HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. RESOLUTION NO.
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,
l 1'cerre 1 A
Al-�n YYr ! Milt o r(1-1 I
Planning Commission Resolution October 24.2007
5.1173—ZTA Page 2 of 2
requiring additional levels of review through the permit process for each
applicable future project; and that there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect on 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 A: The Commission also recommends that within two years of its
enactment the ordinance be reviewed to determine if revisions are appropriate.
ADOPTED this th day of 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Secretary
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes of
October 24,2007
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 that the Commission discussed this item at a study
session and the consensus was to imposetime-limits- on conditional use permits or land
use permits and not to place a ban on office use in the downtown. Ms. Ringlein also would
like to see more outreach provided to business owners in the downtown area-
Commissioner Cohen concurred with Ms- Ringlein and noted that the public comments
that were made at the study session by downtown business owners requested a
preference to have these buildings occupied instead of sitting vacant for years.
Commissioner Caffery requested staff address a storefront on Palm Canyon with the
entrance on a Tahquitz Canyon Way and preferred the verbiage, '" . . . 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 to lease retail space at Plaza Las Flores
between Indian Canyon and Palm Canyon Way.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed-
Commissioner Ringlein requested staff address what would happen to existing offices.
Staff responded that existing legally-established offices would be subject to a grandfather
condition. -
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-
*F ALM SJO
iy
ti c+
V N
° OerGa'
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 7, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 5.1173 — APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
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.
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. Introduce for first reading 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".
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.
ITEM NO.
City Council Staff Report Page 2 of 2
5.1173—Zoning Ordinance Amendment—office uses in C-B-0 Zone November 7,2007
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.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
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 Planning Commission determined that a prohibition on office uses on Palm Canyon
Drive would not be appropriate under the current conditions downtown, and instead
recommends that office uses 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.
tg tng, AIC Thomas Wilson/Assistant City Manager
Direct-or of Planni(!--Syvices
David H. Ready,�Ittq vlanager
Attachment:
1. Draft Ordinance by City Attorney
2, Draft Ordinance, as recommended by Planning Commission
3. Planning Commission staff report and attachments (dated 10/24/07)
4. Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpt, dated 915/05)
5. Planning Commission draft resolution and meeting minutes (excerpt, dated
10/24/07) submitted under separate cover
2
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 Attorney-'s-Summary
This Ordinance prohibits street level office and financial
institutional uses along Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo
and Baristo Drives 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 not be permitted, 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:
0. 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,
3
{°4 P A LM S'04
iy
9`'�°" 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 4
Commission and City Council. The ordinance was later extended by Council action.
Planning Commission Staff Report October 24, 2007
Case No, 5 1173—Zone Text Amendment—Offices in C-B-O 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.
t
A. wing API
Dir r of Pla in ervices
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)
5
ORDINANCE NO.
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.
City Attome 's 5umma
This Ordinance prohibits street level office and financial
institutional uses along Palm Canyon Drive between Alejo
and Barristo Drives 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 not be permitted, 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-
0- Offices (not including contractors) and financial institutions at street level and
oriented towards: Tahquitz Canyon Way, between Belardo Road and Indian Canyon
6
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 is repealed.
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. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be in
effect only until January 1 2013 and is repealed as of that date unless an
ordinance enacted after the effective date of this Ordinance extends or repeals
the_provisions of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of
2006.
RON ODON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS HOLLAND, CITY ATTORNEY
7
1�
u
Q
Ri +N...,Eo ° �� City Council Staff Report
rq�lFOR��p
Date: October 3, 2007
From: David H. Ready, City Manager
By: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
Subject: Initiate and refer to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation, an Ordinance of the City of Palm Springs, Califomla,
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
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, 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.
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 earisto, as well as all the
east-west streets therein:
ITEM NO,_.l V 8
City council October 3,2007
Office Uses in the C-B-D zone Pape 2 of 5
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 Any Size Permitted
Locations
Type of Office C-B-D Zone Outside
Historic Village Center
5,000 SF or Less Permitted
Street Level
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.
000002
City Council October 3,2007
Once Uses in the C-13-0 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 (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 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.
Z 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-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 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 consideration of 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
000003
xo
city council October 3,2007
Office Uses In the C•B-D Zone 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. 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 an their own 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:
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,
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.
ODDDD4 1
City council octoner 3,1007
Office Uses in the C-B,D Zeno Page 5 of 5
Fiscal Impact:
There is no foreseeable fiscal impact on the City of Palm Springs.
Douglas . Holland
City Attorney
ti.�
David H. Ready, ger Thomas J. Wils , Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 1713
000005 12
e�,A�MSA, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
c
" DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
oq<iroaN`�.
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 Any Size Permitted
Locations
13
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
5,000 SF or Less Permitted
Street Level
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 surrey 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 L le Realtors 483 N Palm Canyon Dr.
2. Northstar Financial 477 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
3, Prudential California Real 388 N. Palm Canyon Dr. 14
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5,2007
Office Uses in the C-B-b Zone Page 3 of 5
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 Mortgage 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. Community Caregivers 333. N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit#118
11, Greater Palm Springs Insurance 333, N. Palm Canyon Dr. Unit #111
12. Bod orks 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-Gar 351 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
15. Bottom Line/Pulp Magazines 312 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
16, Gay Home Loans, Inc. (Split Level 312 N. Palm Canyon Dr.
17. Palm Springs Life Magazine 303 N. Indian Canyon Dr.
18. Realty Executives 285 N. Palm Can on 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. Pro Valley Realty 190 S. Palm Canyon Dr.
29. S er Van Ness 255 S_ Palm Canyon Dr., #A-4
30. Dr. Ray Sumabat, Dentist 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 15
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5, 2007
Office Uses in the C-B-t)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-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 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
16
Planning Commission Study Session Memo September 5, 2007
Office Uses in the C-8-1)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:
1. 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
17
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
of September 5, 2007
2. DISCUSSION - Office uses on the first floor in the C-B-D zone (Central
business district)
Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as
outlined in the memorandum dated September 5, 2007. Mr.,,�,Wing stated under the
current zoning regulations office use on the first floor is alloWodrVvith a land use permit
(for office space less than 2,500 square feet) or a conn4i t�ial use permit (for office
space more than 2,500 square feet). Mr. Ewing note, tli'at,,2"d floor or space not
fronting the street, office use is permitted by right and,," the `o finance is written to try
to keep office uses off of street front retail spaces.,�;M% in pram? further details on
the differences between a land use permit and wconditional use perritit
Mr. Ewing discussed the inventory prepare'dy staff for•the current office°uses in the
% ,,...,,,
Historic Village Center_ Mr- Ewing stated ttatj,e city'"sultimate desire is to have a
vibrant retail oriented downtown, however th6`1-i"rk t does not always meet these
objectives and with empty tenant s- Ices an owneXs;.will consider office use.
"� W 'If�i�ii hn �
Ms_ Ringlein suggested the City inihX�$t; 'a' p[ogr�m to eadcate business owners on the
ideal tenant mix and imposing Ocode erl�forue n�ent Y``6 property maintenance,
Commissioner Scott not ,' gyer 2/3 0 ;the )iWtilneSseu� fisted are real estate related
offices and suggested"r--'Mr)nrtWN condit 0 uniting a type of business to a certain
percentage in the n arMr. Evrn responded that it would be difficult for the
City to maintain p6r ntages on articular-,pck.
Mr. Cohen noted malti _ etaf;s�h'ea�: b, re c e at several downtown properties and
once the;;;aeyv approveti("; ptels are devel'bped retail will be highly needed in the
downt- fi'%area. 11f1r� Hocfadel stated the side streets are not popular because
bust�d 's�is not successful in in. a areas. The Commission discussed the storefront of
a c
the f gf es on al( is prtd,Ay maintenance issues_
,,Ym
Mr. Hutch remarked t he noticed downtowns that are lively have a mixture of
retail and offi qse- Mr,,' tcheson noted that the ordinance states in Section D, " . . .
office uses havO° ignfi tly eroded the vitality and economic health of the historic
village center ��d'�he feels this is the effect and the cause is the vacant Desert
Fashion Plaza. Mr- Hutcheson said he felt it would be best to let the market dictate the
type of business and recommended not extend the urgency ordinance or limit office
space to a certain percentage.
Mr. Cohen concurred with Commissioner Hutcheson and suggested imposing a time
limit on conditional use permits. Chair Marantz voiced concern with real estate offices
displaying advertising on television screens during the evening hours, as well as the
sale of goods on the sidewalk.
18
2
Crty of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
of September 5, 2007
The consensus of the Commission is to incorporate a time limit on land use permits and
conditional use permits. Vice Chair Hochanadel noted the drawback on imposing time-
limits on tenants is that they will not invest money into property improvements- Mr.
Ewing provided additional information on time-frames for land use and conditional use
permits. Mr. Ewing reminded the Commission that they have more latitude with
conditional use permits during public hearings to impose a two, five or ten year time
frame. s
Mr. Ewing provided a recap of the discussion and reported 4t1 once general direction is
received from the City Council, further dialogue will contiti`u
3. DISCUSSION Massage Ordinance
Craig A. Ewing provided background infornfMi n as outlined in the mema'faradum dated
September 5, 2007. Mr. Ewing stated mass a90.,is prohi0ted in the Centfal Business
zone as a stand alone and is currently only alloy 4d-,ps,_an accessory to a spa or a hotel.
Mr. Ewing stated that a request hag,epeen receivedtfrd-m a national franchise for stand
t !.µiw
alone massage business called "Ma'A —_lEnvy- Sta#f4njuired of the Commission if the
current zoning code is still appropria$to regal te,a charioj�q industry.
Commissioner Cohen coo tinted that�,�he readl1116 Qjpl%.age ordinance and feels it is
very out-dated and in,n'� a-t.range..°xri '"iv � .
✓ �1
-Holly Nelson, fro,.,. ise ownerY?'a" rovided 'detalls on Massage Envy and emphasized
their goal is to ma • it conve e;t end affor ble. Ms. Nelson stated that Massage
A.
Envy operates on a? arYlf �sYTC'r- b'asis:A.collecting monthly dues and offering a
discounts ri `;fgrmas� g Ms. Nelsdii�rtbted that it is made convenient by locating
theirs.' Rhin sih" "Qng o hers.
-Jok. edith, stated;(l',)i is j another example of the changing times and spoke in
favo his project. �`�l ,
-Daniela : G xander, brol, for Donahue Schriber for Smoketree Commons, spoke in
favor of ge Envy an" mphasized massage is the fastest growing industry.
Mr. Hochanadef; to - ssage services are currently offered downtown during the
Village Fest. Mr. responded that the City has given the Village Fest Committee
the right to determin hat types of businesses will be allowed. Staff noted massage is
regulated for public health and over concerns with moral issues.
Chair Marantz felt the necessary parking may be a problem in the downtown area
however, noted a shopping center is good location for this type of business.
Commissioner Scott questioned the single practitioner in a one suite space. Staff noted
the first step is to discuss the use an activity and from there the next step is to discuss
the regulation of location, tenant size, etc.
19
3
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
(a
CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
James Thompson, City Clerk
City Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2007
Subject: CASE 6.1173 — APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
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
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
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 published in the
Desert Sun on October 27, 2007.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Kathie Hart, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify
that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E.
Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the
City Clerk on October 26, 2007.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dolores Strickstein, Secretary
20
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space Tor County Clerks Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
N0.3352 CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
County of Riverside CASE 5.1173—APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS AMENDING SECTION 92.09.01 OF THE
PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE RELATING TO
STREET LEVEL OFFICE USES AND FINANCIAL INSTI-
TUTIONS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE C-B-D ZONE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of City of Palm Springs,California,will hold a public hearing at
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen its meeting of November 7, 2007. The City Council meet-
years,and not a party to or interested in the ing begins at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City Hall,
above entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs,
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING The purpose of the hearing is to consider a re0ommenda-
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, tion by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Springs on an amendment to Section 92.09.01 of the Palm
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been Springs Zoning Cade relating to office and financial uses in
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the the C-B-D (Central Business Zone).
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of The City of Palm Springs, p y S g y
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case ty in its capacity a the lead agency
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the for this project, under the California Environmental Quality
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Act(CEQA) evaluated the potential environmental impacts
than non pariel,has been published in each regular of the project and determined that the proposed Zoning
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any Ordinance text amendments are exempt pursuant to the
and entire
issue
ent of said newspaper
soap it anng d of town: "General Rule" [Section 15061(b)(3)j that CEQA applies
only to projects that have the potential to Cause a significant
October z7`s,2007 impact on the environment.The proposed amendments are
process-oriented, requiring additional levels of review
...-........_ - "`— through the permit process for each applicable future proj-
ect. Consequently,there is no possibility that the proposed
amendments could have a significant effect'on the environ-
All in the year Z007 ment, Because the amendments have been found to be
exempt, no environmental review Is necessary.
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public
foregoing is true and correct. hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written com-
Dated at Palm Springs,California this—30",—day ments may be made to the City Council by letter_ (mail o_r
hand delivery)tor� _
of-- October-_"�LL' ,' -,2007 James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
_ .�' ! �' ----------- If any individual or group challenges the action in court,
CO Si natuYe issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at
La y= the public hearing described in this notice or in written cor-
�� .mow respondence at, or prior to the meeting.
Wit1 _ o U An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interest-
q� M f ed persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may
W 1+ Wit- be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director, Planning Services
o p Z0 Department at(760)323-8245-
r o Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la
N - 1`• 1•Q� Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar can Nadine Fieger
11 (760)323.8364.
James Thompson, City Clerk
sir Published: 10/27/2007
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE 5.1173 —APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
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
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will
hold a public hearing at its meeting of November 7, 2007. The City Council meeting begins at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider a recommendation by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Springs on an amendment to Section 92.09.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code
relating to office and financial uses in the C-B-D (Central Business Zone).
The City of Palm Springs, in its capacity as the lead agency for this project, under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project
and determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments are 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. Because the amendments have been found
to be exempt, no environmental review is necessary.
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 (mail or hand delivery) to:
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only
those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at,
or prior to the meeting.
An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions
regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director, Planning Services Department
at (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, portavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar
con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8364.
///d mes Thompson, City Clerk
L�
21