HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/3/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 3.B.�pP,LM SA
o
Yam\ I -iI ryY
CC FMOFnW F AF A
L/FORD YY
Date: October 3, 2007
From: David H. Ready, City Manager
City Council Staff Report
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, California,
amending Subsection A-37 and Paragraph 1-0 or 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-S-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.
City Council
Office Uses in the C-B-D Zone
"Fronts a
Street"
Other
Locations
Street Level
1011IMiR=2 R
Type of Office
2,500 SF or Less
Over 2,500 SF
Any Size
Type of Office
5,000 SF or Less
Over 5,000 SF
Any Size
October 3, 2007
Page 2 of 5
Historic Village Center
Land Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Permitted
C-B-D Zone Outside
Historic Village Center
Permitted
Land Use Permit
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.
000052
City Council
Office Uses in the C-B-D Zonc
Regulatory Options
October 3, 2007
Page 3 of 5
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.
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 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
000002
City Council
Office Uses in the C-B-p Zone
October 3, 2007
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 on 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.
City Council
Office Uses in the C-B-p Zone
Fiscal Impact:
There is no foreseeable fiscal impact on the City of Palm Springs.
Douglas . Holland
City Attorney
David H. Ready, ger
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No, 1713
October 3, 2007
Page 5 of 5
Thomas J. Wils !Assistant City Manager
000005
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.
Citv Attornev's Summary
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 1-0 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
000006
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 oniv 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.
C0► STIDT4► MAN -Went
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DOUGLAS HOLLAND, CITY ATTORNEY
0000V