HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/16/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. ?ALM gp�
fZ
ti c+
u m
x �
` 4Oea...ceo••�a
c'OL/FORN�P. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 16, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO
STREET LEVEL OFFICE USES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-D ZONE, CASE 5.1173
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
The project is an amendment to the Palm Springs zoning Code regarding the standards
and regulations for establishing office uses in the Central Business District (C-B-D)
zone. The C-B-D zone is applied to the City's downtown area, which is generally
defined as Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives, between Alejo and Ramon Roads,
as well as adjacent streets. A public hearing is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Waive the reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and
3. Reintroduce on first reading ordinance no. 1728, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 92,09.01 OF
THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATED TO STREET LEVEL OFFICE
USES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-
D ZONE."
PRIOR ACTIONS:
On July 26, 2006, the City Council enacted an urgency ordinance prohibiting office uses
in the C-B-D zone, with certain exceptions for financial institutions. The Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The ordinance was later extended by Council action.
On September 5, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the
issues surrounding office uses in the C-B-D Zone. A
Item No. 1 . B .
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 2
5,1173—Zoning Ordinance Amendment—OfFce Uses in C-B-D Zone April 16,2008
On October 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed a draft ordinance and initiated a zone
text amendment regarding office uses in the C-B-D Zone.
On October 24, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and
adopted a recommendation to allow office uses in the Central Business District on Palm
Canyon Drive with a Conditional Use Permit, and elsewhere with a Land Use Permit.
On December 12, 2007, the City Council conducted a second reading of the proposed
zone text amendment (following a public hearing on November 7, 2007). The Council
did not adopt the ordinance, but rejected the proposal and sought a revised code
amendment consistent with the Planning Commission's October 24th recommendation.
On March 5, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed its previous recommendation and
determined that the recommendation did not need to be revised. The Commission did
note that the intent of its recommendation is to preserve Palm Canyon Drive as a
predominantly retail business district.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission's recommendation was based, in part, on the Commission's
conclusion that a prohibition on office uses on Palm Canyon Drive would not be
appropriate under the current economic conditions. As a result, office uses would be
allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission discussed the
advantages of using the CUP process to regulate office uses, including the potential for
setting a term for the Permit. A draft ordinance reflecting the Commission's
recommendation is also attached.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no cost to the City associated with the adoption of the ordinance.
ai lnwing, AVP 7homas Wilso Assistant City Manager
Director of Plann' Services
David H. Ready, City M
Attachment:
1. Draft Ordinance, as recommended by Planning Commission
2. Planning Commission meeting minutes (315/08, excerpt)
3. Planning Commission staff report and attachments (dated 3/5/08)
000002
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 92.09.01 OF THE
PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO STREET
LEVEL OFFICE USES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-D ZONE.
City Attorneys Summary
This Ordinance allows street level office and financial
institutional uses along Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo
and Baristo Drives subject to a conditional use permit and
allows street level office and financial institutional uses along
certain city streets in the C-B-D zone subject to a land use
permit. This Ordinance will sunset on January 1, 2013
unless extended prior to such date.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subsection A-37 of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code
(relating to uses permitted in the C-B-D Zone) is amended to read:
37. Offices (except contractors) and financial institutions; except that: (1) offices and
financial institutions at street level and which are oriented towards Palm Canyon Drive
between Alejo and Baristo Roads shall only be permitted subject to a conditional use
permit pursuant to the provisions of Subsection D of this Section, and (2) offices and
financial institutions at street level and oriented towards: Tahquitz Canyon Way,
between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive; Andreas Road, between Palm
Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Arenas Road, between Belardo Road and Indian
Canyon Drive; Baristo Road, northerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon
Drives; Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side, between Alejo and Baristo Roads; and
Alejo Road, southerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives shall
only be permitted subject to a land use permitted pursuant to the provisions of
Subsection C of this Section.
Section 2. Paragraph 1-o of Subsection C of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code (relating to uses permitted subject to a land use permit in the C-B-D
Zone) is amended to read:
o. Offices (not including contractors) and financial institutions at street level and
oriented towards: Tahquitz Canyon Way, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon
Drive; Andreas Road, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Arenas
Road, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive; Baristo Road, northerly side,
between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side,
between Alejo and Baristo Roads; and Alejo Road, southerly side, between Palm
Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives,
Section 3. Subsection D-11 of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code (relating to uses permitted subject to a conditional use permit in the C-B-D
Zone) is amended to read:
11. Offices (except contractors) and financial institutions at street level and which
are oriented toward Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo and Baristo Roads.
Section 4. Ordinance Nos. 1699, 1701 , and 1713, the interim urgency ordinances
relating to street level offices in the historic village center of the City, are repealed.
Section 5. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not be applicable to any property
any use of any building otherwise covered by the provisions of this Ordinance and
for which a building permit was issued by the City for construction related to such
use on or before April 25, 2008,
Section 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be
published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days after passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
2008.
STEVEN POUGNET, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS HOLLAND, CITY ATTORNEY
oaoo��
City of Palm Springs a1
Planning Commission Meeting
of March 5, 2008
3. Case 5.1173 ZTA - An application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the
Palm Springs Zoning Code regarding the standards and
regulations for establishing office uses in the Central Business District (C-
B-D) zone, the downtown area generally defined as Palm Canyon and Indian
Canyon Drives, between Alejo and Ramon Roads and adjacent streets.
(Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services)
Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as
outlined in the staff report dated March 5, 2008.
Commissioner Conrad noted her abstention (she was not present when this item was
previously heard) and would not be participating in the discussion and vote.
Mr. Caffery noted a concern with the orientation of storefronts facing Palm Canyon
Drive and the entry off of an adjacent street. Further discussion was made.
M/S/C (Cohen/Vice Chair Hochanadel, 6-0, 1 abstained/ Conrad) To uphold Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7110,- with the intent to keep offices off of Palm Canyon
Drive,
Work Program Priorities and Subcommittee Assignments
Mr. Ewin tated that the updated General Plan orientation will continue for their April
Study Sessio s well as the organization of the Zoning Code.
5. COMMISSION/STA REPORTS AND REQUESTS:
Ms. Ringlein noted that she and . Caffery volunteered for a utility undergrounding
subcommittee and requested sta rovide the status of this group. Ms.
Ringlein requested staff follow-up on the a's Market landscaping on the corner of
Vista Chino and Gene Autry Way.
Ms. Conrad requested staff address the searchlight poll and the change of ownership
for Grill-A-Burger. Staff responded that there are provis s for permits to allow
searchlights and would forward the information on both these req sts via a-mail.
Chair Marantz noted that she will not be in attendance for the Apri th Planning
Commission and the April 7th Architectural Advisory Committee meetings.
OppALM SA?
iy
V N
Y ryee
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Date: March 5, 2008
Case No.. 5.1173
Type: Zone Text Amendment
Location: City-wide
Applicant: City of Palm Springs
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relating to Street Level
Office Uses and Financial Institutions in Certain Portions
of the C-B-D Zone
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On October 24, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation to the City
Council for standards and regulations for establishing office uses in the Central
Business District (C-B-D) zone (see Resolution No. 7110), The C-B-D zone is applied
to the City's downtown area, which is generally defined as Palm Canyon and Indian
Canyon Drives, between Alejo and Ramon Roads, as well as adjacent streets.
On December 12, 2007, the City Council conducted a second reading of the proposed
zone text amendment at which time the Council rejected the proposal and sought a
revised code amendment consistent with the Commission's recommendation. Staff is
seeking the Commission's concurrence regarding its October 24, 2007 recommendation
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission verify that it has no new concerns with its adopted
recommendation. If there are concerns, the Commission should direct staff to notice a
new public hearing at which time it may consider other options or recommendations.
ra' A. wing gServices
Dire or of Plan
Planning Commission Staff Report March 5,2008
Case No. 5,1173—Zone Text Amendment—Offices in C-B-D Zone Page 2 of 2
cc: City Council Meeting Minutes (December 12, 2007, excerpt)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7110, including Exhibit A
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (October 24, 2007, excerpt)
Planning Commission Staff Report (October 24, 2007)
City Council Staff Report (October 3, 2007)
Planning Commission Staff Report (September 5, 2007)
000087
CITY COUNCIL. MEETING -- DECEMBER 12, 2007
EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.E. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.
1728, RELATING TO STREET LEVEL OFFICE USES AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-D ZONE:
Staff Report Item 2.E.
Councilmember Hutcheson noted his preference with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Councilmember Weigel stated he preferred the Planning Commission recommendation.
Mayor Pro Tern Foat commented on the impacts to the merchants and the Downtown
area in general.
Councilmember Mills stated his support for the Ordinance and commented that office
use is allowed on the side streets in the Downtown area.
Mayor Pro Tern Foat stated she would prefer to see the proposed ordinance prepared
by staff.
Councilmember Mills requested the City Attorney clarify provisions of the Ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission, and requested staff address the
application fee for a CUP.
Councilmember Hutcheson stated he would like staff to review the objectives of both
sides and draft an ordinance that could meet all the objectives of the City Council.
ACTION: 1) Deny the Ordinance No. 1728 as proposed and written; and 2) Direct staff
to revise and rework Ordinance No. 1728 addressing the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and incorporating further modifications as proposed by the City
Council. Motion Councilmember Hutcheson, seconded by Councilmember Weigel
and carried 3-2 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Weigel, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Mills, and Mayor Pro Tem Foat.
000008
RESOLUTION NO. 7110
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND SECTION
92.09.01 OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE
RELATING TO STREET LEVEL OFFICE USES AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS
OF THE C-B-D ZONE.
WHEREAS, Section 92.09.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance establishes
regulations for the use and development of land in the Central Business District
(C-D-B Zone), as defined; and
WHEREAS, the C-B-D zone is intended "for the central business district,
primarily retail business in character, with related hotels, multiple-family
dwellings, and service, office, cultural and institutional uses. The central business
district is intended to be a compact, lively, active, intensively used area catering
to the pedestrian"; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Village Center within the C-B-D zone is intended to,
"...serve as the center of the downtown with the primary economic activities
focusing on specialty retail, restaurants and entertainment. The following streets
shall be deemed to be within the Historic Village Center: Palm Canyon Drive,
between Alejo and Baristo Roads, Tahquitz Canyon Way, between Belardo Road
and Indian Canyon Drive; Andreas Road, between Palm Canyon and Indian
Canyon Drives; Arenas Road, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive;
Baristo Road, northerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives;
Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side, between Alejo and Baristo Roads; and Alejo
Road, southerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives"; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City Council voted unanimously to direct
staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Case No. 5.1173) to
establish a new set of regulations for office uses, including financial institutions,
in the C-B-D zone; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment, at which hearing the
Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in
connection with the project, including but not limited to the staff report and all
written and oral testimony presented, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed
amendment is exempt pursuant to the "General Rule" [Section 15061(b)(3)) in
that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to cause a significant
impact on the environment; the proposed amendments are process-oriented,
requiring additional levels of review through the permit process for each
gDOM
Planning Commission Resolution October 24,2007
5.1173—ZTA Page 2 of 2
applicable future project; and that there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect an the environment.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE. AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby finds that adoption of the
proposed Zoning Text Amendment would:
a. Allow a more consistent and effective application of the Zoning
Ordinance,
b. Provide a more appropriate set of regulations for office uses and
financial institutions to advance the intent of the C-B-D Zone, and
c. Assure the continued economic viability of existing and future
developments and tenants in the City's historic village center, as
defined.
Section 2: The adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment would be
consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's General Plan
because it provides for flexibility in the face of changed economic and other
conditions, and will assure the continued success of the City's downtown.
Section 3: Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council amendment of the Palm Springs Zoning Code to
allow office uses and financial institutions on the street level of Palm Canyon
Drive by a conditional use permit and on other selected streets by land use
permit, as described in the draft ordinance, attached hereto and made a part of
this resolution as Exhibit A.
Section 4: The Commission also recommends that within two years of its
enactment the ordinance be reviewed to determine if revisions are appropriate.
ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2007,
AYES: 6, Ringlein, Cohen, Marantz, Hochanadel, Hutcheson and Scott
NOES: 1, Caffery
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
r
r ' A wing, A
Di or of PI i Services
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 92.09.01 OF THE
PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO STREET
LEVEL OFFICE USES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-D ZONE.
CityAttorney's Summary
This Ordinance allows street level office and financial
institutional uses along Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo
and Baristo Drives subject to a conditional use permit and
allows street level office and financial institutional uses along
certain city streets in the C-R-D zone subject to a land use
permit. This Ordinance will sunset on January 1, 2013
unless extended prior to such date.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subsection A-37 of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code
(relating to uses permitted in the C-B-D Zone) is amended to read:
37. Offices (except contractors) and financial institutions; except that: (1) offices and
financial institutions at street level and which are oriented towards Palm Canyon Drive
between Alejo and Baristo Roads shall only be permitted subject to a conditional use
permit pursuant to the provisions of Subsection D of this Section, and (2) offices and
financial institutions at street level and oriented towards: Tahquitz Canyon Way,
between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive; Andreas Road, between Palm
Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Arenas Road, between Belardo Road and Indian
Canyon Drive; Baristo Road, northerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon
Drives; Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side, between Alejo and Baristo Roads; and
Alejo Road, southerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives shall
only be permitted subject to a land use permitted pursuant to the provisions of
Subsection C of this Section.
Section 2. Paragraph 1-o of Subsection C of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code (relating to uses permitted subject to a land use permit in the C-B-D
Zone) is amended to read:
o. Offices (not including contractors) and financial institutions at street level and
oriented towards: Tahquitz Canyon Way, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon
Drive; Andreas Road, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Arenas
Road, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive; Baristo Road, northerly side,
00001,
between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side,
between Alejo and Baristo Roads; and Alejo Road, southerly side, between Palm
Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives.
Section 3, Subsection D-11 of Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code (relating to uses permitted subject to a conditional use permit in the C-B-D
Zone) is amended to read:
11. Offices (except contractors) and financial institutions at street level and which
are oriented toward Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo and Baristo Roads.
Section 4. Ordinance Nos, 1699, 1701, and 1713, the interim urgency ordinances
relating to street level offices in the historic village center of the City, are repealed.
Section 5. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not be applicable to any property
any use of any building otherwise covered by the provisions of this Ordinance and
for which a building permit was issued by the City for construction related to such
use on or before September 1, 2007.
Section 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be
published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days after passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
2007.
RON ODEN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS HOLLAND, CITY ATTORNEY
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
of October 24, 2007
hair Marantz noted an e-mail was received from several neighbors stating
op sition to this request. Chair Marantz stated she is not in favor of this request and
feels ecedent would be set for approving projects that have not met the setback
requireme
Commissioner Sc noted his concern with no fire access path-within the required five
feet setback.
M/S/C (CafFeryNice Chair H anadel, 7-0) To deny, Case 6.504 Variance.
Staff reported that the Planning Co ission decision may be appealed in writing to the
City Clerk.
A recess was taken at 3:46 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 3:55 p.m.
6. Case 5.1172 ZTA - An application by the City of Palm ings I amend the
Palm Springs Zoning Code regarding the standards and r ulations for the
development of Condominium Hotels. (Project Planner: C ' A. Ewing,
Director of Planning Services)
Staff reported that the City Attorney has further revisions to the Item and has reque ed
a continuance totthheymeeting of November y14, 2007.
—M/$/6-(Ft�t�glett��C�ifery 7 r'�I�11fIc cZvvic�iTc�mi�$f-I�Ik� amhr 1
7. Case 5.1173 ZTA - An application by The City of Palm Springs to amend the
Palm Springs Zoning Code regarding the standards and regulations
for establishing office uses in the Central Business District (C-B-
D) zone, the downtown area generally defined as Palm Canyon and Indian
Canyon Drives, between Alejo and Ramon Roads and adjacent streets.
(Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services)
Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as
outlined in the staff report dated October 24, 2007,
Commissioner Ringlein reminded staff this item was discussed at a study session
and the consensus of the Commission was not to prohibit offices in the downtown but
subject to a Conditional or Land Use Permit. Ms. Ringlein suggested that city staff
assigned to the downtown area provide more outreach to business owners.
6 000023
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
of October 24, 2007
Commissioner Cohen concurred with Ms, Ringlein and noted that public
comments made at the study session, by downtown business owners, stated their
preference to have these buildings occupied rather than sit vacant for many years.
Commissioner Caffery noted his preference for verbiage in the draft City Council
Ordinance, #37, to state "_ . . any frontage on Palm Canyon will be regulated according
to Palm Canyon rules".
Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing:
-Martha Higgins, property manager for Wessman Development
Company, requested leniency during the interim period of the downtown
redevelopment and provided further details on their difficulty in leasing retail space at
Plaza Las Flores between Indian Canyon and Palm Canyon Way.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed.
Staff noted that existing legally-established offices would be subject to a grandfather
condition..
y M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 6-1/Caffery) To -recommend approval to the City Council; as
amended:
*Offices on Palm Canyon Way, subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
`Offices off of Palm Canyon Way (side streets), subject to a Land Use Permit.
*A review of the ordinance in two years.
S. Ap tment of Donald Wexler as an Alternate Member and Allen Sanborn
as a Me r to the Architectural Advisory Committee.
Craig A. Ewing reported <Donald Wexler has requested to serve as an alternate
member of the Architecture AdvisQry Committee due to his schedule. A request has
also been received from Allen San n indicating his willingness to serve as a
permanent member of the Architec I Advisory Committee. Mr. Ewing
suggested (since the ordinance states only two Iternate members) making Mr. Paul
Ortega a permanent member of the Architectural Advis Committee.
M/S/C (Vice Chair Hochanadel/Cohen, 7-0) To appoint Donald Wexter as an Alternate
Member and appoint Allen Sanborn as a Permanent Member to kre.Architectural
Advisory Committee; and appoint Paul Ortega, as a Permanent Member, to ve as a
Permanent Member.
7 00001�
PALMSo
GP N
n
w�.nv`
c9`'x°0"%P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Date. October 24, 2007
Case No.: 5.1173
Type: Zone Text Amendment
Location: City-wide
Applicant: City of Palm Springs
To: Planning Commission
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relating to Street Level
Office Uses and Financial Institutions in Certain Portions
of the C-B-D Zone
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is an amendment to the Palm Springs Zoning Code regarding the standards
and regulations for establishing office uses in the Central Business District (C-B-D)
zone. The C-B-D zone is applied to the City's downtown area, which is generally
defined as Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives, between Alejo and Ramon Roads,
as well as adjacent streets. A public hearing is required.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and forward to the City Council
its recommendation for regulating office uses in the C-B-D zone. (A draft resolution will
be presented at the Commission meeting.)
PRIOR ACTIONS
On July 26, 2006, the City Council enacted an urgency ordinance prohibiting office uses
in the C-B-D zone, with certain exceptions for financial institutions. The Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The ordinance was later extended by Council action.
000015
Planning Commission Staff Report October 24,2007
Case No.5,1173—Zone Text Amendment—Offices in C-S-D Zone Page 2 of 2
On September 5, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the
issues surrounding office uses in the C-B-D Zone.
On October 3, 2007, the City Council reviewed a draft ordinance and initiated a zone
text amendment regarding office uses in the C-B-D Zone.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
As noted in the attached Planning Commission staff report (September 5, 2007) there
are a number of considerations related to the establishment of office uses in the City's
downtown.
In preparing the draft ordinance, the City Attorney has offered an approach that would
prohibit office uses on street level oriented to Palm Canyon, but allow them by a Land
Use Permit on the street level facing all other streets: Tahquitz Canyon Way, Andreas
Road, Arenas Road, Baristo Road (north side), Indian Canyon Drive (west side), Alejo
Road (south side). See attached City Council staff report of October 3, 2007.
The Commission may consider other options, including the use of Land Use Permits,
Conditional Use Permits and certain standards (such as time limits or office size) as part
of its recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment
("project") and determined that the project is exempt pursuant to the "General Rule"
[Section 15061(b)(3)] that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential to
cause a significant impact on the environment. The proposed amendments are process-
oriented, requiring additional levels of review through the permit process for each
applicable future project. Consequently, there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect on the environment.
Craig A. Ewing AICP
Director of Planning Services
cc: Draft Zone Ordinance Amendment-- Office Uses in C-B-D Zone
City Council Staff Report (October 3, 2007)
Planning Commission Staff Report (September 5, 2007)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, excerpt (September 5, 2007)
0000.1E
i
0�ppLM sA4
U N
City Council Staff Report
c,�<rFOR��a
Date: October 3, 2007
From: David H. Ready, City Manager
By: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
SuWect: Initiate and refer to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation, an Ordinance of the City of Palm Springs, California,
amending Subsection A-37 and Paragraph 1-0 of Subsection C of Section
92.09.01, and repealing Subsection D-11 of Section 92,09.01 of, the Palm
Springs Municipal Code, relating to Street Level Office Uses and Financial
Institutions in Certain Portions of the C-B-D Zone.
Recommendation
I
Staff recommends that the City Council Initiate the proposed ordinance and refer the
ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
Background
On July 26, 2005, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1699 which
began a moratorium on the establishment of new commercial office and financial
Institutional uses on the ground floor of bulldings in the Historic Village Center of the City,
The moratorium was extended by Ordinances 1701 and 1713 through July 26, 2008 (see
attached Ordinance No. 1713). The moratorium was adopted to allow the City to consider
revisions to the zoning regulations of the C-B-D zone related to office uses.
Current Regulations
Presently, the Zoning Code regulates office uses In the C-B-D zone based on the size of
the office and its location on the site relative to the street. The attached charts show how
the ordinance currently works (see attachment for Ordinance excerpt), The first chart
applies to the Historic Village Center, which is shown on the attached map. It is generally
described as Palm and Indian Canyon Drives between Alejo and Baristo, as well as all the
east-west streets therein;
ITEM NO.
000017
i
City Council Oorober 3,2007
Office Uses In the G-B-A Zone Page 2 of 5
Type of Of ice Historic Village Center
"Fronts a 2,500 SF or Less Land Use Permit
Street Over2,500 SF Conditional Use Permit
other — Any Size Permitted
Locations
Type of Office C-B-D Zone outside
Historic Villa a Center
Street Level
5,000 SF or Less Permitted
--
Over 5,000 SF Land Use Permit
Other Levels Any Size Permitted
As can be seen, larger offices proposed on the street level are subject to greater scrutiny,
especially in the Historic Village Center. Also, there Is no absolute prohibition on offices in
the C-B-D zone, only the requirement for City review — either a Land Use Permit or
Conditional Use Permit.
In consideration of any possible changes to the current rules, staff offers the following
observations regarding Historic Village Center rules:
1. Land Use Permits —There are no findings for a Land Use Permit, Instead,
the Zoning Cade states that the Planning Director "shall approve"an LUP if it
is for a use that is listed in the code. The Director may impose any conditions
on the approval deemed "necessary" (see attached excerpt). The decision
may be appealed to the Planning Commission-
2. Conditional Use Permits—There are required findings for a Conditional Use
Permits, which may only be granted by the Planning Commission after a
public hearing. The Commission may impose conditions deemed "necessary
to protect the public health, safety and general welfare..." (see attached
excerpt). The Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Qouncii.
3, Orientation to the Street — The Zoning Code states that offices in the
Historic Village Center are subject to higher scrutiny if they "Front a street".
There Is no further guidance In the Code on how this phrase is to be applied.
4- Size of Office Tenant— Staff is not aware of the original Justification for the
use of 2,600 and 5,000 square feet, and they may be adjusted to any number.
000018
City council October 3,2007
Office Uses in the C-B-D Zone Page 3 of 5
Regulatory Options
The City's restriction on first-floor offices in the Historic Village Center Is an attempt to
preserve a critical mass of retail in the downtown, as well as promote a synergistic (Le..,
mutually beneficial) economic environment for those retailers- If successful, the provisions
would yield an exclusively retail downtown (on the first floor) and shoppers would be drawn
to an area that provides a concentrated collection of shops. Unfortunately, this is not yet
the case, even after several years of these provisions being in effect.
I
One reason why these regulations have not been entirely effective is that they are negative;
that is, they attempt to encourage retail by discouraging office. Staff believes that the
decisions building owners make about the tenants they will accept and the decisions
tenants make regarding where they will locate are too complex to be salved by any one
approach. Staff has identify three reasons for this situation:
1. Owners need to generate income from their spaces. A vacant space awaiting
a retail use may be acceptable to some owners (e.g. the farmer iJesmond's i
site), but many landlords will lease to any reasonable tenant in order to
generate income. If an office use is prepared to sign a lease, many landlords
are hard-pressed to say no.
2. Office tenants may be preferred by some landlords. The City's objective for
more retail may actually conflict with some building owners, if owners
perceive office uses as being more stable, result In lower building f
maintenance costs, or yield less wear-and-tear on the property_
3. Retailers have options besides the Historic Village Center. The City can force
retailers to consider downtown when there are limited options outside the
Historic Village Center. However, Palm Springs has a wide variety of retail
spaces that run the entire length of Palm Canyon Drive, as well as on Indian
Canyon Drive, Sunrise Way, Vista Chino, Ramon Road and many other
locations. Certainly the Historic Village Center has unique attributes that
should appeal to retailers; however, each retailer will consider the iocatienal
needs of his or her business, including security, visibility, quality of tenant
space, adjacent uses, price, parking and other factors. Downtown is only
one option.
For these reasons, staff believes that the provisions against office uses are by themselves
insufficient to achieve the purpose slated above. However, they do serve as a message to
landlords about the City's Intent and they do create a certain 'resistance' to offices being
established on the first floor in the downtown. It is possible that without these regulations,
even more offices might be established.
Based on these comments, staff recommends consideration of the following options:
t. The provisions are not stnct enough. Land Use Permits, especially, are not a
significant enough barrier to offices going in downtown, and a more restrictive
set of criteria should be developed. Conditional Use Permits for all first floor
City Council October 3,2007
Office Uses In the C-B-D Zane Page 4 of 5
office uses would send landlords and agents a clear message about the
intended uses for downtown.
2. The current provisions are acceptable_ The City should continue to review
office uses proposed for street front tenant spaces via a Land Use Permit and
that all LUP's will be approved, as per by the Zoning Code. Conditlens
should be more carefully considered, including limits an other offices in the
same building. The definition of "street-front' should be clarified to apply to
tenant spaces directly at street level and within ten feet of the front property
line. (Tenant spaces below grade or oriented away from the street would be
allowed offices by right.)
3. The provisions should be removed. The City should allow landlords wider
latitude to fill their tenant spaces base on their awn assessment of tenant mix
and income need. More offices may result in the short-term. As the City
develops more downtown housing and more hotel / convention business,
tenant spaces may eventually convert to retail use,
Staff believes that the City should continue the use of Land Use Permits as indicated in the
chart,but identify more clearly the conditions under which offices are be allowed to operate
on the street front.
Proposed Ordinance
Consistent with the concerns and consideration outlined above, staff has prepared an
ordinance for Council's consideration. This Ordinance would
1. Prohibit ground floor office uses, including financial institutions, that are
oriented towards Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo and Barristo,
2. Office uses and financial institutions at street level and oriented towards:
Tahquita Canyon Way, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon Drive; Andreas Road,
between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives; Arenas Road, between Belardo Road
and Indian Canyon Drive; Baristo Road, northerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian
Canyon Drives; Indian Canyon Drive, westerly side, between Alejo and Baristo Roads;
and AleiD Road, southerly side, between Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives,
would be permitted subject to a land use permit.
3, Conditional use permits would no longer be required and distinctions on
the basis of area of the use,would be eliminated.
4. The Ordinance also provides a "sunset' clause and would no longer be In
effect after January 1, 2013 unless the Council extends the ordinance,
5, The ordinance would not be applicable to any office or financial institution
use for which a building permit was issued prior September 1, 2007.
00M-2a
city co4ncll .October 3.2007
Office Uses in the C 13-D.Zone Page 5 of 5
Fiscal Impact:
There is no foreseeable fiscal impact on the City of Palm Springs.
Douglas C. Holland
City Attorney j
z. fir
David H. Ready, ger Thomas J.Wils ,Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 1713
--000021
oy�ALMSI CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
y �
" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
c�4FOR kv,
MEMORANDUM -
Date: September 5, 2007
To: Planning Commission
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject. Discussion of Offices Uses on the First Floor in the C-B-D Zone (Central
Business District)
On July 26, 2006, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1699 which
began a moratorium on the establishment of new commercial office and financial
institutional uses on the ground floor of buildings in the Historic Village Center of the
City. The moratorium was extended by Ordinances 1701 and 1713 through July 26,
2008 (see attached Ordinance No. 1713). The moratorium was adopted to allow the
City to consider revisions to the zoning regulations of the C-B-D zone related to office
uses. The purpose of this memo is to provide background information to the Planning
Commission so that it might consider options for a possible zoning code amendment.
Current Regulations
Presently, the Zoning Code regulates office uses in the C-B-D zone based on the size
of the office and its location on the site relative to the street. The attached charts show
how the ordinance currently works (see attachment for Ordinance excerpt). The first
chart applies to the Historic Village Center, which is shown on the attached map. It is
generally described as Palm and Indian Canyon Drives between Alejo and Baristo, as
well as all the east-west streets therein:
Type of Office Historic Village Center
"Fronts a 2,500 SF or Less Land Use Permit
Street" Over 2,500 SF Conditional Use Permit
Other
Locations Any Size Permitted
000022
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5,2007
Office Uses in the C-B-D Zone Page 2 of 5
Type of Office C-B-D Zone Outside
Historic Village Center
Street Level 5,000 SF or Less Permitted
Over 5,000 SF Land Use Permit
Other Levels Any Size Permitted
As can be seen, larger offices proposed on the street level are subject to greater
scrutiny, especially in the Historic Village Center. Also, there is no absolute prohibition
on offices in the C-B-D zone, only the requirement for City review— either a Land Use
Permit or Conditional Use Permit.
In consideration of any possible changes to the current rules, staff offers the following
observations regarding Historic Village Center rules:
1. Land Use Permits — There are no findings for a Land Use Permit,
Instead, the Zoning Code states that the Planning Director"shall approve"
an LUP if it is for a use that is listed in the code. The Director may impose
any conditions on the approval deemed "necessary" (see attached
excerpt), The decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission.
2. Conditional Use Permits — There are required findings for a Conditional
Use Permits, which may only be granted by the Planning Commission
after a public hearing. The Commission may impose conditions deemed
"necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare..." (see
attached excerpt), The Commission's decision may be appealed to the
City Council.
3. Orientation to the Street — The Zoning Code states that offices in the
Historic Village Center are subject to higher scrutiny if they"front a street"-
There is no further guidance in the Code on how this phrase is to be
applied.
4. Size of Office Tenant — Staff is not aware of the original justification for
the use of 2,500 and 5,000 square feet, and they may be adjusted to any
number-
Current Conditions
Staff has prepared a survey of office uses in the Historic Village Center- This list is
based on a "windshield survey" conducted by Code Enforcement in July 2007, (It is
possible that some office tenancies were missed, as signs are not always visible, the
use appears to be retail or the use was established after the survey was conducted.)
As can be seen from the list below and the attached map, office uses are widely
distributed in the Historic Village Center. However, ten of the thirty offices inventoried
are in the Amado Center (333 N. Palm Canyon Dr.), which is characterized by a below-
street level ground floor and many units oriented away from the street.
MAP ID# BUSINESS NAME STREET ADDRESS
1. Scott Lyle Realtors 483 N Palm Canyon Dr.
2. Northstar Financial 477 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
3. Prudential California Real 385 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
QQQQ�3
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5,2007
Office Uses in the C-13-17 Zane Page 3 of S
4. Palm Desert National Bank 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#102
5. West Coast Escrow 333, N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#104-B
6_ Timeshare Liquidators 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit# 108-B
7. Dual Com Mort a e 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit 113-A
8. Elite Lending 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#114
9. Brittain & Lerner Ins & Fin'I Svcs 333, N. Palm Canyon Dr.
10. Communitf Caregivers 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#118
11. Greater Palm S rin s Insurance 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#111
12. Bodvworks Physiotherapy Clinic 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#115
13 Bridge Appeal inc 333 N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#112-A
14. Enterprise Rent-a-Car 351 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
15. Bottom Lin /Pulp Magazines 312 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
16. Gay Home Loans, Inc. (Split Level 312 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
17. Palm Springs Life Ma azine 303 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
18, Realty Executives 285 N_ Palm Canyon Dr.
19. Hampton Pacific Mortgage _ 160 Andreas Rd.
20. Cash Financial Services, Inc. 170 Andreas Rd.
21. Well in the Desert 181 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
22. Countrywide Home Loans 123 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
23. Windermere Real Estate 123 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
24. Tarbell Realtors 123 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
25. Palm Springs Welcome Center 134 N. Palm Canyon
26. Plaza Investments (Larry Pitts _ 115 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
27. Marriott Vacation Club 155 S. Palm Canyon Dr_
28. 1 Pro Valley Reat 190 S. Palm Canyon Dr.
29. Sperry Van Ness 255 S, Palm Canyon Dr., #A-4
30. Dr. Ra Sumabat, Dentist 1 255 S. Palm Canyon Dr., #D-7
We do not have specific information as to when each use was established and some
have been in place for many years. Consequently, it is not possible to determine if
there is a recent trend toward more offices. We do know that office uses continue to be
accepted as first-floor tenants by building owners, and we have required a number of
tenants to obtain permits "after-the-fact". It seems clear that when a tenant spaces are
empty, many owners will consider an office use notwithstanding the Zoning Code's
preference for retail commercial.
Regulatory Options
The City's restriction on first-floor offices in the Historic Village Center is an attempt to
preserve a critical mass of retail in the downtown, as well as promote a synergistic (i.e.,
mutually beneficial) economic environment for those retailers. If successful, the
provisions would yield an exclusively retail downtown (on the first floor) and shoppers
would be drawn to an area that provides a concentrated collection of shops.
Unfortunately, this is not yet the case, even after several years of these provisions being
in effect.
One reason why these regulations have not been entirely effective is that they are
negative; that is, they attempt to encourage retail by discouraging office. Staff believes
00002�
' Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5,2007
Office Uses in the C-M Zone Page 4 of 5
that the decisions building owners make about the tenants they will accept and the
decisions tenants make regarding where they will locate are too complex to be solved
by any one approach. Staff has identify three reasons for this situation:
1. Owners need to generate income from their spaces. A vacant space
awaiting a retail use may be acceptable to some owners (e.g. the former
Desmond's site), but many landlords will lease to any reasonable tenant in
- order to generate income. If an office use is prepared to sign a lease,
many landlords are hard-pressed to say no.
2. Office tenants may be preferred by some landlords. The City's objective
for more retail may actually conflict with some building owners, if owners
perceive office uses as being more stable, result in lower building
maintenance costs, or yield less wear-and-Year on the property.
3. Retailers have options besides the Historic Village Center. The City can
force retailers to consider downtown when there are limited options
outside the Historic Village Center. However, Palm Springs has a wide
variety of retail spaces that run the entire length of Palm Canyon Drive, as
well as on Indian Canyon Drive, Sunrise Way, Vista Chino, Ramon Road
and many other locations. Certainly the Historic Village Center has unique
attributes that should appeal to retailers; however, each retailer will
consider the locational needs of his or her business, including security,
visibility, quality of tenant space, adjacent uses, price, parking and other
factors. Downtown is only one option_
For these reasons, staff believes that the provisions against office uses are by
themselves insufficient to achieve the purpose stated above. However, they do serve
as a message to landlords about the City's intent and they do create a certain
'resistance' to offices being established on the first floor in the downtown. It is possible
that without these regulations, even more offices might be established.
Based on these comments, staff recommends the Commission consider the following
options-
1. The provisions are not strict enough. Land Use Permits, especially, are
not a significant enough barrier to offices going in downtown, and a more
restrictive set of criteria should be developed. Conditional Use Permits for
all first floor office uses would send landlords and agents a clear message
about the intended uses for downtown.
2. The current provisions are acceptable, The City should continue to review
office uses proposed for street-front tenant spaces via a Land Use Permit
and that all LUP's will be approved, as per by the Zoning Code.
Conditions should be more carefully considered, including limits on other
offices in the same building. The definition of "street-front" should be
clarified to apply to tenant spaces directly at street level and within ten feet
of the front property line. (Tenant spaces below grade or oriented away
from the street would be allowed offices by right.)
3. The provisions should be removed. The City should allow landlords wider
latitude to fill their tenant spaces base on their own assessment of tenant
mix and income need. More offices may result in the short-term. As the
000025
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5,2007
Office Uses in the C-B-D Zone Page 5 of 5
City develops more downtown housing and more hotel / convention
business, tenant spaces may eventually convert to retail use.
Staff believes that the City should continue the use of Land Use Permits and CUP'S as
indicated in the chart, but identify more clearly the conditions under which offices are be
allowed to operate on the street front. Secondly, staff believes that the City should
revisit this question following the completion and operation of the downtown housing
and hotel projects now being planned. It may be that in the long-run the success of the
Historic Village Center as a retail destination will not have to depend on restricting office
uses.
Attachments:
t. Ordinance No, 1713
2. Palm Springs Zoning Code C-B-D Zone (excerpt)
3. Palm Springs Zoning Code Land Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit
(excerpts)
4. Map - Street Level Offices and Financial Institutions in the Historic Village
Center
of e ALM u x�
sp
Oy c city o� Palm ���� gs
{ Office of the (City Clerk
3200 I: Tihyuirz Canyon Way • P.dm $prangs, California 92262
C`1�/FO RN\P "Eel (760) ,23-8204 • 17ax: (/60) 322.83D2 • Web: w%vw.palmsprin¢s-ca.gnv
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of March 19, 2008, Public
Hearing Item No. 1.D.
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
RELATING TO STREET LEVEL OFFICE USES AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
THE C-B-D ZONE, CASE 5.1173
On a motion by Mayor Pro Tern Foat, seconded by Councilmember Weigel, and carried
by a majority vote (4-0-1, Councilmenber Mills absent) the Public Hearing was
continued to Wednesday, April 16, 2008, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon
Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
State of California )
County of Riverside ) ss.
City of Palm Springs )
I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this-Notice of- _
Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., March 20, 2008, as required by established
policies and procedures.
James Thompson
City Clerk
NOTICE OF CONT- StreetLeveoffices 03-19-08.doe
Posr Office Box 2743 1 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743