable. These significant impacts are: Adverse changes to the existing visual character of the Project area; • Adverse chances (sic) to existing visual character through the demolition of the Town and Country Center; Obstruction of mountain views; Emission of criteria pollutants in excess of SCAQMD thresholds; Cumulative and project level cultural resource impacts. CEQA prohibits approval of projects with adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives that would reduce those impacts. (Pub. Resources Code 21002; CEQA Guidelines 15021(a)(2).) The CEQA Guidelines require an agency to "Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved." In order to implement this policy, the CEQA Guidelines specify that: A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: (a) There is no feasible N,ay to lessen or avoid the significant effect... " (CEQA Guidelines 15043, emphasis added.) Feasible is defined as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental., social, and technological factors." (Public Resources Code 21061.1) Project alternatives can still be considered feasible "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(b).) An EIR is also required to identify an environmentally superior alternative. Here, the DEIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, but fails to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives, as required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(2) ("If the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternative."].) The Preservation Alternative and Alternative A are clearly environmentally superior to the proposed project because they lessen the project's significant aesthetic and cultural resources impacts_ When a project would result in significant environmental impacts, the City cannot approve the proposed project without first finding that the environmentally superior alternatives are infeasible. (Public Resources Code 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines I'S091(a)(3).) 15 35 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Response G.9: Comment noted. The commentor, however, is incorrect as regards the No Project Alternative in this case, as the No Project alternative is a redevelopment of existing buildings alternative, not an alternative which leaves the land vacant, as is typical of No Project alternatives. The redevelopment and reuse of existing buildings, as described in the DEIR, would be the least impacting alternative, and would still meet some of the project objectives. As a result, it was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The City is not prohibited from approving the proposed project. The City is prohibited from approving the proposed project without first providing an explanation of the benefits of the project, and how these benefits outweigh the potentially significant impacts. Should the City wish to approve the project, it will be required to adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as required by CEQA. The full text of CEQA Guidelines 15043 is: "A public agency may annrove a oroiect even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: (a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (See Section 15091; and (b) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. (See Section 15093)" (Emphasis added) Comment G.10: Although not identified as such by the DEIR, the Preservation Alternative is an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project. Aesthetic impacts as well as project -level and cumulative cultural resource impacts would be significantly reduced by this alternative because it would preserve and rehabilitate the Town and County Center. (DEIR p. V-3.) The DEIR also concludes that the Preservation Alternative would reduce land use impacts because this alternative would comply with the General Plan, would be compatible with the DUDP, and includes adaptive reuse of an important historic resource. Land use impacts would be reduced because the Preservation Alternative would better meet the many General Plan goals and policies encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings that are set forth in above in (sic) the discussion of cultural resource impacts. Response G.10: Comment noted. The Preservation Alternative's impacts are clearly compared to the proposed project in Section V of the EIR. The commentoi is correct that impacts to land use and cultural resources would be reduced. However, impacts associated with air quality and traffic would be slightly higher, as shown in the EIR, because of the slightly higher trips generated by the additional 19,390 square feet of retail commercial space under the Preservation Alternative. 16 Muscum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 Comment G.11. The Preservation Alternative would also enhance Palm Springs' distinctive and eclectic architecture. The City's own historic resources survey found the Town and Country Center to be a "rare and exceptional example of the Late Moderne style" by master architects Paul R. Williams and A. Quincy Jones that meets the level of significance necessary for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The modern style of architecture exemplified by the Center is central to the City's mid-century architectural heritage and is so important to the City's tourist industry. The Center represents the very type of distinctive and eclectic architecture the City seeks to enhance and complement with the MMPSP. Response G.11: Comment noted. Comment G.12: There is an inaccuracy in the DEIR's assessment of the Preservation Alternative's traffic impacts. The DEIR states "the overall level of development [in the Preservation Alternative] is slightly less intensive than that of the Proposed Project. In consequence, the Preservation of the Town and Country Center Alternative will generate traffic impacts higher that the Proposed Project." (DEIR p. V-47.) This inaccurate statement may be based upon inaccurate trip generation for the Preservation Alternative. The DEIR states that 295,000 square feet of commercial in Preservation Alternative would generate 16,170 weekday daily trips after finding that the proposed project only would generate 13,870 daily trips from 300,000 square feet of commercial. (DEIR p. V-47.) Why does the DEIR assign a higher trip generation per square foot to the Preservation Alternative? The DEIR also finds that the 900 dwelling units that are included in the Preservation Alternative would generate exactly the same number of weekday daily trips (3,620) as the 955 dwelling units included in the proposed project. (DEIR p. V-47.) This is clearly incorrect; the 55 dwelling unit reduction found in the Preservation Alternative should result in a reduction in daily trips. The DEIR includes the same incorrect calculation for Saturday trips. Response G.12: Comment noted. The individual trip generation numbers in the Traffic Study were incorrectly entered. In addition, the residential units in Table V-30, page V-46, should read 900, not 955. The traffic analysis assumed that the 55 units in Planning Area 2 would be constructed as hotel rooms, because hotel uses have a higher trip generation than residential uses, and a "most conservative" approach was taken. The total trip generation for the Preservation alternative is higher because there is 29,390 square feet more retail commercial space under this alternative than under the proposed project, and retail commercial is by far the highest trip generator. In both cases, the errors are typographical only, and do not affect the analysis, which was completed correctly based on correct numbers. The revised Traffic Study Table, showing the correct data, is shown below. This typographical error does not represent a change in the findings of the EIR, and does not affect the results of any of the analyses. 17 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final CIR (Response to Comments) - SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 Table 4-1 Site Trip -Generation Forecast By Alternatives Land Use Category Land Use Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily (ITE Code) Quantityb In Out Total In Out Total 2-Way EXISTING LAND USE Weekday Town & Country (820) 50,977 TSF 143 160 303 193 209 402 4,380 Desert Fash. Plaza (820) 39.643TSF 121 135 256 164 177 341 3,720 Total 264 295 559 357 386 743 8,100 Saturday Town & Country (820) 50.977 TSF 290 268 558 6,040 Desert Fash. Plaza (820) 39.643 TSF 247 228 475 5,160 Total 537 496 1,033 -- -- -- 11,200 NO -PROJECT ALT. Weekday Town & Country (820) 50,977 TSF 143 160 303 193 209 402 4,380 Desert Fash. Plaza (820) 330 TSF 759 597 L356 663 718 1,381 14,760 Hotel (310) 45 Room 15 10 25 14 12 26 370 Total 917 767 1,684 870 939 1,809 19,510 Saturday Town & Country (820) 50.977 TSF 978 903 1,881 19,600 Desert Fash. Plaza (820) 330 TSF 290 268 558 6,040 Hotel (310) 45 Room 18 14 32 370 Total 1,286 1,185 2,439 -- -- -- 26,010 PREFERRED PROJECT Weekday General Office (710) 100 TSF 165 23 188 32 158 190 1,330 Commercial (820) 300 TSF 712 561 1,273 622 674 1,296 13,870 Hotel (310) 620 Room 177 145 322 194 172 366 5,180 HRMFA (232) 900 DU 50 245 295 199 122 321 3,620 Total 1,104 974 2,078 1,047 1,126 2,173 24,000 Saturday General Office (710) 100 TSF 22 19 41 -- -- -- 240 Commercial (820) 300 TSF 919 849 1,768 18,460 Hotel (310) 620 Room 250 196 446 -- -- -- 5,080 HRMFA (232) 900 DU 129 170 299 -- -- -- 3,740 Total 1,32U 1,234 2,554 27,520 W Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) - SCI-I 42008061084 January 1, 2009 Table 4-I (Continued) Site Trip -Generation Forecast By Alternative Land Use Category Land Use Midday Peak Hour PM Peak flour Daily (ITE Code) Quantitya In Out Total In Out Total 2-Way PRESERVE T&C ALT. Weekday HRMFA (232) 900 DU 50 245 295 199 122 321 3,620 General Office (710) 100 TSF 165 23 188 32 158 190 1,330 Commercial (820) 295 TSF 704 554 1,258 615 667 1,282 13,720 Commercial (820) 34.39 TSF 110 123 233 149 161 310 3,390 Hotel (310) 420 Room 95 78 173 114 101 215 2,890 Total 1,136 1,033 2,169 1,126 1,224 2,350 24,950 Saturday HRMFA (232) 900 DU 129 170 299 -- -- 3,740 General Office(710) 100 TSF 22 19 41 - -- -- 240 Commercial (820) 295 TSF 909 839 1,748 18,270 Commercial (820) 34.39 TSF 225 208 433 - - 4,720 Hotel (310) 420 Room 169 133 302 - -- -- 3,440 Total 1,454 1,369 2,323 30,410 LESS -INTENSE ALT. A Weekday Commercial (820) 186.5 TSF 521 410 931 455 493 948 10,180 Commercial (820) 34.39 TSF 110 123 233 149 161 310 3,390 General Office (710) 40 TSF 79 11 90 21 103 124 660 Cinema (443) 68 TSF 98 98 196 394 25 419 5,310 HRMFA (232) 120 DU 10 51 61 35 21 56 680 Total 818 693 1,511 1,054 803 1,857 20,220 Saturday Commercial (820) 1865 TSF 675 623 1,298 -- -- -- 13,680 Commercial (820) 34.39 TSF 225 20S 433 4,720 General Office (710) 40 TSF 9 8 17 90 Cinema (445) 68 TSF 240 80 320 6,750 HRMFA (232) 120 DU 28 37 65 670 Total 1,177 956 2,133 25,910 LESS -INTENSE ALT, 6 Weekday Commercial (820) 300 TSF 712 561 1,273 622 674 1,296 13,870 Hotel (310) 255 Room 73 60 133 80 71 151 1,910 HRMFA (232) 765 DU 43 212 255 171 105 276 3,110 Total 828 833 1,661 873 850 1,723 18,890 Saturday Commercial (820) 300 TSF 919 849 1,768 18,460 Hotel (310) 255 Room 103 81 184 2,090 HRMFA (232) 765 DU ill 147 258 -- -- -- 3,210 Total 1,133 1,077 2,210 23,760 19 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92003061084 January 1, 2009 a. Based upon trip generation data published by the ITE in Trip Generation (7th Edition December 2003). For the Preferred Project and all alternatives, the trip generation rates for the morning "peak hour or the generator" were utilized to forecast the midday peak hour trip generation associated with the hotel and multi -family attached residential land uses. Since the proposed number of hotel units was outside of the plotted range associated with the ITE's peak hour trip generation data for hotels, the weighted average ITE trip generation rates for hotels were used, b. TSF=Thousand square feet of building floor area. Rooms=Hotel rooms. DU=Dwelling Units. Comment G.13: The Fiscal Analysis contained in the DEIR demonstrates that the Preservation Alternative is economically feasible. This alternative would generate S939,219 in annual revenue and $4.3 million in total revenue for the City, which is clearly economically feasible when compared with the current $220,000 in annual City revenue generated by the Project area. (DEIR p. V-54 and III-218.) The revenue that would be generated by the Preservation Alternative is also only slightly less than the proposed Project's estimated $1 million in annual revenue and $4.7 million in total revenue. The mere fact that an alternative might be less profitable does not itself render the alternative infeasible unless there is evidence that the reduced profitability is "sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project ...... The slight difference in revenue generated by the Preservation Alternative and the proposed Project would not render it impractical to proceed with the project. Response G.13: Comment noted. The DEIR does not at any point determine that the Preservation of the Town and Country Center is impractical due to fiscal impacts. Comment G.14: Although it was not specifically studied in the DEIR, the large amount of revenue generation to the City from the Preservation Alternative is a clear indicator that this alternative would also be economically feasible for a developer. Under the Preservation Alternative the developer could also benefit fzom state and federal tax (sic) historic preservation incentive programs, which should be figured into the economic feasibility of the alternative. Response G.14: Comment noted. As the commentor has stated in other parts of her comments, the cost to the developer is not a component of CEQA. The fiscal impact analysis was included in the EIR to determine whether the project or any alternative would have a negative financial impacts on the City's General Fund and other funds. Comment G.15: Additionally, the EIR should consider the economic implications of opening Museum Way straight through to Indian Canyon Drive — and the new Spa Hotel's proposed retail center. The installation of Museum Way that is included in the proposed Project could invite pedestrians to detour from downtown's shops and instead walk directly to the Spa Hotel's retail center. This could reduce revenues for the proposed Project. Response G.15: The comment is purely speculative. The plans for the Spa Hotel have not been published, and are not available for public review. The supposition that retail development in that project might influence the proposed project or any 20 4 113 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final rIR (Response to Comments) — SCH P2008061084 January 1, 2009 alternative cannot be supported by facts or quantified data. Its inclusion is therefore not appropriate in the EIR_ Comment G.16: To be considered feasible, a project alternative needs only to meet most of the project objectives; it does not need to fully meet each one.... California courts have recently elaborated on the significant restrictions on a project proponent's ability to use project objectives to dictate what constitutes a feasible project alternative, fmdine that an EIR could not reject a smaller alternative that would have met all project objectives except for size and would have had the added benefit of preserving a historic building on site. (Preservation Action Council v City of San .lose (2006) 141 Cal App. 0 1336, 1355). Response G.16: Comment noted. The EIR establishes and describes the alternatives, and compares them to the proposed project. It does not at any point recommend against one or the other. Alternatives analysis was completed correctly, and provides the public and decision makers with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the project. Comment G.17: The Preservation Alternative would not include the extension of Museum Way between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon, which is included in the Project objectives. The EIR and the December 3, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report find this extension of Museum Way to be an asset to the project because it would provide pedestrian, vehicle and visual access between the Desert Art Museum and the City's Section 14 (located east of Indian Canyon Drive). However, the Preservation Alternative would still provide pedestrian connections between these two street. A wide path from Palm Canyon Drive would meander through the newly created Town and Country Center plaza and would connect with Indian Canyon Drive in two locations. (DEIR Exhibit V-1) Additionally, to further the pedestrian connection between downtown and Section 14 without destroying an important historic resource, the EIR should consider installing a signalized on -demand pedestrian crosswalk across Indian Canyon Drive between the Town and Country Center and the new Spa Hotel. Response G.17: Comment noted. The Preservation Alternative does not provide vehicular or visual connection through from Indian Canyon to Palm Canyon. The preservation of the Zeldaz building will act as a visual impediment, and is likely to limit the potential for pedestrian access through the block, since it will appear that a structure blocks the way. The alternative therefore does not accomplish the goal of providing a connection to Section 14 in as effective a manner as the proposed project. Comment G.18: The Preservation Alternative does not provide vehicle access on Museum Way between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, but such access is unnecessary to facilitate traffic flow. All traffic analysis shows the traffic levels in this area to be fairly low and traffic flow to allow the roads to operate at a high level of service, even without signalized intersections. (DEIR Traffic Report p. I- 3.) The traffic report prepared as part of the EIR found that this extension of 21 4.1 Museum Market Plaza Specifle Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Museum Way is not necessary to maintain acceptable traffic levels and might actually increase the total delay experience (sic) by through traffic on Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive because it would require an additional traffic signal on both of these major thoroughfares located too close to other traffic signals. (DEIR Traffic Report p. 5-6.) Response G.18: Comment noted. As stated by the commentor, levels of service remain acceptable regardless of whether Museum Way is implemented. Comment G.19: The one benefit of the extension of Museum Way that is not provided by the Preservation Alternative is the visual link between the Section 14 and the Palm Springs Art Museum. However, this would only be a very small visual link. The only area of Section 14 that would have views of the Art Museum under the proposed Project would the (sic) new Spa Hotel, located directly across Indian Canyon Drive. Neither the proposed Project nor any of the alternatives provide a visual connection between the Art Museum and the Convention Center. It is not physically possible to do so because the Convention Center is located north and east of the Art Museum. (Please see Exhibit A_) The existing Spa Hotel blocks views of the Art Museum from areas to the east of the hotel. (Exhibit C, Google Maps Street View Photo from east of the existing Spa Hotel.) Additionally, the new Spa Hotel will be located directly across Indian Canyon Drive from the Town and Country Center and is proposed to be ten stories tall. This will further block any new views of the Art Museum that would be provided by the proposed Project other than those from the new Spa Hotel. This small view enhancement does not justify the destruction of an important historic resource. In addition to being a violation of CEQA, it makes no sense to demolish one important historic resource simply to allow limited views of another historic resource (the Art Museum). The Preservation Alternative would allow the project area to be balanced on each end with buildings that are important to the City's rich architectural history. Response G.19: Comment noted. The EIR does not propose that the project will have a visual connection to the Convention Center. The EIR also does not propose that the Palm Springs Art Museum is a historic resource. The EIR simply puts forth the facts surrounding the proposed Project and each of the Alternatives, and provides the public and decision makers with a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts associated with each option. Alternative B does extend Museum Way from Palm Canyon through to Indian Canyon Drive. Finally, the commentor is incorrect as regards the "violation of CEQA;" please see response G.9., above. Comment G.20: Alternative A would also be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. It would reduce the Project's aesthetic and cultural resources impacts by eliminating the demolition of the 'town and Country Center. Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center also recommend that the EIR analyze a variation of this alternative that includes the rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center. This rehabilitation is recommended by the Cultural Resources Survey Report, which finds that the rehabilitation would increase the 22 4?- Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 aesthetic value of the Center and "[i]f this is carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, such restoration may qualify the Town and Country Center property for future tax benefits under various federal and state historic preservation incentive programs." (DEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p.22) Response G.20: Comment noted. CEQA does not require that the EIR study all possible alternatives. CEQA requires that a range of alternatives, designed to reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project, be presented in the document. The range of alternatives provided in the EIR is sufficient to provide the public and decision makers with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the project. Comment G.21: Alternative A is a feasible alternative to the proposed Project. It is economically feasible because it would provide for $566,313 of annual revenue for the City, which is more than double the current annual revenue for the area of $220,000. (DEIR p. V-55 and II1-218.) As stated above, the increased revenue for the City is a clear indicator that Alternative A would likewise increase the revenue for the project proponent. Revenue to the project proponent from Alternative A could be increased further if rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center is included as part o the alternative, which could allow the project proponent to gain tax benefits. (DEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p. 22, See also http:/ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=2426,) Response G.21: Comment noted. Comment G.22: Like the Preservation Alternative, Alternative A would also meet the majority of the project objectives. The only objective it does not meet is the extension of Museum Way between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive. As discussed in the Preservation Alternative section, the only real benefit of this roadway extension is a limited visual link between the Palm Springs Art Museum and the new Spa Hotel. Response G.22: Comment noted. See response G.19, above. Comment G.23: When the public offers reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project, the City should provide a meaningful analysis of them.... The Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center hereby request that the City analyze an additional alternative to the proposed Project. The new alternative would be a hybrid of the Preservation Alternative and Alternative A, the "Reduced Density Preservation Alternative." The Reduced Density Preservation Alternative would include the rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center and removal of the Center's south building (Building C) to allow for the public plaza proposed in the Preservation Alternative combined with the reduced density proposed as part of Alternative A, further enhancing the pedestrian friendly focus of the project. This would likewise be a feasible and less impactful alternative. 23 113 Muscum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Response G.23: See response G 20.above. CommentG.24: The Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center understand how important the redevelopment of downtown Palm Springs is to the entire community. We believe that this redevelopment does not and in fact legally cannot require the wholesale demolition of the historically significant Town and Country Center. Because demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in significant impacts, an alternative that includes preservation and adaptive reuse of the Center must be adopted instead of the proposed Project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Response G.24: Comment noted. See response G.9, above. 24 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 H. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Comment H.1: The proposed project is located within the District's Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan (MDP). When fully implemented, these MDP facilities will relieve those areas within the plan of the most serious flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. The proposed 54" RCP, as shown on Exhibit 111-15 of the DEIR, is not consistent with the existing planned drainage facilities in the Palm Springs MDP. Potential changes in drainage patterns and conflicts with master planned drainage facilities should be evaluated. The NMP maps can be viewed online at www.nFlood.or�,. To obtain further information on the MDP and the proposed facilities, please contact Dale Anderson of the District's Planning Section at 951.955.1345. Response H.1: Comment noted. The project proponent has included the 54 inch RCP in the Specific Plan, as it is adequate to provide storm water protection for the project and tributary areas. Should the City Engineer, in his review of the plans, determine that MDP or other facilities are required, such a change would be implemented through conditions of approval. This City standard requirement will assure that impacts associated with MDP facilities remain less than significant. Comment H.2: Page I11-99 of the DEIR states. "The development proposed the construction in a 36-inch storm drain in the extension of Belardo Road, from Tahquitz to the new east -west private street." It appears the proposed construction may impact the District's existing facilities (i.c. Palm Springs Lines 15, 15B and 1513A). Any activity that involves District right-of-way, easements or facilities will require an encroachment permit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right-of-way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. Sheet 3 of the Palm Springs Line 15, 15B, 15BA, Stage 2 as -built drawings (Drawing No. 6-256) is attached for your information. To obtain further information on encroachment permits or existing facilities contact Ed Lotz of the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951,955.1266. Response H.2: Comment noted. Comment H.3: Page III-99 of the DEIR states that a 36-inch storm drain is proposed in the extension of Belardo Road. Exhibit IIi-15 of the DEIR indicates the proposed construction of a 54-inch storm drain within the North Palm Canyon Drive right- of-way. Further, it appears that portions of RCP diameters of the respective existing and future storm drains shown on the storm drain plan on Exhibit III-15 is inconsistent with the diameters indicated on Sheets 2-3 of Tract No- 16544 Storm Drain Plan and Profile (Drawing No. 6-271), Sheets 5-7 of Palm Springs Lines 15, 15B, and 15BA, Stage 2 (Drawing No. 6-271) and the Palm Springs MDP map. 25 45 Museum Markot Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 Response H.3: Comment noted. The data on surrounding storm drain lines was provided by the City's Engineering Department. Please also see response H.1, above. Comment HA. Page III-93 of the DEIR states, "The levee between the Whitewater River and Indian Canyon Drive, maintained by RCFCWCD, protects the portion of the City south of the Whitewater River from flooding." It is unclear which levee the previous statement applies to. For informational purposes, please note that the Chino Canyon Levee continues to the west-southwest of Indian Canyon Drive and the Whitewater River Levee. This levee provides flood protection to southerly portions of the city as well. Response HA: Comment noted. Comment H.S: Page 111-93 of the DEIR states, "Larger storm drains (greater than 36-inch diameter) are part of the City's Master Drainage Plan and have been maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFC or RCFCWCD) since 1945; the RCFC has jurisdiction over flood control facilities both regionally and within the City of Palm Springs." Please be advised the District does not normally plan check or recommend conditions for land use cases in incorporated cities. In order for the District to consider accepting ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of MDP facilities or other regional flood control facilities, which would be considered logical component (sic) or extension (sic) of a master planned system, the City would have to submit the request in writing. Response H.S: Comment noted. The City understands the relationship with the District. The description in this portion of the EIR is a broad statement on the various flood control facilities in the region. Comment HA Page III-93 of the DEIR states, "Other areas, including the Whitewater River flood plain to the north of the urbanized portions of the City, are under the jurisdiction of both the RCFC and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)." The City, not the District, is responsible for compliance with the FEMA floodplain management regulations within the city limits. The District only owns, operates and maintains the Whitewater River Levee, which is located on the south side of the Wltewater River between Indian Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive. Response HA: Comment noted. The City understands its responsibilities for floodplain management. 26 49 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH 92008061084 January 1, 2009 1. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Comment 1.1: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 8, 2008, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Response LI: Comment noted. 27 Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Final EIR (Response to Comments) — SCH #2008061084 January 1, 2009 FINAL EIR MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SECTION II COMMENT LETTERS ON TINE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The following comment letters were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. Comments restated in Section I are bracketed in this section and correspond to the comment munbers in Section I. 28 � 8 I� From: ]Caussin@aol.com [mailtoOCaussin@acl.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 200811:28 AM To: Terri Hintz Subject: Museum Market Plaza Hello, I have read with great interest the article in the Desert Sun regarding the findings of the EIR for the Museum Market Plaza. I couldn't be happier to notice that the Preservation of the Town and Country Alternative was viewed by the EIR as a better projeck As a resident, I am very much in Favor of whatever A -1 plan will improve my quality of life" especially if it also benefits the tourism industry: sound like a win -win situation to me ill! I hope that you will support the "Preservation Alternative" as well Respectfully, Jacques -Pierre Caussin P.C. Box 5030 Palm Springs, CA 92263 760 219 4599 JCaussin@aol.com �9 L:3 November 8, 2009 TO: PS City Council CC_ Craig Ewing RE: MMP ETA Attached is a comparison chart showing the size and components of the proposed MMP versus several other mixed use development projects. We can conclude from the data that the MMP was conceived for a much large population base. With the Palms Springs B -1 population growth basically static for the last decade, there is no demographic information to support such a large project. In light of the new proposal by Wessman Development to renovate the existing site, I would highly recommend not spending valuable staff and citizen time reviewing the EIR. The size B - ar of the MMP and the gerrymandered Specific Plan area do not point to a successful outcome. Furthermore, the 10-15 years of construction will disrupt the city adversely. Time is money and the new, condensed proposal will bring retail on-line sooner and revitalize the B - 3 downtown. We should move ahead immediately in this direction. Sheryl Hamlin J 0j Museum Market Plaza (MMP) Comparison Museum Market Plaza (MMP) Comparison Chart Name Retail Housing I Movies The River 227,560 sq, 0 1 — _ ft _ Multiplex _ Golden 282,900 1254 1 - theatre Gateway sq.ft. units MMP 400,000 sq, 955 No leases ft units yet Sheryl Hamlin July 2, 2008 Sports I Public I Parking Population Space None Yes Yes Rancho Mirage 16,710 I (July 2006) Tennis and Yes 1477 San Francisco swim cars 776,733 July 2006) None Yes Yes Palm Springs 42.807 (July 2006) The chart shows the MMP and two other retail centers. The Golden Gateway is a lifestyle center, similar to the MMP proposal, while The River is purely retail and entertainment. Bath projects have been extremely successful. First look at the comparison of retail space to population. The population draw for The River in Rancho Mirage could include a portion of Cathedral City and Palm desert, so could easily have a drawing population of 35,000, which would equal to 6.5 sq, ft per person. In San Francisco, with a limited and stable population, the ratio is .36 sq, ft retail per person. Even if you consider neighborhoods east of Van Ness, this might reduce the SF population to 300,000 and thus change the ratio to .94 sq. ft, per person. Now compare the proposed MMP retail of 400,000 sq_ ft to a PS population of around 40,000, This yields 9.3 sq. ft per person, exceeding both the Rancho Mirage ratio and the San Francisco ratio by a wide margin_ Similarly skewed ratios arrive on comparing the proposed housing component at the Golden Gateway complex (.0016 condos per person) while the MMP project ratio is .022 condos per person. These ratios are important because it affects the pool of potential buyers and tenants and the length of time it will take to lease or sell the MMP properties. The MMP appears to have been designed for a much larger community, Reducing the size and scope of the MMP would reduce construction costs and time to market. The scope of the MMP as proposed doesn't make sense for B -4 the PS Community whose western boundary is the mountain and whose northern boundary includes Desert Hat Springs and the unincorporated areas of North Palm Springs, both of which are separated by 110. Palm Springs has experienced a 1 % compound growth rate for the last decade, which is effectively stable. There is no reason to suspect a spurt in growth to support the proposed size of the MMP. Clearly the citizens are looking forward to a redevelopment of the Fashion Plaza mall, but such a project should be specified in realistic and achievable terms. (760)668-2956 Palm Springs, Ca C CITY OF PALM SPRIG 2008 NOV 13 ,AM 9: 45 1AHES rHOMPSON. CITY CLERK November 10, 2008, City Planning Commission, City of Palm Springs, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. RE: Case 5.1204 General Plan Amendment (Wessman) As a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners as well as a property owner on West Arenas Road, I strongly oppose Wessman Development's current proposal with regard to the site at Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way. This massive project would totally destroy the ambience and character of our downtown Palm Springs_ Can the Commission imagine 955 (yes, 9551) high density residential units, plus a huge hotel-620 rooms (is there any existing hotel in the city with this marry rooms?) plus 400,000 square feet of commercial space (picture 15 supermarkets, for example) on this property? This might fit in well with Times Square in New York, but not here, Please do not grant these concessions --these variances —to am established Palm Springs development policies. Wessman Development's request amounts to asking for a very special privilege --a privilege which would be highly out of place, highly destructive to our Palm Springs environment. Marc Herbert, 2864 Tice Creek Dr, No. 4 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 (400 West Arenas Rd, PS) C-1 59 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ��5gp� D p w.,d.'r�3F.rcKs OVA TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY ��� � P O��T10HaEpr Transportation Department Juan C Pere., P.E., T.E. P P Director of Transportation November 12, 2008 Mr. Craig Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahpuitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR SCH# 2008061084) for the Museum Marketplace Plaza Specific Plan Dear Mr. Ewing: Thank you for giving the.Riversid6,-County Transportation Department -the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact; Report for the Museum Marketplace Plaza D-1 Specific Plan. The Transportation Departmehf has no comments on the DEIR. Sincerely, Farah Khorashadi „ r Engineering Division Manager' FK:rg cc: George A. Johnson, TLMA Director Juan C. Perez, Director of Transportion RECEWEID NOV 19 2008 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 53 F TP,amas Fieley, III P-o de�c Ppnald E Storrs vine'resieent F Gillar Boyd. Ir `-e:re�aryrreasorer Fawca Z Oygar C^3rgA. E'N'rg David Luker Gercral j lanage- Chiei Engineer Best Hest & <neaer Cereral Counsel Krj,Zar 3, Consulting Enginrer, November24,2008 Mr Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 E Desert `A/ater Agency 1200 Gene Ar try Trail South DESERT WATE R P.O Boe1710 Palm Spnrgs CA °22n3. 71 a Telephone 760 323-49 +� Fex 700 325-65-5505 'MN dwa.Yg RE;-IUSEUNI MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAY ]DRAFT ENVIRONNIENT.AL IMPACT REPORT (SCH 92008061084) Dear Mr. Ewing; We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) For the Museum Market Plazza (TIP) Water Quality/Reseurces Sections, with regards to water quantity and quality within the boundary/service area of the Desert Water Agency (D W A). I) In Section III-G, page 106, the reported Total Dissoked Solids (TDS) average of 540 mg/L is not representative of the quality of water that will be supplied to the NIMP project. The average of 540 mg/L reported in the EIR is higher than the average of _'90 mg/L given in DWA's 2007 Water Quality Report (see Attached 2007 Water Quality Report). If water samples with TDS of 540 mg/L were found, the statement in the EIR should be qualified to state where the samples were found, and that they are not representative of the quality of water provide by DW A. 2) In Section Ili-G, page 106, the reported Nitrate levels of 45 mgii are not representative of the quality of water that will be supplied to the NIMP project. The water provided to OWA customers contains an average of 5.3 mg/L of Nitrate (Sce Attached 2007 Water Quality Report), well below the Maximum Contaminate Level Goal (NICLG) of 10 mglL; 45 mg/L is the Maximum E-2 Contaminate Level (NICL) for Nitrate. It should be noted the Nitrate levels of 45 mg/L were found in wells outside of DWA's boundary and service area. The EIR should clearly state the location and proximity of the high Nitrate levels, and they are not representative to the quality of water provided by DWA- ................... 3) In Section III-G, page 108, in the first paragraph. the number of the indicated table is missm;. E-3 ................... 4) In Section 111-0, page I12, the paragraph should be changed to more deadY( ets(ett k�i E„4 results of a Single Dry Year Siudv (SOYS), regardless ot'the year the dry year �i131or i consistent cumulative water balance in the year 2030 NOV 2 6 ZOOS p(,pNN11`IG SERVICES DEPA.?TME'IT ;� 4 DESERT WATER C40) Museum iv(arkct Place Page'_ November 14, 1008 5) In Section III-G, page I I3, Table 1II-27 does not accurately show the intention of a Singe Dry Year Study (SDYS). The table is a compilation of five different SDYS for five different single dry years, reporting the water balance the year the dry year occurs. The intention of the SDYS is to show the effect of single dry year, in a given year, on the cumulative water balance in the year E-j 2030. Showing the water balance in the year the dry year occurs provides no substantive information on the condition of the aquifer or how the project will affect the aquifer in the year 2030. 6) In Section IiI-G, page 116, Item 5 mentions the possibility of DWA providing reclaimed water to E-6 the project. DWA has no plans to extend the reclaimed water distribution system to the area of the IvIhIP. Sincerely, DESERT WATER AGENC David K. Luker General N(anager-Chief Engineer DKL/Idj v� Pacific Hospitality Group, Inc. DESIGN OEYc'LOPMEYT MANAGEMENT November 26, 2008 Mr. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs '200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Opposition to the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Dear Mr. Ewing, The ownership of the Palm Mountain Resort and Spa opposes the above referenced Specific Plan which will negatively impact the Downtown Urban Design Plan (DUDP) adopted in 2007. As you are aware, the EIR identifies several .... "Significant and unavoidable" impacts which cannot be reduced to less than significant levels ...:'even with the implementation F_1 of feasible mitigation measures". Some of the unmitigatable impacts are AesiheticsNisual Resources (views to the San Jacinto Mountains), Air Quality, and Cultural Resources. A comprehensive review and comment on the number of significant changes to the recently approved DUDP, as proposed in this Specific Plan, would be a daunting task. However, there are several proposed land planning changes in the Specific Plan, which are so dramatic that the character, charm, and value of the Palm Mountain Resort and Spa, properties within the Tennis Club District, as well as the City of Palm Springs will be altered. The proposed Specific Plan changes and the impact to the City of Palm Springs we are concerned about are as follows: I - Height will be increased from an allowable 60' via the Planned Development Process to upwards of 79' in some areas. 2. Allowable density has been sicnificantly increased from the DUDP standards. I The Specific Plan is sienificantly under -parked. 4. The front yard set backs for each floor above 30' have been significantly reduced. 5. While set backs from 0' to 5' are allowed within the DUDP, such small set backs should not be allowed along Tahquitz Canyon Way, Cahuilla, and Belardo. An increase in the building foot print set backs would be an appropriate change to soften the transition from the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way and the Tennis Club District, FI'ECEII f E PLANNING 5EF VIC;, S 111-70 El Cammo Rual. Suite 100 Sam Diego Calitomia 92130 • Telephone (85S -481-?d,o • Fax (S58) 481-'998 .b VPw'rp g _ r i o P 1 pZli!Np.mm - ui �l The variances proposed within this Specific Plan are enormous changes to the DUDP. F The character and charm of the City of Palm Springs would be dramatically changed if it -2 were to be adopted. We urge the City of Palm Springs to reject this Specific Plan in its entirety and to consider alternative approaches that are less obtrusive and that would reflect sound land F-3 plarming standards. Sincerely, (% X Robert G- Richardson Director of Development Pacific Hospitality Group G CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD TELEPHONH:(310) 314-9040 SUITE 205 FACSIMILE. (310) 314-9090 SANTA NfONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 www cbeearhfaw.com December 8, 2008 Via Email and Facsimile Original to Follow via Overnight Express Craig Ewing Director of Planning City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 &AWL. ncM ,Cucc aTWuly COM Re: Comments on Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Draft EIR; SCH rr 2008061084 and Planning Commission Staff Report Dear Mr. Ewing: On behalf of the Palm Springs Modem Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center, we provide these comments on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (MMPSP). The project proposed in the DEIR would include 400,000 square feet of retail or office development, 955 high density residential dwelling units and 620 hotel rooms on 20.6 acres in the Palm Spring's Central Business District (the Project). The proposal would extend height limits to 67 feet in portions of the project area and 79 feet in other portions. The Project would also include a specific system of new roadways for the Project area. Belardo Road would be extended south through the Project area and a new street called Museum Way would be carved through the Project area from the Palm Springs Art Museum straight through to Indian Canyon Drive. The installation of Museum Way through to Indian Canyon Drive would result in the demolition of the historically significant Town and Country Center, which is located directly east of the Art Museum between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive. We are in favor of redevelopment of downtown Palm Springs, but we oppose the unnecessary demolition of the Town and Country Center. As the DEIR acknowledges, demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in significant cultural resource and aesthetic impacts. We urge the City to approve a feasible and less impactful alternative to the Project that does not include the extension of Museum Way from Palm Canyon Drive to Indian Canyon Drive and therefore does not require demolition of an important historic resource. Because such a feasible alternative exists, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prohibits the approval of the proposed Project without modification to avoid the demolition of the Town and Country Center. G-1 Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 2 of 13 I. The Town and Country Center is an Important Historic Resource The Town and Country Center was designed by renowned master architects Paul R_ Williams and A. Quincy Jones in 1943. Paul R. Williams was an African American architect who largely based his practice in Los Angeles and the Southern California area_ He was the first certified African American architect west of the Mississippi and the first African American member of the American Institute of Architects. He has received numerous awards for his contributions as an architect. A. Quincy Jones was a prolific Los Angeles -based architect and educator known for innovative buildings in the Modernist style. Jones' focus on detail, siting, and sense of aesthetic style make his buildings supreme examples of mid-century American Architecture. The Town and Country Center epitomizes "the mid-century modernist character so strongly identified with Palm Springs." (Palm Springs Citywide Historic Resources Survey, June 2004) A recent book entitled "Palm Springs Weekend" utilized extensive research and vintage photographs to discuss the Town and Country Center and other historically significant Palm Springs buildings. The author, architecture critic Alan Hess, states that the Center is a "distinctive example of 1940s California Modernism... incorporat[ing] broad abstract stucco walls, horizontal lines of warm wood, ornamental egg crate screens and lush outdoor gardens." (Palm Springs Weekend, p. 121.) Furt iT� the City's own historic resources survey found that the Center "meets the level of significance necessary for individual National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources eligibility at the local level." (Palm Springs Citywide G-2 Historic Resources Survey, June 2004.) This finding is based on the fact that the Center is a "rare and excellent example of the late Moderne style" with a "good degree of integrity" and no alteration that would impact its significance. II. Analysis of Impacts in the EIR As a whole, the MMPSP DEIR contains an adequate analysis of many of the impacts the approval of the MbIPSP would have. However, some areas of the analysts of impacts and altematives to mitigate them must be improved as discussed below. A. Cultural Resources Impacts 77� The DEIR recognizes that the Town and Country Center makes an important contribution to the historic character of downtown Palm Springs. (DEIR p. I11-65.) The G-3 Center was determined to be historically significant by the City's 2004 survey and the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared as part of the EIR concurs with that finding. (DEIR Cultural Resources Report p. 20.) Thus, demolition of the Town and Country finding E9 Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 3 of 13 Center would be a significant adverse impact. As the DEIR admits, this impact would not be mitigated to a less than significant level by merely recording the existing buildings and 6,3 placing commemorative signs at the site. (DEIR p. 1II-69.) We agree with the DEIR's Cont'd. conclusion that demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in a significant adverse impact, However, as discussed below, this impact is not unavoidable and an alternative that allows for preservation of the Center should instead be approved. V � The Town and Country Center was constructed as an important component of Palm Spring's downtown commercial core in the 1950s (DEIR p. III-64) and should remain as such in the Mi41PSP. The Center was a main feature of the rapid growth of downtown Palm Springs in the 1940-50s and it is a well known landmark that enjoys a high level of historical interest in the community. (Cultural Resources Survey Report, p. 19.) To avoid the proposed Project's cultural resources impacts, the Cultural Resources Survey Report recommends avoiding demolition of the Center and rehabilitating the existing buildings. (Id. at 22.) As discussed in detail below, alternatives proposed in the EIR as well as other alternatives would accomplish this goat, Preserving and rehabilitating the Town and Country Center would link Palm Spring's past and the present by incorporating the core of the downtown development from the 1950s to the current downtown development. Numerous Palm Springs Gencral Plan policies dictate in favor of preserving this important historic resource, - Preserve and uphold the high quality of architecture and the unique visual and aesthetic form in buildings and neighborhoods that distinguish Palm Springs from other cities. (General Plan Priorities p. 1-13.) • Recognize the importance of adaptive reuse for architecturally and historically significant resources. (General Plan Priorities p. 1-13) • Maintain the City's unique "modem urban village" atmosphere and preserve the rich historical, architectural, recreational, and environmental quality while pursuing community and business development goals. (Land Use Goal LU-2.) • Strengthen the unique sense of place currently present in Downtown by preserving and incorporating cultural and historic uses. (Land Use Policy LU10.6.) • Support the preservation and protection of historically, architecturally, or archaeologically significant sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects, native burial sites and other features (Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Policy RC10.1.) Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 4 of 13 Actively encourage and promote the understanding, appreciation, and preservation of the archaeological, historic, and cultural resources. (Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Policy RC I0.5.) • Promote historic preservation -based tourism by raising awareness of the City's historic resources. (Recreation, Open Space and Conservation Policy RC I0.7.) • The preservation of historic buildings will help retain the City's character and charm, which are crucial to the City's international reputation and economic success. (Community Design Element p. 9-58.) • Encourage developers of sites containing a significant archirectural, historical or cultural structure to adaptively reuse and expand it, in lieu of demolition and replacement, where financially feasible. (Community Design Policy CD28.7.) • Encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings and architectural excellence in the design of new projects. (Downtown Urban Design Plan Key Design Concept for Downtown Palm Springs.) By demolishing the Town and Country Center the Project would violate the General Plan's priorities, goals, and policies regarding historic resources. MeENNEW.q The Project would also have cumulative cultural resource impacts. (DEIR p. VIII- 4.) "As the City develops and redevelops, other historic buildings risk demolition. Each of these projects will be reviewed for significance under CEQA, and each will be mitigated on a case -by -case basis, based on the level of significance found at the time. However, with implementation of the proposed project, since the demolition of the Town and Country Center has been determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact, the proposed project will also have a cumulative impact on cultural resources." (DEIR p. VIII-4.) The Cultural Resources Survey Report recognizes that "over the past few decades a number of buildings that contributed materially to the Modernist character of G-4 the area have been demolished or significantly altered. ... As the remaining mid-30`h century Modernist buildings continue to age, and as the pressure to revitalize prime downtown commercial properties continues to mount, more redevelopment proposals involving such buildings can be anticipated." (DEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p. 23.) The Report recommends "an intensive, systematic historical resources survey to document and evaluate the area traditionally known as "the Village" in its entirety as a potential historic district." (Ibid.) It is appropriate to take on such an endeavor now to ensure the protection of remaining historic resources and to facilitate compatibility of the large Project area with this area's important historic Modem resources. Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 5 of 13 B. Aesthetics Impacts As the DEIR discloses, the proposed MMPSP would have a significant aesthetic impact if demolition of the historic Town and Country Center is included as part of the plan. The existing views of this important historic resource from Views 1, 2, and 11, as G-5 defined in the DEIR (p. II1-8, 10, 28), as well as from other viewpoints along Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive, would be eliminated by the proposed Project. The DEIR claims that by demolishing the Town and Country Center to install Museum Way, the proposed Project would allow a new view of the Palm Springs Art Museum. (DEIR p. III-10.) The DEIR cites Downtown Urban Development Plan's (DUDP) Concept Sketch at page 17 of the DUDP as support for its claim that the "The implementation of the proposed project will implement one of the Key Design Concepts of the DUDP, by opening a new mid -block view corridor at this location." However, the DUDP concept sketch does not show a mid -block pedestrian connection or view corridor G-6 extending through the current location of the Town and Country Center. The pedestrian connection/view corridor contemplated by the DUDP does call for the demolition of the Desert Fashion Plaza, but the corridor included in that plan ends at Palm Canyon Drive_ (DUDP p. 17.) Therefore, the DEIR cannot rely upon the DUDP to support the proposed Project's demolition of the historically significant Town and Country Center. Further, as set forth in the previous section, demolition of the Town and Country Center would clearly violate another Key Design concept of the DUDP, which is to encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings. (DUDP p. 16) lrrrv� rM Additional visual simulations are also necessary to show the potential impacts and claimed benefits of the proposed Project. The EIR should also include visual simulations from other areas in Section 14, including from the Convention Center. These additional visual simulations would demonstrate what is clear from the attached photographs printed from Google Maps Street View: the proposed Plan would only provide new, views of the Art Museum from a very limited location in Section 14, at the intersection of Indian G-7 Canyon and Museum Way. (Exhibit A, Google Maps Street View Photographs and Google Earth Satellite Image.) Views of the Art Museum are not available from areas further north or further south in Section 14 because all view corridors are oriented directly east -west and views that are further east than Indian Canyon would be blocked by the new ten story Spa Hotel. The EIR should also provide visual simulations for project alternatives from relevant view points. The December 3, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report for the NIMPSP recommends establishing a Nlodemism architecture theme for the Project area. The Palm G-8 Springs Modern Comminee and Friends of the Town and Country Center agree with this Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 6 of 13 G-8 recommendation and request that it be included as a mitigation measure for the significant Cont'd. aesthetic impacts the proposed Project would have due to change in visual character. III. The Existence of Feasible Alternatives Prohibits Approval of the Proposed Project The DEIR acknowledges that the proposed Project would have several impacts that would remain significant even after mitigation, claiming these significant impacts are unavoidable. These significant impacts are: • Adverse changes to the existing visual character of the Project area; • Adverse chances to existing visual character through the demolition of the Town and Country Center; • Obstruction of mountain views; • Emissions of criteria pollutants in excess of 5CAQMD thresholds; • Cumulative and project level cultural resource impacts. CEQA prohibits approval of projects with adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives that would reduce those impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 1502l(a)(2).) The CEQA Guidelines require an agency to "Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved." In order to implement this policy, the CEQA. Guidelines specify that: G-s A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a filly informed and publicly disclosed decision that (a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the sign cant effect..." (CEQA Guidelines § I504,, emphasis added.) Feasible is defined as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Public Resources Code § 21061.1) Project alternatives can still be considered feasible "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(b).) An EIR is also required to identify an environmentally superior alternative. Here, G S .S �� Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 7 of 13 the DEIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior G-9 alternative, but fails to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other Cont'd. alternatives, as required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2) ["If the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' altemative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives,"],) The Preservation Alternative and Alternative A are clearly environmentally superior to the proposed project because they lessen the project's significant aesthetic and culniral resources impacts. When a project would result in significant environmental impacts, the City cannot approve the proposed project without first finding that the environmentally superior alternatives are infeasible. (Public Resources Code § 2IDS I (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).) A. Preservation of the Town and Country Center Alternative The Preservation of the Town and Country Center Alternative ("Preservation Alternative") is exactly the same as the proposed Project except for Blocks Kl and K3 of the Project site, where the Town and Country Center is located. The Town and Country Center consists of three buildings: A. 8 and C. The proposed Project would demolish all three of the buildings that make up the Town and Country Center, whereas the Preservation Alternative calls for adaptive reuse of Buildings A and B, and integration of these important resources into the Palm Springs Central Business District. The Preservation Alternative would include a large plaza, open to Palm Canyon Drive, where Building C of the Town and Country Center is currently located in Block K2, along with a new outdoor restaurant building on the south side of the newly created plaza_ (Exhibit B, rendering of the Preservation Alternative.) 1. Preservation Alternative Would Reduce Significant Impacts +.w Although not identified as such by the DEIR, the Preservation Alternative is an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project. Aesthetic impacts as well as project -level and cumulative cultural resource impacts would be significantly reduced by this alternative because it would preserve and rehabilitate the Town and Country Center. (DEIR p. V-3.) The DEIR also concludes that the Preservation Alternative would reduce G-10 land use impacts because this alternative would comply with the General Plan, would be compatible with the DUDP, and includes adaptive reuse of an important historic resource. Land use impacts would be reduced because the Preservation Alternative would better meet the many General Plan goals and policies encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings that are set forth in above in the discussion of cultural resource impacts. The Preservabon Alternative would also enhance Palm Springs' distinctive an7 G 1.1 64 Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 8 of 13 eclectic architecture. The City's own historic resources survey found the Town and G-11 Country Center to be a "rare and exceptional example of the Late Modeme style" by Cont, d. master architects Paul R. Williams and A. Quincy Jones that meets the level of significance necessary for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The modern style of architecture exemplified by the Center is central to the City's mid-century architectural heritage and is so important to the City's tounst industry. The Center represents the very type of distinctive and eclectic architecture the City seeks to enhance and complement with the NIYIPSP. wi MMMMEMy There is an inaccuracv in the DEIR's assessment of the Preservation Alternative's traffic impacts. The DEIR states "the overall level of development [in the Preservation Alternative] is slightly less intensive than that of the Proposed Project. In consequence, the Preservation of the Town and Country Center Altemative will generate traffic impacts slightly higher than the Proposed Project." (DEIR p. V-47.) This inaccurate statement may be based upon inaccurate trip generation for the Preservation Alternative- The DEIR states that 295,000 square feet of commercial in Preservation Alternative would generate 16,170 weekday daily trips after finding that the proposed Project only would generate G-12 13,870 daily trips from 300,000 square feet of commercial. (DEIR p. V-47.) Why does the DEIR assign a higher rate of trip generation per square foot to the Preservation Alternative? The DEIR also finds that the 900 dwelling units that are included in the Preservation Alternative would generate exactly the same number of weekday daily trips (3,620) as the 955 dwelling units included in the proposed project. (DEIR p. V-47.) This is clearly incorrect; the 55 dwelling unit reduction found in the Preservation Alternative should result in a reduction in daily trips. The DEIR includes the same incorrect calculations for Saturday trips. 2. The Preservation Alternative is Economically feasible MOMMOMMOM The Fiscal Analysis contained in the DEIR demonstrates that the Preservation Alternative is economically feasible. This alternative would generate $939,2 L9 in annual revenue and $4.3 million in total revenue for the City, which is clearly economically feasible when compared with the current $220,000 in annual City revenue generated by the Project area. (DEIR p. V-54 and III-218.) The revenue that would be generated by the Preservation Alternative is also only slightly less than the proposed Project's G-13 estimated $1 million in annual revenue and $4.7 million in total revenue. The mere fact that an alternative might be less profitable does not itself render the alternative infeasible unless there is evidence that the reduced profitability is "sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." (Uphold Our Heritage v Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 599.) The slight difference in revenue generated by the Preservation Alternative and the proposed Project would not render it impractical to proceed with the project- 0 5 Craig Ewing December 9, 2008 Page 9 of 13 EMMEti Although it was not specifically studied in the DEIR, the large amount of revenue generation to the City from the Preservation Alternative is a clear indicator that this alternative would also be economically feasible for a developer. Under the Preservation Alternative the developer could also benefit from state and federal tax historic G-14 preservation incentive programs, which should be figured into the economic feasibly of the alternative. (DEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p. 22; California. State Office of Historic Preservation list of state and federal tax incentives for historic preservation httn•//ohD.uarks.ca.nov/?oaee id=24626, incorporated by reference.) A� Additionally, the EIR should consider the economic implications of opening Museum Way straight through to Indian Canyon Drive — and the new Spa Hotel's proposed retail center. The installation of Museum Way that is included in the proposed G-15 Project could invite pedestrians to detour from downtown's shops and instead walk directly to the Spa Hotel's retail center. This could reduce revenues for the proposed Project. 3. The Preservation Alternative Would Accomplish Most of the Project Objectives wRENEMti To be considered feasible, a project alternative needs only to meet most of the project objectives; it does not need to fully meet each one. "If there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would accomplish most of the objectives of a project and substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a project subject to CEQA, the project may not be approved without incorporating those measures." (Center far Biological Diversity, Inc. v FPL Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.AppAth 1349, 1371 fn 19, citation to ( Pub. Resources G-16 Code §§ 21000(g), 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) California courts have recently elaborated on the significant restrictions on a project proponent's ability to use project objectives to dictate what constitutes a feasible project alternative, finding that an EIR could not reject a smaller alternative that would have met all project objectives except for size and would have had the added benefit of preserving a historic building on site. (Preservation Action Council v City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal App. 4th 1336, 1355.) The project objectives for the i 4MPSP are stated 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. 4:� Craig Ewing December 8, 2003 Page 10 of 13 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 $elardo Road and creating a new boulevard (Museum Way) from the Museum to Indian Canyon. (DEIR p. V-2.) The Preservation Alternative would meet the majority of the objectives set out in the EIR, and would clearly accomplish the main goal of the Project: to revitalize downtown Palm Springs with new pedestrian friendly mixed use development. The Preservation Alternative would not include the extension of Museum~MM" Way between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon, which is included in the Project objectives. The EIR and the December 3, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report find this extension of Nfuseum Way to be an asset to the project because n would provide pedestrian, vehicle, and visual access between the Desert Art Museum and the City's Section 14 (located east of Indian Canyon Drive). However, the Preservation Alternative would still provide pedestrian connections between these G-17 two streets. A wide path from Palm Canyon Drive would meander through the newly created Town and Country Center plaza and would connect with Indian Canyon Drive in two locations. (DEIR Exhibit V-1_) Additionally, to further the pedestrian connection between downtown and Section 14 without destroying an important historic resource, the EIR should consider installing a signalized on - demand pedestrian crosswalk across Indian Canyon Drive between the Town and Country Center and the new Spa Hotel. 0� The Preservation Alternative does not provide vehicle access on Museum Way between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, but such access is unnecessary to facilitate traffic flow. All traffic analysis shows the traffic levels in this area to be fairly low and traffic flow to allow the roads to operate at a high level of service, even without G-18 signalized intersections. (DEIR Traffic Report p. 1-3.) The traffic report prepared as part of the EIR found that this extension of Museum Way is not necessary to maintain S7 Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page I I. of 13 acceptable traffic levels and might actually increase the total delay experience by through G-18 traffic on Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive because it would require an Cont'd. additional traffic signal on both of these major thoroughfares located too close to other traffic signals. (DEIR Traffic Report p. 5-6.) The one benefit of the extension of Museum Way that is not provided by the Preservation Alternative is the visual link between the Section 14 and the Palm Springs Art Museum. However, this would only be a very small visual link. The only area of Section 14 that would have views of the Art Museum under the proposed Project would the new Spa Hotel, located directly across Indian Canyon Drive. Neither the proposed Project nor any of the alternatives provide a visual connection between the Art Museum and the Convention Center. It is not physically possible to do so because the Convention Center is located north and east of the Art Museum. (Please see Exhibit A.) The existing G-19 Spa Hotel blocks views of the Art Museum from areas to the east of the hotel. (Exhibit C, Google Maps Street View Photo from east of the existing Spa Hotel.) Additionally, the new Spa Hotel will be located directly across Indian Canyon Drive from the Town and Country Center and is proposed co be ten stories tall. This will further block any new views of the Art Museum that would be provided by the proposed Project other than those from the new Spa Hotel. This small view enhancement does not justify the destruction of an important historic resource. In addition to being a violation of CEQA, it makes no sense to demolish one important historic resource simply to allow limited views of another historic resource (the Art kluseum). The Preservation Alternative would allow the project area to be balanced on each end with buildings that are important to the City's rich architectural history. B. Less Intense Alternative A Less Intense Alternative A ("Alternative A") includes a development with reduced densities and heights. This alternative eliminates the demolition of the entire Town and Country Center, although it does not include the rehabilitation of the Center. As in the Preservation Alternative, Museum Way ends at Palm Canyon Drive and does not connect to Indian Canyon Drive as it would in the proposed Project. Alternative A would also be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. It would reduce the Project's aesthetic and cultural resources impacts by eliminating the demolition of the Town and Country Center. Palm Springs Modem Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center also recommend that the EIR analyze a variation of this alternative that includes the rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center. This G-20 rehabilitation is recommended by the Cultural Resources Survey Report, which finds that the rehabilitation would increase the aesthetic value of the Center and "[i]f this is carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, such restoration may 3. Craig Eiving December 8, 2008 Page 12 of 13 qualify the Town and Country Center property for future tax benefits under various G-20 federal and state historic preservation incentive proe arns." (DEIR Cultural Resources Cont'd. Survey Report p. 22.) nn� Alternative A is a feasible alternative to the proposed Project. It is economically feasible because it would provide for $566,313 of annual revenue for the City, which is more than double the current annual revenue for the area of 5220,000. (DEIR p. V-55 and III-2I S.) As stated above, the increased revenue for the City is a clear indicator that Alternative A would likewise increase the revenue for the project proponent. Revenue to G-21 the project proponent from Alternative A could be increased further if rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center is included as part of the alternative, which could allow the project proponent to gain tax benefits- (DEIR Cultural Resources Survey Report p. 22, See also httn://ohn.narks.ca.�yov/?naae id=24626.) Like the Preservation Alternative, Alternative A would also meet the majority of the project objectives. The only objective it does not meet is the extension of Nluseum Way between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive_ As discussed in the G-2' Preservation Alternative section, the only real benefit of this roadway extension is a limited visual link between the Palm Springs Art Museum and the new Spa Hotel_ .ter C. Other Alternatives that Should he Considered When the public offers reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project, the City should provide a meaningful analysis of them. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091(d)(2)(B); Guidelines § 150S8(c); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.41h 134=4, 1367.) The Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country Center hereby request that the City analyze an additional alternative to the proposed Project. The new alternative would be a hybrid of the Preservarion Alternative and Alternative A, the "Reduced Density G-23 Preservation Alternative." The Reduced Density Preservation Alternative would include the rehabilitation of the Town and Country Center and removal of the Center's south building (Building C) to allow for the public plaza proposed in the Preservation Alternative combined with the reduced density proposed in Alternative A. The public plaza at the Town and Country Center could flow into the public park proposed as part of Alternative A, further enhancing the pedestrian friendly focus of the project. This would likewise be a feasible and less impactful alternative. Conclusion The Palm Springs Nlodern Committee and Friends of the Town and Country G-24 Center understand how important the redevelopment of downto%�n Palm Springs is to the ij 9 Craig Ewing December 8, 2008 Page 13 of 13 entire community. We believe that this redevelopment does not and in fact legally cannot G-oq require the wholesale demolition of the historically significant Town and Country Center, Cont'd. Because demolition of the Town and Country Center would result in significant impacts, an alternative that includes preservation and adaptive reuse of the Center must be adopted instead of the proposed Project. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, e-,"tc� Amy Minteer Attorney at Law Cc: Palm Springs City Council James Thompson, Palm Springs City Clerk Douglas Holland, Palm Springs City Attorney Palm Springs Modern Committee Friends of the Town and Country Center 170 EXHIBIT A Ulm,, � ,. ..,Y,I. d,"';,,i•"�t'��I�;:i'�; `l '.�L II•,i,r•�''i.t!:'ri'i':'.i�i�n�y..(rTtl�%`.rl�'.r�-5''.;'ir;nl,'r'"ti�('�{�ri �;'; ,; :'�i;{";a !:';I',;I �:J,I:,i�L ,Iflll, n':1 . ,�"' :���, ,, .1 ;,,;��' .', a,�,i,�i� v�',. .�}x �a ,t,f,l, ", 1•I I� tx J�'Ir'' ,�:�,. ;.'" .��Ir �lr'i� '!.', 1, ^�: 'r�Pr�'<':i:n��l�+e1�1 •; .'.,r:. P.f ,[. ri.{:�i,;�"�p� .�.µ+'r il'�.rlt !�-d, ;,r1r vim.. ''I�•_ .,4 "a;:i:i:j . �. A :r''� . L:' i Cr.l; �=1 a'r' !' : •a!'fsr',^,r„�.i ` , r' is J,.i,%, - le yr'. �: .:Pr':r. n�n14Y, ,:,M�p�r•} � r k ,, i' 1�r' �p;F'� f�,Rj{I'ililR.' ' 'i'; �'.' .h}�`�, I''pp} r ' �' , `Il�rq�„ ,� nu '� •:r:Y',�Ih-r'i..:y �I _ .:. 1 r«a'1���.:e'.Irr.i;,� �: � t.;� ' �'�','S r- I,,^,I�'i �'�� F�r.':irgr, l: yi:i;ir ...r��1�1�`rrt r,''''G ,d4•.'�j ,t,': ,:li.f� %;j lyd,, l`��, ��".. � , .''^`Irj, l;'ll�� l$.rP.. r�.�i� YLM+',. .•rW+.++`"'I `x.. 'l� . � ., i �o I ':: i �' � III{'. li r:';r'�r •'Y�',,. Vrcp`r+'l ifr;!,II r♦r,,,{.:.r`..r:r w.� ! .'„5.'i $:•� 8,1<, {7 pp,r ;,{';. �fv✓.LJ�.i;.;it;i4h,it^.:fl{'.hrfd�a NC2.T,�Ma','��#:�;7; si i': l++;r,�; S.�:.}�4.�>'iIPN';?,d�{�;t3,%?lyi,'1i1jt^i.�.`"; vi�:;l'L��:;ir�,�: L: ,: ;:I Page 1 of 1 21 2N GaagleMa75 Go osle "'ns N Ga Address 212 le Emilia pCdrn55 is OPPr4Ximala See"! . Go 9 C�aVe'trees12(�Ps�n,ip�f 17oumtpatlGpo9c•[vm14Mm a4 tRhvneacgaa4 E encode=&q lb$+knob'+Palm+canYdn driv,.. � �2t7Q�g ht�P;tlmaps•Baogle.aaml�r'aps?��&'hl—en g •�u.,!�'..�::�1:,4r,�,�:,'�..ii:�"�';}s.�,�,"..r,Fr..r,j�q �J�]roAiil���ad!; 'S'4r.`d +ri': P;,,�rl'':... . I'L. -ir�l; .,!.4�"r�,ri 11 '"si �6•.vri;-r� nrr,'�,'''''G+r'f!"Na�v:. .`fF: i'll'h��til!.�',T•�"'� :"I '� �4 ���yf•' .;.j: .y'!+;r;r'i'`�;, 1lr �rry, r.r,'R'dyCl,,:, J71ti'�Ila'I `�'��; •r�i' �';:,lu"lir�";h'li+'�.r..` 'w:,l. +iY!i ji.'�'d., 914 •(' . -1rt:,; ,f I r?;r;, �i:.iv trrP�)lr. �` (I,i'i.'ti�q{i'1+.'.req; '.,.(n. �- 'ii is ',r' .. dY .'�?"�_, ,;{�'.'prr,! 5���'fi�,, ,"i�':�il�i', �1��`�,ap2r�r1r"i/ld,•H!�i"'1','7�. ::M1t;�ni� ',Qr�11' _ 'i'1>,rn' ��I{.i•nWrn�{'x f_r, r✓,Inr In{r:.lfxxi ..'.M^nIM':'aA::.. .rqr... 'I-:{'ii �i �'. II,: ii." :�'I'i ..iYij 4,n. Gw.y', �';,V,`x•, .''I", '� ;r� ' ,�, nil, r' i.. _+.i•r �;'p; •. ,1;',i i':r � '���• h.�'�' �,}I�.'I P,' .�'r li:l J. ){ �.'fif'lu" r'�•'a}; i:r,'„h:J: ;;i„`��'�''"t�.q ��`'; L.. � �'�,, '�, li,: !.i', ,, 41 dr.�sn' Ji,. i'}.if�,i ,iji�,{': r` r�ri:=;iir'�rla'� :! �•i.: �. ,'�.:' N+Oh''r r;- yfhr Sk:w(+gti.,,i _.'•,, '`>^ r;f'`' :: i•'i @: Il. ie`JII :ly;,, ?^•��L�:d r+r_„ N 4tI,Pl I �. .,�u. ler na tii :'iti: I�_r,l u:kf%Ix 8elardo Palm Canyon NQ Indian Canyon :alle Encilia :alle Alvarado le. Caballeros r n G a a 3 N R ° y n � M ° m o a � a m EXHIBIT B �� M EXHIBIT C 1 :� RtlYyyaifa� ri. �'Y'i h % y'1nGd"Am1, �a�iG..,1. ��`il�'iFw iwr+lfakrfi'+��'yl i.1ak�Mi !� )PI I �' I C ;�°• ;i" °ry"'f` �LOriN'I`'�' M'+.:141k;1ii,v: IA", 'I" I.,Vrt.'I;Ii_7�hii1M'•M1".1 rfy,�b 41j '�r,'A i ,i -,.,' 'i, +�j�'+u§JT�!'•c�i'. ,;. n�'�•.r"�`., .5 r...�•�,�',°N;.".,,*;�'r,tM1, ,yG,•xE?rT{j!Y1[nj-try, r'-fi.,',.it,�� r'�Jr,4t;r �`��,;,�'! ':!, .� i,. ��. �� 1�i1 .1x�. 1' •'''1 � 1�!`��i n . ��i .4�.1�' x�-, ',,. � �`a . +ix�r, ..`µ : 4i.:'1 , ", ,4�• :w„n: i,I'�I�'rr', :p.^', ':f :'di�J�1,,.P1". r�i�`, �� a�f _ :,54eo?�A:.mt r .4f 4ti: �. '.� ��, .. ��ry1 ., .•I,!, A.>: �Y_ i`.•..„„t'�C .4 "_ %jai i•`I ;+. �t?M1ir":%16•�(';' .,r �•11C.]'S�i)'�h:nll;:..;, i`:. _. 1� ,�.. ��.!b''-.9."� ... '' i i WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer �ouiriv �i°° CONSFgVPT1�N�, 1995 N(ARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951,955.1200 F.4X 951,789.9965 www,rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECEIVED Mr. Craig Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Mr. Ewing, December 11, 2008 r-r 1 � ?6a8 pLANNINCv SERVICES t)EFARFMExT Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft. Environmental Impact Report for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (SCH #2008061084) This letter is written in response to the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (SCH 92008061084). The proposed project consists of a Specific Plan which includes policies and development standards for a master -planned, mixed -use project to include Retail, Office, High Density Residential and Resort development on 20.6 acres. The proposed project area is generally bounded by Andreas Road on the north, Arena Road on the south, Museum Drive on the west, and Indian Canyon Drive on the east, located in the city of Palm Springs, Riverside County, The District has the following comments/concerns: The proposed project is located within the District's Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan (ivt�~ When fully implemented, these MDP facilities will relieve those areas within the plan of the most serious flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. The proposed 54" RCP, as shown on Exhibit EII-15 of the DEIR, is not consistent with the existing planned drainage facilities H-1 in the Palm Springs MDP. Potential changes in drainage patterns and conflicts with master planned drainage facilities should be evaluated. The MDP maps can be viewed online at www.reflood.org. To obtain further information on the MDP and the proposed facilities, please contact Dale Anderson of the District's Planning Section at 951,955.1345. Page III-99 of the DEIR states, "The development proposed the construction in a 36-inch storm drain in the extension of Belardo Road, from Tahquitz to the new east -west private street." It appears the proposed construction may impact the District's existing facilities (i.e., Palm Springs - Lines 15, 15B and 15BA). Any activity that involves District right-of-way, easements or facilities H-Z will require an encroachment permit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right-of-way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. Sheet 3 of the Palm Springs Line 15, 15B, 15BA, Stage 2 as -built drawings (Drawing No. 6-256) is attached for your information. To obtain further information on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz of the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951,955.1266. Page III-99 of the DEIR states that a 36-inch storm drain is proposed in the extension of Belardo Road, Exhibit 11I-15 of the DEIR indicates the proposed construction of a 54-inch storm drain within Elie North Palm Canyon Drive right-of-way. Further, it appears that portions of RCP H-3 diameters of the respective existing and future storm drains shown on the storm drain plan on Exhibit 111-15 is inconsistent with the diameters indicated on Sheets 2-3 of Tract No. 16544 Storm Drain Plan and Profile (Drawing No. 6-271), Sheets 5-7 of Palm Springs Lines 15, 15B, and 15BA, Stage 2 (Drawing No. 6-271) and the Palm Springs MDP map. i 8 0 Mr. Craig Ewing -2- December 11, 2008 "Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (SCH 92008061084) �t 4. Page III-93 of the DEIR states, "The levee between the Whitewater River and Indian Canyon Drive, maintained by RCFCWCD, protects the portion of the City south of the Whitewater River from flooding." It is unclear which levee the previous statement applies to. For informational ]R-4 purposes, please note that the Chino Canyon Levee continues to the west/southwest of Indian Canyon Drive and the Whitewater River Levee. This levee provides flood protection to southerly portions of the city as well. Page III-93 of the DEIR states, "Larger storm drains (greater than 36-inch diameter) are part of the City's Master Drainage flan and have been maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFC or RCFCWCD) since 1945; the RCFC has jurisdiction over flood control facilities both regionally and within the City of Palm Springs." Please be advised the District does not H-S normally plan check or recommend conditions for land use cases in incorporated cities. In order for the District to consider accepting ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of MDP facilities or other regional flood control facilities, which would be considered a logical component or extension of a master planned system, the City would have to submit the request in writing. 6. Page III-93 of the DEIR states, "Other areas, including the Whitewater River flood plain to the north of the urbanized portions of the City, are under the jurisdiction of both the RCFC and the H-6 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)." The City, not the District, is responsible for compliance with the FEMA floodplain management regulations within the city limits. The District only owns, operates and maintains the Whitewater River Levee, which is located on the south side of the Whitewater River between Indian Canyon Drive and Date Palm Drive. Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Mai Son at 951.955,5418 or me at 951.955.1233. Very truly yours, TERESA TUNG Engineering Project Manager Attachments c TLMA Anri: David Mares Dale Anderson Ed Lotz NITS: mcv P8\122671 `%Eae H.tyxry� v �O STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH ' �r�J STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT � �OF cr " ARNOLD ScRwAnznNECG&R CYNTfnASRYANT GOVERNOR PIT=- OR Decembcr 10, 2009 Craig Ewing City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92253 Subject: Museum Market Plazza Specific Plan SCHm::008061084 Dear Craig Ewing: The State Clearinghouse subn-uned die above named Draft EIR to selecred state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 8, 2008, and no state agencies subrmrtcd comments by that date. Thus I-1 letter acknowledges that you have complied with die Stare Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant m dre California Environmental quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit Stare Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Robs Director, State Clearinghouse ECEIVMU DEC. 15 2008 MINING SERVICES DEPARTMFN'P 1400 101h Street M. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812.3044 (916) 445-0613 PAX (916) 323-3018 www.opcca.gov v� Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2008061084 + Project Title Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Lead Agency Palm Springs, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description Specific Plan to allow the construction of up to 955 multi -family units, 400,000 sf of commercial retail or office space, and 620 hotel rooms on a 20.6 acre site which is currently fully developed with commercial uses. Lead Agency Contact Name Craig Ewing Agency City of Palm Springs Phone (760)323-8245 Fax email Address 3200 E. Tahquit7 Canyon Way City Palm Springs State CA Zip 92253 Project Location County Riverside City Palm Springs Region Lat/Lang 33" 49' 24.27" N / 116' 32' 52.72" W Cross Streets Tahquitz Canyon and Palm Canyon Parcel No. 513-092-010-3,513-092-009-3,513-092-003-7,513.560.004-L,513-560-007-7,513.560-008-8,513560.0 Township 09-9 4S Range 4E Section 15 Base SBB&M Proximity to: Highways 111 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Existing Commercial Development/Central Business District & High Density Residenhal/Central Business District & Small Hotel Projectissues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Floeding; Geologic/Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans,.District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission ,Date Received 10/24/2008 Start ofReview l012412008 End of Review 12/08/2008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. RESOLUTION NO. 7187 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE "MUSEUM MARKET SPECIFIC PLAN", CASE NO. 5.1204, FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF N. PALM CANYON DRIVE AND TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY. WHEREAS, on April 30, 2008 a draft Specific Plan titled the "Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan" was prepared by the Wessman Development Company and submitted to the City of Palm Springs for consideration as a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment for properties located northwest of the intersection of N. Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way, as well as certain other properties nearby; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65453 and Section 94.07.01.A.1.b of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council initiated a Specific Plan review process and directed staff and the Planning Commission to report on the conformance of the draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (Case No. 5.1204) with the Palm Springs General Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines and Palm Springs Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008 a public Scoping Meeting was held to receive comments on preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released for public comment, with the 45-day comment period ending on December 8, 2008; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Case No. 5.1204, was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2008, a public hearing on the draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law, at which hearing the Planning Commission considered the draft Specific Plan, associated Draft Environmental Impact Report, a staff report, background materials and oral and written testimony presented at Resolution No. 7187 December 17, 2008 Page 2 said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby finds, as follows - Section 1 That the adopted Palm Springs General Plan and approved Downtown Urban Design Plan provide appropriate and sufficient guidance to the development of the subject properties such that the proposed Specific Plan is not needed. Section 2: That the owner and developer of the subject properties has indicated that the original vision contained within the draft Specific Plan is no longer viable and that an alternative development scheme that may comply with the existing General Plan, Downtown Urban Design Plan and Zoning Code may be forthcoming. Section 3: That the developer is responsible to propose the development of the site, including mix of uses, project phasing and road network. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the draft Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan be denied. ADOPTED this 171h day of December, 2008. AYES: 4, Scott, Ringlein, Hochanadel and Caffery NOES: 2, Donenfeld and Cohen ABSENT: 1, Conrad ABSTAIN: None, ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA C5 Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2008 Meredith, Palm Springs, stated her support for Item 1 B. rank, Palm Springs, stated that the Specific Plan map is incorrect and should not JeNc,,ertain parcels, as part of the project for Item 2A. There being Tvq further appearances, Public Comments was closed. 1. CONSENT 1A. Minutes of Novembe 12, 2008 and November 19, 2008. M/S/C (Conrad/Vice Chair Co 7-0) Approved, as part of the Consent Calendar. (The minutes of November 12, 20k as amended.),_ 1B. Case 5.1218 ZTA - Draft resolutio and ordinance for the City of Palm Springs recommending an amendmen to,,th�P*�n Springs Zoning Code relating to medical cannabis cooperatives d e7ollectives as permitted uses in the M-1, M-2 and P zones and by conditi , Muse permit in all other non- residential zones. \ Chair Hochanadel noted his abstention on Item 1 B and woultq"1i��t be participating in the discussion and vote. Chair Hochanadel left the Council Chafnber�a 1:45 p.m. The Commission dis.9 s" d hjd�/or commented on stafFs alternate rec mendation to the City Council and,the use allowed in the CM zone. M/S/C (Conrad/Vice Ch Irl"Cotj�h -Dr approval to.. the City Couacili, staff -t Chair Hochanadel re-entered the 2, PUBLIC HEARING: o Chamber at 1.55 n m I 2A. Case 5.1204 GPA i ZTA - Proposed Draft Specific Plan 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. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning) Commissioner Conrad noted a property -related conflict of interest would not be participating in the discussion and vote. Commissioner Conrad left the Council Chamber at 1:56 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2008 Director Ewing provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated December 3, 2008. Commissioner Donenfeld disclosed that he toured the Desert Fashion Plaza on November 14th and attended a business roundtable meeting presented by Wessman Development. Commissioner Scott disclosed that he received and revieweq email from Sheryl Hamlin in reference to an economic comparison chart; andralso"�poke to Mr. Peter Moruzzi in regards to the preparation of the environmettfal impact report and the specific plan by the same organization. yq, Commissioner Caffery disclosed that he received the sIme e-mailom Ms. Hamlin, spoke to councilmember Hutcheson with respect to the items discuss t the previous meeting and attended the presentation by Wessman Development business roundtable meeting. Commissioner Ringlein disclosed that she attended a presentation by Wessman Development for the alternative plarn�- Palm Springs Hospitality Association meeting and received the e-mail from Ms. Hamllnwell. Vice Chair Cohen disclosed that he received,Yhe-Tnail,,from Ms. Hamlin, toured the Desert Fashion Plaza and attended the' 0�e$antatiorr�by vessman Development at a business roundtable meeting, earlier this yeah. 1�� Chair Hochanadel' opened the Public Hearing -Emily He 11 al counsel representing Wessman Development, provided details on their ' n o w the.Specific Plan and move forward with the renovation of the Dese shion Plaza, result of the dramatic changes in the economy. -Jo Edith, Palm Sp in s, expressed concern with the time the city has spent with plans th��not come td�tition;'and spoke highly of the developer. -Sheryl Ha i Palm Springs, commented that the Museum Market Plaza project was projected for uch laer town and encouraged the Commission to support the adaptive re -use fi ^t is fility. -Paula Auburn, Pa%prings, requested a continuance of the public hearing to the meeting December J7, 2008, for the opportunity to review the staff report. -Jay Frank, Palm Springs, requested parcels 134, 136 and 140 North Palm Canyon deleted from the project because it is not a part of the developer's property. -Marshall Roath, Palm Springs, stated his support for the Downtown Guidelines and noted that the abandonment of Museum Drive will have major traffic problems. -Frank Tysen, Palm Springs, spoke in support of the Desert Fashion Plaza renovation and commented that the proposed project is out of scale. -Joe Wertheimer, suggested a village -like atmosphere for the Desert Fashion Plaza; noting that this is not the time to build but to create ideas and plans. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2008 -Jane Cowles Smith, spoke about the creating a healthy environment while restoring the historic downtown. -G.P. Gerber, Palm Springs, spoke about moving forward with the Desert Fashion Plaza's renovation. -Bob Thomas, Palm Springs, spoke in support of moving forward with Wessman's alternate plan. -Steve Kaunal, Palm Springs, stated his support for the Downtown Guidelines and the re -adaptive use of the building- -Craig Blau, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the height and density for the Museum Market Plaza; and in favor of renovation of the Desert Fashion property. -Tamara Stevens, PSEDC, stated that they have not reviewed the specific plan or the alternate plan but are in support of the renovation -project they have seen. -Ron Marshall, Palm Springs, requested designatioh-ott, e Town and Country center as a Class I property- -Emily Hemphill, responding to public testimrfn ",noted fhat the dramatic change in the financial market has occurred within the last two maws and the unreasonable expectations of the city to redesign the site and sltbliii Z application within 60 days. Ms. Hemphill commented that changes to the spedlfjc",plan would be expensive and cumbersome. A. No further speakers coming forward the public hearing was Commissioner Gaffe atpd that he served as a member of the Board of Directors of PSEDC and recusesetr�m the meetings and actions of the board regarding this project. Z The Commission disc"Og,, q merits of reviewing the specific plan -or i guidelines: M/S/C (Scott/-1, ) To forwar�d110 ;�'hey recommendation. (MOTION FAM, D) on a continuance of the project, the sing denial and the existing downtown Specific Plan to the City Council with no M/S/C (Caffery/Scott, 4-2A/ice Chair Cohen/ Donenfeld), 1 abstained/ Conrad) To recommend denial of the Specific Plan to the City Council. No comments. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Director Ewing provided details of the upcoming planning items for the City meeting. 4 r. CALENDAR: Commissioner Donc separate discussion. Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2008 Item 113 removed from the Consent Calendar for 1A. Minutes of November 5, 2008 and December- M/S/C (Scott/Vice Chair Cohen, 6-0, 1 absent/Conrad) Approved, as 1B. Case 5.1204 GPA i ZTA - Draft resolution of�denial for draft Specific Plan to allow up to 955 high -density residential.0, lts';�,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 Caic3,n Drive" end Tahquitz Canyon Way, and other nearby properties. Commissioner Scott requested the resolution includ "that the developer is responsible to propose the future development of the site including rn)(Qf uses, project phasing and road network. a� �v M/S/C (Scott/Vice Chair Cohen, 5-1/Donenfeld), 1 abserA&nrad) To approve, as amended: , 1- -Section 3: To inglJO&, "The "4'9,veloper is responsible to propose the development of the site including rriiixgfuses, project phasing and road network". ---111111110- Reconsideration of agenda). 2. 7UBLiEHEARR183. ✓ %W 2A. Ca 5.1190 CUP I'; 6.509 VAR (Palm Springs Batch Plant) - A request by Elsinore ady Mix Company for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation a operation of a portable concrete batch plant on approximately 5.29- s and a Variance request to exceed the thirty foot height maximum permitte the E-1 zone. The site is located at the southwest corner of Dillon Roa d Karen Avenue, Zone E-1, Section 10, APN 6fi8-280-016: (Project Planner: Da Newell, Associate Planner) Director Ewing reported that the applicant has requested a nuance to the meeting of January 14, 2009. M/S/C (Caffery/Ringlein, 6-0, 1 absent/Conrad) To continue the public meeting of January 14, 2009, Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2008 ssioner Caffery noted that although he is in favor of wind/energy conversion he is opposed to he- -cite" colored turbines. M/S/C (Donenfeld/Scott, 5-1! 1 absent/Conrad) To certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and a .Case 5.1081 CUP and Case 6.511 VAR, subject to Conditions of Approval, as amended: -The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of three;�years fro ate v` 1B. Case 5.1204 CPA / ZTA - Draft resolution of denial for lra Specific Plan to allow up to 955 high -density residential units', u`� to 40 , , ,square feet of commercial retail and office space, and up to 620 hotel room, elocated at the northwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and TahquitMat&on Way, and other nearby properties. Vice Chair Cohen requested M/S/C (Ring lei n/Caffery, 6-0, 1 M/S/C (Scott/Ringlein, 4-2/Vice Chair the draft resolution or direct -staff, as al of Item 1 B. To reconsider Item 1 B. absent/Conrad) To adopt -Section 3: To include, "The developer is responsible to propose the development of the site including mix of uses, project phasing>road network" PI W1,1111M.119SION 1111M11 J. Co ner Donenfe%,,,oted that he would be out of town the first of the year and may not'b; ndance f0r the meeting of the January 7th. Chair Hochanad6l�repo4rte , ' n overgrown tree blocking the stop sign on Toledo Avenue and Miracopa. Vice Chair Cohen ajio reported an overgro ree blocking the stop sign at Vista Chino and Via Norte. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: _1�1 Director Ewing provided an update on the upcoming planning items for the City meeting. 4 CIO Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization December 8, 2008 TO: Craig Ewing, Palm Springs Planning Director CC: Palm Springs Planning Commission, Mayor, City Council RE: Museum Plaza Specific Plan We were very disappointed that your recommendations re the Museum Plaza Specific Plan did not include elimination of the Palm Hotcl property from the Plan. Our board has repeatedly communicated to the city that we consider Tahyuitz our northern Historic Neighborhood boundary and strongly oppose any development expansion which does not conform to our zoning, in this case R3. For your department to continue to champion a commercial Museum Plaza Specific Plan which intrudes into our neighborhood is completely unacceptable to us. We are very much concerned that your department seems to continue to ignore to protect the character of our historic neighborhood as well as failing to recognize a legal decision which nullified the Palm Hotel proposal. Sincerely, Sven Holm Acting President E 5" Ell tad'• u� HTCNO ULC 1 2 2008 611 South Palm Canyon Drive #7220 Palm Springs, CA 92264-7453 ?S ANNIING SE MOSS www.htcno.org D--5%.R GLr^Nr 01 January 5d', 2009 RC: Specific Plan for Museum Plaza Issue Dear Palm Springs Mayor and City Councilpersons: The Board of Small Hotels of Palm Springs, Inc., aka SHoPS, recently met with Michael Braun of Wessman Development about their newly proposed Renovation Plan for the Desert Fashion Plaza, and after considerable discussion - we now strongly support your immediately discontinuing the Museum Plaza Specific Plan process in favor of just moving forward with Wessman Development's much more realistic and achievable Renovation Plan. Much of our tourist input continually centers around the lack of good shopping and this would bring us a realistic opportunity to provide that within a few years rather than 7 or 10 years. The benefits of avoiding lengthy and intrusive construction activities necessary to implement the Specific Plan would be worth it alone — sparing us up to ten years of construction pollution and havoc in the heart of downtown that would almost certainly kill downtown. Also, we believe any other developer's plan will ultimately face the same basic viability and practicality hurdles the current developer has already faced, if not more of them, and end up proposing essentially the same and/or an even more dense a project that we all now ]snow is no longer feasibly possible to approve, finance and then sel I. We have never been very eager on having this kind of major development in the former Fashion Plaza whether proposed by Wessman Development or by our own Planning Department which still proposes 300 condos and over 600 hotel rooms. Renovation seems to be the right answer and the only specific plan that seems to make sense is a specific plan for renovation rather than major redevelopment. (W T:�0t Craig Blau President / Small Hotels of Palm Springs, Inc. / aka SHOPS On behalf of The SHoPS Board Jay Thompson From: Craig Ewing Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:38 AM To: Chris Mills; David Ready; Ginny Foat; Jay Thompson; _ee Weigel; Martha Edgmon; Rick Hutcheson; Steve Pougnet Cc: gfrank828@gmail.com Subject: FW: Plan Error --Museum Market Project To All, We received the following e-mail regarding the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan from Mr. Gary Prank, owner / representative of The Henry Frank building at 234 — 240 N. Palm Cyn. Drive. A printed copy will be included with the staff report. Thank you, and let me know If you have any questions, Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 P. Taliquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92261 760-323-8245 From: Gary Frank [mailto:gfrank828@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:21 PM To: Craig Ewing Subject: Plan Error --Museum Market Project 1/8/09 RE: Case #5.1204 GPA/ZTA, Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment, Wessman Museum Market Plan, Pahn Springs. Dear Mr. Ewing, We are the owners of The Hemy Prank building at (234), 236, 240 N. Pahn Canyon Drive. Several months ago we were assured by Planning that our property was not included in the Wessman Museum Market Plan, even though our properly appeared to be included in the map of the proposed plan. We have since been advised that the plan that the City Council is voting on January 14th does include our property. We would like to officially go on record to declare that our property has never been a part of the Museum Market Plan. We have never engaged in any dialogue with Mr. Wessman or any of his representatives about this plan, and we have no interest in our property being included in this plan, either in its present or any future version. We request that our property be officially removed from any connection to this plan and we would appreciate receiving a letter from Plamiing or the City to that effect. Please forward this email to the Mayor and all City Council members as well as any other officials you deem as necessary recipients. if you would like to discuss this further, please call Gary at 415 652-1185 1/9/2009 Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jay, Gary and Don Frank �C 1/9/2009 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION a CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk Meeting Date: January 14, 2009 Subject. Museum Market Plaza, Case 5.1204 GPZ/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 December 30, 2008, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (140 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 January 3, 6, and 8, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. !r ^ Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk 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 January 2, 2009. dectare under penalty of perjury ythat the foregoing is true and correct. Dolores Strickstein Secretary �5 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of a printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISKI[NG COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, 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 Number 191236; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non panel, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and tint in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: January 3", 6r", 8t", 2009 All in the year 2009 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California this----13r", ---- day of------- January -------, 2009 No 0011 -- ^— - T NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1204 GENERAL PLAN AMEND - MENTANbZONING COOP AMENOMENT MUSEULAZA MIC PALM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Ole CIN Council 01 the City at Palm Springs, Callforma, will hold a public hearing ,at its meelmp of January 14 2000. The CIry Council meetlnpp bapins at 6.00 pp m. In the City Council Chamber at CIry Hall, 3800 E. Tahqulli Canyon Way Palm Spring- -- � r II• d4.VI.,�1-�� I dr llu ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Final Epvlmnmentel Impact Report FrIR) has peen prepared lot this prolucl under the Gahlornla Environmental pudlity Act ICEOAI guidelines un0 will be ruvmwed by the City Council at tho hearing. D4embera of the public may view this document at the Planning Semcos Department CW Hall. 3200 East Tahquitz Canyyon Wty, Pa)m brings be- wvcnn tha hour of 6 00 a.m. and U.00 p m Moil - day through Fnd% and -ubm t written comments - at, or prior to, Ire Iry Council meeting REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION! The Draft Specific Plan Final Elk and other sup- . portingp JQcuments rub Ttding Ihlsprgp.cl are also " aveila of for public review aI 04 Hall bOtwnon the hours of 8:00 a m and 5 00 pp m , Monday Ihmugh Fndev Memo contact the OTT e`-the GV Clerk at (760) 323-6204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review thee documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION! Re" sppouse to this. notice may be made verbally at the pubLc Hearing tnalor in waling before the hrai- nq. Written comments may be made to the City Council by lager (for mail or hand delivery) to Jame; Thompson City Clerk 3200 E. Tal'igWt: Canyyon W iy Patin Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of theproposed prulncl In court me be "mad To raising only those ssuv nLed al Ipe public roaring described in this notice, or in wndurt correspondence delivered to the Clry Clark at cr prior, to The p,hlic. hearing, (G,rvr.mment Code Section Ga009 h [)) An oppoihrnlry will be arvon at said hcanng for all interested por;orin to be hoard, questions rcgad- inpp Igis case may pq directed ID Ca3ig A. Ewing, AIGP. Director of Plamm�g Servicos al p60) 323- a245. SI necasitd ayuda con osm cana porkwur Imme a • Id Cmdad do Palm Spring y puede hablar con Nadine Fteger Isle ono . (760) 323• eats —'" Kathie Rs�° Chief Deputy City Clerk Published: 1/3, 116, 118109 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 5.1204 SP/CZ MR PETE MORUZZI Museum Market Plaza MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 01.14,09 HISTORIC SITE REP D, PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT VERIFICATION NOTICE ATTN SECRETARY PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS SPONSORS MRS NICOLE S. CRISTE TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH 400 S. FARRELL DRIVE, STE. B-205 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MR TOM DOCZI TKD ASSOCIATES 71780 SAN JACINTO DRIVE, STE. F-2 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 777 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, 4301 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MRJOHN WESSMAN PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC 300 S. PALM CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MR JEFF HALPIN NELSEN PARTNERS, INC. 15210 N. SCO77SDALE ROAD, STE. 300 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 MS AMY MINTEER CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS INTERESTED PARTIES 1, 1-0 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD, #205 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 CASE 5.1204 SP/CZ MRS.JOANNEBRUGGEMANS 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MR MICHAEL BRAUN PALM SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC 300 S. PALM CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MR MARVIN ROOS MSA CONSULTING 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 MR GARY FRANK 2679 15T"i AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 F' A !` 508-041-001 Keith McCormick 244 N Indian Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 508-041-007 pi united States America&Agu 208 N Indz Canyon Dr Palm Spr• ngs, CA 92262 5 0 8 - 0 5 3 M Agua Ca entc Spa Inc %`, 901 E ahquhtz Canyon Way Palprhngs, CA 92262 513-070-009 0 Donnell Golf Club 301 N Belardo Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-002 ProDect 92 303 N Indian Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-005 Broughton Palm Springs Llc 20241 SW Birch St 201 Newport Beach, CA 92660 513-091-011 Charles & Charlotte Crone 1454 E Gem Chr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-017 Alfred J & Cheryl Mcbride 296 N Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-021 City of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 508-041-002 ❑nited St es Of America&Agu 208 N than Canyon Dr Pa Springs, CA 92262 508-04 �7 Plaza Mo _ rs Inc %' / 290 N ndhan Canyon Ur Pa Spra.ngs, CA 92262 508-081-002 Plaza Welmas Inc 115 S Indian Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-070-010 0 Donnell Golf Cluh 301 N Belardo Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-003 Redevelopment Agency City Pa 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-008 Lori L Simmons 939 N Camino Condor Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-012 Mcb Prop 814 N Mission Rd Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-091-018 White Brothers Inv 71905 Highway Ill E Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 513-091-022 City Of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 508-04Zan United Of America&Agu 206 NCanyon Dr Pa].m.Springs, CA 92262 508-041-012 Usa 508 PO Box 2245 Palm Springs, CA 92263 50S-081-�d08 Aphm�o Llc 44 ^4 S Pecos Rd I s Vegas, NV 89121 513-091-001 Albert A & Flora Simay 2445 Brant St 502 San Diego, CA 92101 513-091-004 Redevelopment Agency City Of PO Sox 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-091-010 Roland Adass 6639 Norwich Ave Van Nuys, CA 91405 513-091-016 Ralph G & Hazel Gaytan S50 Avenida Acapulco San Clemente, CA 92672 513-091-020 Henry Frank 550 N Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-091-023 City Of Palm Springs PC Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-091-024 513-091-026 513-092-003 City of Palm Springs Southern California Edisdn.0 Wessman Holdings PC Box 2743 PO Box 800 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92263 Rosemead, CA 91770 Palm Springs, CA 92262 :. ,j r.�a4 N 513-092-004 513-092-005 Henry Frank Frank Prop 121 S Palm Canyon Dr 216 550 N Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 93262 513-092-007 513-092-009 Plaza Invest'menL Inc Wessman Holdings 115 S Indian Ave 300 S Palm Canyon Of Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-094-001 513-094-002 Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey 60 Arli.ngton Ave E 80 Arlington Ave F St Pau.L, MN 55117 St Paul, Mtd 55117 513-094-004 513-094-005 Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey 80 Arlington Ave C 80 Arlington Ave E St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117 513-094-007 513-094-008 Robert L Brackey Robert L Brackey 80 Arlington Ave E 80 Arlington Ave E St Paul, MN 55117 St Paul, MN 55117 513-110-034 513-110-035 Palm Springs Art Museum Inc Paul C Marut 101 N Museum If PO Box 56958 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413 513-120-058 513-120-059 Cunningham Jay M Chozen PO Box 1587 27642 Hidden Trail Pd Palm Springs, CA 92263 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 513-120-076 David L & Judith Christian 431 Villaggio N Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-120-073 Leonel S Medeiros 2189 Market St 3 San Francisco, CA 94114 513-120-077 M Kruse "M" 3 Rue Fontaznbleau Newport Beach, CA 92660 513-7.0-080 Marian D & Terrill Phillippi 399 Villaggio N Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-092-006 Earl Stahl 808 E Highland Ave Redlands. CA 92374 513-092-010 We55man Holdings 300 5 Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 93262 513-094-003 Robert L Brackey 80 Arlington Ave E St Paul, MN 55117 513-094-006 Robert L Brackey 80 Arlington Ave E St Paul, MN 55117 513-094-009 Joel & Barbara Rettew 10424 Brookshire Ave Downey, CA 90241 513-110-036 Rose E Mihata 468 W Tahquit; Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-120-075 Robert T & F Truska 1218 N Orleans St Chicago, IL 60610 513-120-078 Harry W Dobrcwolsky PO Box 744 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 513-120-081 Eri:c-.J Wohlschlegel 611 Massachusetts Ave Ne Washington, DC 20002 513-120-085 513-120-086 513-120-087 Gregory G & Lori Hollenk *B" Paul Hryn Emmett A & Judith Koelsch 1625 Delaware Ave 434 Villaggio S 4912 Keating Rd Nw Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Olympia, WA 98502 513-120-088 Lindsay Personal 44 W Broadway 2008 Salt Lake City, UT 513-120-0 ,,. �,,7 Steven Manahan /.- 800 Bl Camino Real 84101 Clemente, CA 92672 513-120-091 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-120-095 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-001 Paul C Bruggemans 385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-011 Wahoo Cal Dba A Hideaway 4109 NE 19Th Ave B Portland, OR 97211 513-141-015 Casa Cody B & B Country Inn 175 S Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141- 18 .,Jr Jon W all 25 Hutton Or verly Hills, CA 90210 X- 513-141-021 Tutun]Yan 334 Villaggic E Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-024 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-027 Benson & Nichols 879 N Palm Canyon Or Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-120-092 Walter C & Oudith Marx 398 Villaggio S Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-120-097 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PO Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-004 Wessman Holdings 300 S Palm Canyon Or Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-012 Palm Springs Modern Homes V 74140 E1 Pasec 4 Palm Desert, CA 92260 513-141-016 Casa Cody B & B Country 175 S Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-120-090 Carl F a Wenckc Martin 24351 La Hermosa Ave Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 513-120-093 Delmar & Cheree Aitken PC Box 2441 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-120-098 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-005 Frank Tysen 175 S Cahuilla Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-013 Wessman Holdings 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-017 Inn John R & Campbell 7ester 100 S Sunrise Way A Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-019 William R & Debbie Varecha 444 Seasons Or Grand Junction, CO 81503 513-141-022 Katherine Whitney 342 Villaggio E Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-141-025 Palm Springs Modern Homes V 20 Box. 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513--141-028 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PO Box 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-020 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box. 1587 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-023 Palm Springs Modern Homes V PC Box 1557 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-141-026 D R & K Hale PC Box 697 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 513-142-007. Palm Mountain Resort Dba Hot 11256 1.11 Camino Real N100 San Diegc,.CA 92130 C 513-142-003 Chase Hotel At Palm Springs 200 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-143-009 Brandenburg Oasis Plaza Dba 1122 Willow St 200 San Jose, CA 9512-5 513-144-001 Plaza Las Flores 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-144-006 City Of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-144-010 Community Redev Agency City PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-144-013 Wessman Holdings 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-470-003 Anne Abercrombie 100 Cliff Rd Northport, ME 04849 513-470-006 Carol C Holmes 221 S Patencio Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-970-009 Randall L oose 500 E oadway 500 Van uver, WA 98660 513-470-014 John J Gerard PO Box 2458 Covina, CA 91722 513-113-005 John Mcdonald 49035 Calle Flora La Quinta, CA 92253 513-143-017 City Of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahguitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-144-002 Plaza Las Flores 300 S Palm Canyon ➢r Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-144-007 City Of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-144-011 Wessman Holdings 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-470-001 Andalusian Court Llc 458 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-470-004 Marc L Herbert 2864 Tice Creek Dr 4 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 513-470-007 John R & Jean Metzger 600 Arbolado Dr Fullerton. CA 92835 513-470-010 Residual Metzger 600 Arbolado Dr Fullerton, CA 92835 """ 118 Printed *** 513-143-008 Brandenburg Oasis Plaza 1122 Willow St 200 San Jose, CA 95125 513-143-019 Plaza Mercado 300 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-144-005 Mitchell J & Joyce Slayman PO Box 3190 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-144-009 Plaza Investment Cc Dba Plaz 115 S Indian Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92263 513-144-012 Wessman Holdings 300 S Palm Canyon Or Palm Springs, CA 92262 513-470-002 John & Maria Gerard PO Box 2458 Covina, CA 91722 513-470-005 Bridgett A Hassett 4242 Corte De La Siena Sari Diego, CA 92130 513-470-008 Thomas Underwood PO Box 1197 Springville, CA 93265 513-470-013 John J & Maria Gerard PO Box 2458 Covina, CA 91722 CASE 5.1204 RETURNED MAIL: 513-141-018 JON W.HALL 310 VILLAG10 EAST PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 513-470-009 Randall I Boose 6505 NE 209�h Street Battle Ground, WA 99504 y IOW( C�'ik kioAAt101 � �`44cq� r Fo R�`P Ms. Claudia Salgado Bureau of Indian Affairs P. O. Box 2245 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Ms, Salgado: City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk 1200 T.1Lywii \\ jy • palm Sprang,, C.ddorm. 92262 TEL ,`60) ',2 i-820 FAX 1'601) =-8332 • TDD. i; 601 S6 i= 1527 December 30, 2008 RE: City Council Meeting — January 7, 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, �Pm� Kathie Hart, CIVIC Chief Deputy City Clerk /cab PHN to BIA— MuseumMarketPlaza 01-07-2009 dou Encl: Public Hearing Notice C6 Posr Office Sore 2743 0 Palm 5pririgs, 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 January 14, 2009. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. 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 includes 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 can esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk `W � Department of Planning Services w o N Vicinity Map e • c4LirowN�P �] ❑ fn I 400 Foot Radius ® Project Site OSurrounding Parcels I P-I ice' I I I CASE NO: 5.1204 GPA/ZTA TAHQUI i CIF D-RI�.'TO RRD [a]IWK610WT_1IAfy,N1►[el:9 APPLICANT: Wessman Development AILA= DESCRIPTION: 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. 8 C w