[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6108353,"mediaKeyId","2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e","parentId",2769035,"title","Planning commission approves Chick‑fil‑A at Springs Shopping Center with pedestrian, landscape and review conditions","audioSeconds",6297,"startMs",5249925,"endMs",11546975,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e&start=5249&end=11546","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e/thumbnail_5249925.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6108353/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-ChickfilA-at-Springs-Shopping-Center-with-pedestrian-landscape-and-review-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108353-cf72a581b3ecc9e1564a73f1f37330c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151828&Signature=gAC-CuODS1eUa2uSaaJdoCXpPQ3ypWXu5JR2IeEplfFW38Jua90vvMUYIceVqKW30ASSFAwbHs88QOZnfHzajukovqhNlvB~kdfPx1h3StzzVrrwM4wqENFxyte4LC7GZA4qZnIq2k4H0FtOcf9dU92a8~pfJRyErwCWpfElhEiisJ9lesQ22sVpdvjZOtkO6tYe9BvF2ZJMUTrghnTYQKCe2rOXSeEb0iTxDhdGGyDQj6Al0oqP9RTYPvQ2bX81gkduL8xVAsQIZliczYp1M86o1UwfkTZOuLQWaKD5cIMFrhvMW3bVLdJBKiL9UyshXVagAMUSu3c0Be5PlfifOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Palm Springs CA","date","2025-03-25T23:09:53Z","article","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on March 25 approved a conditional use permit to demolish an existing in‑center building and construct a 4,707‑square‑foot Chick‑fil‑A restaurant with a drive‑through at the Springs Shopping Center, subject to conditions aimed at pedestrian safety, landscaping and architectural coordination.

Staff told commissioners the project replaces a larger, previously assumed retail floor area and, according to the shopping center’s environmental analysis, would reduce daily vehicle trips on the site (the staff presentation cited a reduction from 16,531 to 15,690 daily trips compared with the EIR baseline). The applicant proposed three drive‑through lanes with stacking capacity of up to 49 vehicles; the developer’s queueing and traffic analysis and operator testimony led to an extended public discussion about whether two lanes would be sufficient.

Applicant representatives said their operational model relies on two traditional drive‑through ordering lanes supplemented by a third “mobile‑through” lane dedicated to customers ordering through the restaurant app and to reduce idling. Jeremiah Culver (project representative) and Chick‑fil‑A representatives including Eric Baker (development) and David Peck (operator) explained the third lane’s purpose and operation during the hearing. Peck described efforts to limit staff exposure in hot weather and said, “we're averaging 3 and a half to 4 minute times, throughout the day.” Eric Baker and the project team said the mobile‑through lane hastens pickup for app orders and reduces idling during peak periods.

Commissioners and members of the public raised pedestrian safety concerns about the proposed crosswalk routed through the drive‑through queue and asked how pedestrians and bicyclists would safely reach the facility from the public sidewalk and the shopping‑center interior. Staff confirmed the crosswalk would be a marked crossing on the parcel and said building‑safety and engineering standards apply; the applicant said staff would be present at peak hours and that the crosswalk location minimizes interaction with faster‑moving parking lot traffic. Shopping center management acknowledged long‑standing tree and landscape maintenance problems and committed to an updated irrigation and planting program.

After deliberations, commissioners approved the CUP with conditions that the applicant accepted on the record. The principal conditions included:
- Approve the project with two drive‑through lanes (remove the third lane) and reconfigure the lane orientation so landscaping and expanded outdoor seating can be added along the Ramon/Center Drive frontage; the applicant may return later through an amendment process if operational data justify a future change.
- Require a wayfinding, pedestrian safety and signage plan (to be submitted and approved by the Planning Director) that ensures safe routes from each public entry, protected crossings and detectable pedestrian signage; plan due before certificate of occupancy.
- Require an arborist assessment, a landscape remediation and irrigation improvement plan, and recordable easements/maintenance commitments to bring the center into compliance with the original approved landscape plan; proof of remediation and a maintenance program required before building permit issuance for the new structure.
- Require Architectural Review Committee review and coordination of exterior colors, materials and the canopy to better relate the new building to the existing shopping center and existing twin building across the parking lot.
- A 12‑month post‑occupancy check‑in on on‑site circulation and queuing to verify the conditions address queuing and safety; the commission retains discretion to require modifications or return for further review.

The commission’s conditions also required the applicant and property owner to provide a wayfinding program for the wider shopping center (signage, striping and on‑site circulation improvements) to reduce conflicts and improve pedestrian safety.

Tally: the commission approved the CUP (final roll call recorded as 5 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 absent). The permit includes standard conditions in the staff report and the additional conditions adopted by the commission at the hearing.

The applicant team said it would work with staff and the shopping center owner to complete the required sign, landscape and pedestrian plans and begin permit processing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting | March 25th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Palm Springs Planning Commission on March 25 approved a conditional use permit to construct a Chick‑fil‑A on a central parcel at the Springs Shopping Center, subject to conditions focused on pedestrian safety, landscape remediation and Architectural Review Committee design coordination.","taxTitle","Palm Springs, Riverside County, California","taxId",55405,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6108354,"Planning commission, neighbors push Nexus to rethink 62‑unit Twin Palms pre‑application",937,853645,1791180,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e&start=853&end=1791","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e/thumbnail_853645.jpg","/articles/6108354/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Planning-commission-neighbors-push-Nexus-to-rethink-62unit-Twin-Palms-preapplication","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108354-0e0e8ddeeac31ad542c4449ad47d86c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151828&Signature=o5-CynIrjXpVvlqAWTJ~BfPXErMK7gMso3hVT5bZEs5ujR2o9HVWY6bXC3mu11O3axEQfiZDjpFip0oqs4QEi8o71lcIxuBak~7YwaLshjClUtj~cp4bWh0NbxY5K9AKSFwSmlZKyNAwSAqau3J3HgTGrljg2Vs7NidNY5eaF81lQh-dHQ1nJh4V3AGEAgwBI9bRyJ6zERhhkjCPqkvrbgXAgMe1hEQ-XwrQW8ZWByxyZTKBWP8i6zzm~gnydpgsg8A5bl0s5Pvf2x22phzx1V-75ErfaqSzUODwJGhnOpeUIBdYxoaRWkoD7vRDuFUsBfaChl1N26QnhHx0veJ06g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Palm Springs Planning Commission reviewed a pre‑application from Nexus Development Corp. for a proposed 62‑unit residential project on an 8.8‑acre vacant parcel on the south side of East Palm Canyon Drive during a March 25 study session, and provided preliminary comments without taking formal action.

The project would combine 40 detached single‑family residences and 22 duplexes, with site access from East Twin Palms Drive. Staff described the proposal as a pre‑application that would likely be submitted as a Planned Development District (PDD). The preliminary site materials show two‑story single‑family homes with maximum heights of about 24–25 feet and three‑story duplexes up to roughly 36.5 feet.

Commissioners and residents said the submission raises multiple concerns. In staff’s presentation, Noriko, the project planner, noted the proposed single‑family product is not permitted outright in the R‑3 zone, the plan requests numerous deviations from R‑3 standards, and a public benefit required for PDD approval had not been identified. Staff also flagged the project’s density at roughly seven dwelling units per acre, which is substantially lower than the 30 dwelling units per acre noted in the city’s TRC general plan designation for that area.

Neighbors who spoke during the public comment period urged a different approach to massing and use. Sydney Williams of the Palm Springs Architectural Alliance said the city must “insist on excellent design for the future” and welcomed the developer’s recently announced architect, Sean Lockyer. Several Twin Palms residents including Virginia Giocheras, Tom Dole and Michael Wallager described the existing neighborhood as low‑rise with important architectural context and urged reduced unit counts, daylighting of views, and lower edge heights along Twin Palms.

Developer representatives told the commission the concept is an early sketch intended to balance higher density near Palm Canyon with a stepped‑down edge toward Twin Palms; they said economic feasibility and market demand informed the mix of detached units and duplexes. The applicant said no gate or enclosed community is proposed and that neighborhood outreach occurred on Feb. 24. The applicant also confirmed they have engaged local architect Sean Lockyer to refine design as the project moves forward.

Commission discussion focused on: whether the project should pursue a PDD given the number of requested deviations; the need to identify the PDD public benefit early in the application; traffic and access impacts, including whether an entrance from East Palm Canyon would be appropriate; the state “no‑net‑loss” housing requirement and whether density offsets would be required elsewhere; and streetscape, walls and landscaping along East Palm Canyon and Twin Palms.

The commission’s guidance (nonbinding) emphasized that the applicant should:
- identify the public benefit proposed to justify PDD deviations before formal application;
- refine massing and site layout to better transition heights and preserve neighborhood views;
- minimize long unbroken walls along Palm Canyon and avoid a fortress‑like frontage;
- provide clearer analysis of access, traffic impacts, and alternatives to reduce neighborhood cut‑through traffic; and
- continue outreach with neighbors and staff and return with a revised formal application.

No formal vote or permit decision was taken at the study session; staff asked the commission only to provide preliminary comments and the applicant to proceed to a formal PDD application if so advised.

The commission closed the study session portion of the meeting and convened the regular meeting at about 7:45 p.m.; this item will return to the commission as a formal application if and when the developer submits PDD materials and supporting studies.","A Nexus Development Corp. pre‑application for 62 units on East Palm Canyon Drive drew extensive neighborhood concern about design, height and traffic during a March 25 Palm Springs Planning Commission study session; commissioners offered guidance and did not take action.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6108346,"Commission denies Sherwin‑Williams paint store at Palm Canyon site, finds project inconsistent with Uptown general‑plan goals",1506,12692815,14199215,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e&start=12692&end=14199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e/thumbnail_12692815.jpg","/articles/6108346/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Commission-denies-SherwinWilliams-paint-store-at-Palm-Canyon-site-finds-project-inconsistent-with-Uptown-generalplan-goals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108346-6fb2ccd6743d80f903f03dbb10609e05/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151828&Signature=LWLG1WCeH0So1DQi-BXruoWHIvMNT7~pWJqsQuEU4vpMwpM9h7xQq-cWXGWeO9sR3qcvyCATIXVlhl-In-G5dTDWG78S9RDmm-8ukhu~HsiugqdGoOJ1C~PhWCfEnvrUhgakP3klL23QKecvdgK3wpQROMM~6qldlCpRrEFhTqGf-IYRjcBHdbR9fGVORXXTj-lENM1Dk-k0rb27ZnowqfOLQtbet8yDm4AEHT6UPVgpA3eFhgIBZnlPuAwxTOe7rkBCKsMksLBjt7f1RhoIEHB7fki86ecb0gOaE3jlo7KBV7apI0aBeKRdwt2t-bGg-MthhPAlnJJHdM-ammGsCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Palm Springs Planning Commission voted 4‑3 on March 25 to deny a major development permit for a new Sherwin‑Williams paint store on a 0.38‑acre undeveloped parcel at the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and East Stevens Road, concluding the proposal did not meet the city’s Uptown mixed‑use general‑plan guidance for active street‑oriented frontages.

The applicant, Matt McWhorter, representing the proposed tenant, told the commission the design had been updated since its February 26 review to add a clearer north‑facing entrance and expanded glazing along Palm Canyon Drive. Property owner Wayne Gottlieb and project supporters said the site is zoned for the proposed commercial use and described the revised building as pedestrian‑oriented.

Several commissioners and members of the public urged a design that better activates the Palm Canyon frontage. Commissioner Rotman and others criticized the interior layout, saying the plan still placed back‑of‑house storage and paint mixing along the street frontage and left limited visible retail and display facing the sidewalk. Commissioners recommended the applicant return with a floor plan that reconfigures the building so stores, displays and customer‑facing retail occupy the Palm Canyon frontage, with service and tinting operations located toward the back or otherwise screened from public view.

Commissioner Land explicitly moved to deny the application on the ground that the project was inconsistent with the Uptown district policies and the mixed‑multiuse objectives of the general plan; the motion passed on a 4‑3 roll call with commissioners Wermick, Layan (vice chair), Rotman and Morrell voting to deny and commissioners Baker, Miller and Murphy voting to approve.

The denial is procedural and policy‑based: staff and the city attorney confirmed the site’s zoning permits retail uses, but commissioners deciding the development permit must also find the project is consistent with the general plan. Several commissioners concluded the current plans do not demonstrably further the Uptown objective of concentrating pedestrian‑oriented, mixed‑use activity on vacant and underperforming parcels. The applicant may revise the plans and return with a reconfigured ground floor and stronger architectural treatment for the Palm Canyon frontage.","By a 4‑3 vote the Planning Commission denied a proposed Sherwin‑Williams paint store on North Palm Canyon Drive March 25, citing inability to make the finding that the project is consistent with the Uptown mixed‑use policies in the general plan; commissioners urged a more pedestrian‑oriented ground floor if the applicant returns.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6108351,"Commission approves Thompson Palm Springs parcel map; easement and CC&R conditions protect on‑site parking",732,11999730,12732375,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e&start=11999&end=12732","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769035-97f7aea891c08278ef0e66603a17be1e/thumbnail_11999730.jpg","/articles/6108351/Palm-Springs/Riverside-County/California/Commission-approves-Thompson-Palm-Springs-parcel-map-easement-and-CCR-conditions-protect-onsite-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6108351-83757ad6bd3c15594b3ef6e28804c16f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151828&Signature=EwQlB6LqYFT2lg~9JIuFamgGmvyeVYBY~mGS-sGl~myOe3~iff9OtM1P6uQmSZ9D2s3IYXIHs3o2MxPZn5XeTYsVk67QE3dFLcp7dtt6UQuUYmmiHIvcXWp6dKAGGl~tcHDKnksN50u0qZ9hpjIV251ToRqeFjyHxyzsSZ3H9ZSBum0PPMAuCQtj59f4UIQjl7QNIeLYCYfh-npRykVeWpgcaV8TfY85MxDiRIOFrCqClgRZmJdZbGTZyXyOuzF5yAtTkKEpXeBcL79d6Y-XC7rLX-mG7HUGCqUK4r25hBvfCqtJv5gsUGcT16Xa9yYqbwwejodY-cC0N7-H9aiYXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Palm Springs Planning Commission unanimously approved a tentative parcel map on March 25 to subdivide the Thompson Palm Springs mixed‑use property into seven commercial condominium airspace units, subject to conditions protecting shared on‑site parking.

Staff emphasized that no physical changes to the building or site are proposed and that the parcel map is intended to facilitate separate ownership or financing of hotel, parking and commercial airspace. Because hotel, retail and restaurant uses on the site rely on shared parking, staff recommended a condition requiring recordable easements and covenants to secure rights to regular access and parking for all airspace parcels created by the map.

Rob Bernheimer, counsel for the Hall Group (the applicant/owner), said the applicant had no physical changes planned and would work with staff to prepare the required recordable easement language. Ben Egan, the applicant’s engineer, confirmed the staff approach and said the final map and easement language would be prepared before final map recordation.

Gail Hutchings, who lives in the neighboring Vail Lejo condominiums, spoke in support and asked commissioners to confirm that no new height or physical changes were proposed; staff and the applicant reiterated there would be no physical alteration as part of the map.

The commission adopted the staff‑recommended condition (PLN‑1) as revised: prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall execute a recordable easement, in a form approved by the city attorney, granting the owners of all parcels created by the map rights of regular access and parking on the parking lot identified on the plan; the right of common use of the parking lot must also be reflected in covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), and the city shall have the right but not the obligation to enforce the easement.

Roll call on the motion was unanimous in favor of approval (7‑0).","The Planning Commission unanimously approved a tentative parcel map to create seven commercial condominiums at the Thompson Palm Springs; staff and the applicant agreed to record easements and CC&Rs to ensure code‑required on‑site parking remains available to all units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves Chick‑fil‑A at Springs Shopping Center with pedestrian, landscape and review conditions

Planning commission, neighbors push Nexus to rethink 62‑unit Twin Palms pre‑application

Commission denies Sherwin‑Williams paint store at Palm Canyon site, finds project inconsistent with Uptown general‑plan goals

Commission approves Thompson Palm Springs parcel map; easement and CC&R conditions protect on‑site parking