April 2025 Open House Boards

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 4:12PM on page 11

Open spaces are crucial, and thankfully, we're surrounded by open spaces (I hike our trails nearly every day) and have a number of large accessible open spaces within the City itself. That said, within the PS city limits, a focus on managed parks that are very accessible to seniors, young families, and others is needed more than purely open spaces. And I generally do not support preventing the development of housing on vacant/open spaces within the city limits, as our need for more and more affordable housing is much more critical than our need for open space (again, within the city limits).

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 4:07PM on page 10

Loft-style live/work units would seem to make a lot of sense in this zone, given the large creative community in PS. This would also work to support the increasing number of remote workers in the Valley. PS might also look to support some of the more innovative housing types that other cities (like SF) have seen an increase of in recent years, such as dormitory-style housing with common kitchens, entertainment spaces, etc., that are much more affordable for singles, recent graduates, seniors, etc. I don't believe PS currently allows such housing, but given the demographics of our residents, it would seem like it could be a very popular and more affordable option.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 4:01PM on page 9

For most of the MX-A zones depicted along N and E Palm Canyon and Ramon Road, 3 stories seems overly restrictive and low-density, given that those are major corridors with substantial commercial activity already. Such low-rise development would, in my opinion, lead to underdevelopment of those areas, especially considering the large amount of vacant land or vacant properties in them. Having said that, these areas seem best-suited for 4- or 5-story mixed-use buildings, not the 7-story or more that would make sense downtown, along Tahquitz, etc.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 3:54PM on page 9

Yes, though I think it's a good idea to have such zoning along high-traffic corridors/intersections, whether or not it's within a certain distance of a transit stop. In particular, having zoning (and other initiatives) that support the construction of 5-story apartment buildings in addition to typically high-end and expensive condominiums will hopefully create a wider, more affordable range of housing stock that we need to keep PS economically healthy and vibrant.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 3:48PM on page 9

As a longtime and full-time city resident, I strongly support this. Having more residents downtown will help businesses, especially during slower, off-season months, and will be a modest step to creating more housing (and thus, more affordable housing) for residents, particularly those in the service sector who work in or near downtown. Denser housing in the downtown core will help to create a more walkable, accessible residential area that will be particularly attractive to the workers we need in the area, including the younger people who tend to work those jobs. The 8,000+ foot peaks that rise behind downtown are still easily visible and enjoyed behind the Kimpton, Hyatt, and other existing mid-rise buildings; adding similarly-sized residential buildings will keep our city economically healthy and accessible to the range of residents needed to support that.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 3:35PM on page 6

Generally, yes. The addition of RN-A would be a particularly welcome change if it results in street-facing condos/townhomes that would line the street as pictured (rather than sequestered behind walled and gated communities as is nearly always the case now). Having some rowhouse-style condos/apartments in the mix (especially near commercial areas) would increase walkability and foster a greater sense of neighborhood involvement.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 3:28PM on page 4

Generally, simplifying the zoning is an improvement, especially since the current complexity of zoning has often resulted in the adoption of PDDs to circumvent the existing zoning, which I'm strongly against. Such PDDs tend to include walls and gates, dead-end streets (rather than cut-de-sacs), and do not interconnect their internal roadways with adjacent neighborhoods, even when such neighborhoods have existing roadways that end at the property line. We don't need more siloed neighborhoods in our City; all new neighborhoods should interconnect with adjacent communities, and their roads/pathways should be public. If simplifying Residential Moderate zones into one helps ensure this, then I'm supportive.

Matt Sep 20 2025 at 3:20PM on page 3

I am strongly supportive of adding/expanding MX-B and MX-C zones to Palm Springs' overall mix. As a 15+ years permanent resident of Palm Springs who lives in an R-C zone, I'm frustrated and disappointed that California as a whole, and sometimes PS specifically, puts up so many obstacles to constructing even modestly more dense housing, even along high-traffic corridors. Adding a modest amount of 5- or 7-story residential buildings, especially some apartments rather than condos, will help to keep the City affordable for a wide range of residents, including teachers, first responders, and service workers that the rest of us depend on. The Kimpton and Thompson hotels and other longer-standing buildings of 5 or more stories have not harmed the unique character of this town, and including a modest number of similarly sized residential structures (such as the condo building adjacent to the convention center that the Planning Commission just approved) would be a very modest, needed step to keep our city diverse and vibrant.

Peter Bohr Sep 20 2025 at 3:18PM on page 2

Suggestion

I'm very concerned about a potential 5-story building on Palm Canyon abutting our residential property behind it with attendant loss of privacy (it would overlook our 1- and 2-story buildings) and loss of light, not to mention noise and traffic/parking concerns. I suggest the zoning remain as it is.

Isaac L. Sep 18 2025 at 7:55PM on page 1

Suggestion

As a year-round citizen of Palm Springs I support the strategic & thoughtful increase of zoning heights and zoning densities in areas along major transportation and commercial corridors within the city. Long-term rental housing inventories within Palm Springs are very limited and the quality of what does exist is very low. Additionally, more of the working population can no longer afford to purchase housing, so long-term housing needs will continue to grow and should be diversified.

Gustav Swanson Sep 18 2025 at 5:41PM on page 1

Suggestion

Mountain views and maintaining historic, architectural character must be prioritized even at the expense of additional housing. (Which tends to be market rate and not affordable anyway.)

RHNA should be abolished.

Roger Neustadter Sep 17 2025 at 1:08PM on page 9

This is absurd and totally out of the character of Palm Springs. A 3 story limit might be acceptable.

Roger Neustadter Sep 17 2025 at 1:07PM on page 9

5 stories is far too high. We risk losing the village feel that makes Palm Springs special.

Roger Neustadter Sep 17 2025 at 1:06PM on page 9

I believe that 3 stories is the absolute maximum that should be allowed and I would prefer to see a maximum of 2 stories.

Adele DiFeo Sep 17 2025 at 12:52PM on page 1

Suggestion

I am surprised to hear you are considering such another abomination to our quaint village type atmosphere. (Isn't that why so many come here, for the village vibe??? I feel that the current high rises should not been allowed to be developed as tall as they are, where they are, The Thompson, The Rowan Are you wanting to turn Palm Springs into an LA suburb? I realize the city is running out of space but please keep downtown the quaint nostalgic village vibe it is.

Georgiana Lotfy Sep 16 2025 at 9:57AM on page 2

Question

Sensible building is not what is being proposed. Five story buildings down town are one thing, but to even propose that close to residential neighborhoods is a total change in the very essence of what Palm springs has been for all these years, a lovely tourist town. As a property owner, I’m opposed and this zoning proposal needs further examination and discussion. We can do better

Gustav Swanson Sep 14 2025 at 9:07PM on page 1

Suggestion

Unfortunately this will become moot if Governor Newsom signs SB79.
link. Sacramento needs to return ALL zoning to the local level.

Lorna Walker Sep 14 2025 at 7:14PM on page 1

Suggestion

Please don't rezone the Vista Norte neighborhood. I moved to this neighborhood because of the single family homes and fabulous views. Please don't ruin my neighborhood.

Michael Valdez Sep 12 2025 at 3:03PM on page 9

There are no such stops in our City.

Michael Valdez Sep 12 2025 at 3:02PM on page 4

A minimum lot size of 5,000 sf results in a DUA of over 8, which is nearly double what has been contemplated in the General Plan for "Very Low Density Residential (2.1 - 4.0 du/ac)" which is what the General Plan designation is for the residential areas of the Sunrise Park neighborhood.

Michael Valdez Sep 12 2025 at 2:57PM on page 8

Rolling all office and professional districts into mixed use will result in a lawsuit for General Plan conformity. Mixed use was only evaluated in specific areas as part of the General Plan.

Leena Rodriguez Sep 12 2025 at 2:38PM on page 2

Suggestion

NO MORE THAN 2 STORIES NEAR OUR HOMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leena Rodriguez Sep 12 2025 at 12:51PM on page 2

This high density zoning is absurd here, placed in our historic neighborhood. This needs to be removed and limited to two stories.

Michael Valdez Sep 10 2025 at 1:09PM on page 7

This is legally erroneous.

Joan Roberts Sep 10 2025 at 9:02AM on page 2

These huge 5 story mixed use zones peppered into our City with no rhyme or reason are absurd. Has anyone thought out the real world consequences of this. We, the citizens, have to live here and have invested our lives to our homes and neighborhoods. Please reconsider this proposal.

Walter Nichols Sep 9 2025 at 2:20PM on page 2

We should put one of these 7 story developments right here by the Mayor's house.

Walter Nichols Sep 9 2025 at 2:19PM on page 2

Suggestion

Honestly this whole public comment period is such a silly waste of money. You have thousands of your constituents screaming at you to preserve the low rise low density nature of the City and your dead set on doing whatever suits you. I wish we had leadership that responds to what the people actually want and just doesn't cram their agenda down our throats. Tail wagging the dog.

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:46AM on page 3

Suggestion

In my own neighborhood, a recent two-story development has already blocked the once-outstanding views of the Little San Bernardino Mountains. These views—often snow-capped in winter and glowing with breathtaking sunsets—were not just scenic; they were soul-nourishing. Their loss has changed the character of walking through our streets. What was once a meditative, awe-inspiring experience now feels boxed in and diminished.
As someone who has hiked nearly every trail in and around Palm Springs, I have a deep appreciation for our open spaces and the profound impact they have on our physical and mental well-being. These natural vistas are not luxuries—they are essential to the health and identity of our community.

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:29AM on page 3

Suggestion

I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning that would permit denser and taller buildings throughout our city.
Palm Springs is not just a place—it’s a feeling. It’s the open skies, the mid-century charm, the unobstructed mountain views, and the intimate scale of our neighborhoods that have drawn generations of visitors and residents alike. The proposal to allow taller, denser developments threatens to erode the very essence of what makes Palm Springs “Like No Place Else.”

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:27AM on page 3

Suggestion

Land Availability and Smart Planning The argument that land is limited oversimplifies the issue. Palm Springs has opportunities for creative, sustainable development that respects the environment and community:
• The city’s own planning documents acknowledge that redevelopment of existing properties is a viable path forward.
• Sensitive lands such as hillsides and open desert should not be sacrificed for density. Instead, we should prioritize smart growth within already developed areas.
Impact on City Character and Tourism
• Palm Springs’ identity is rooted in its low-rise, human-scale architecture and desert-modern aesthetic. Introducing high-density, vertical development risks turning our city into a generic urban landscape.
• Tourists come here for tranquility, beauty, and escape—not for towering buildings that block views and cast shadows over historic neighborhoods.
• The tourism industry, a cornerstone of our local economy, thrives on the city’s visual appeal and relaxed atmosphere. Altering that balance could lead to long-term economic consequences.

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:25AM on page 3

Suggestion

Impact on City Character and Tourism
• Palm Springs’ identity is rooted in its low-rise, human-scale architecture and desert-modern aesthetic. Introducing high-density, vertical development risks turning our city into a generic urban landscape.
• Tourists come here for tranquility, beauty, and escape—not for towering buildings that block views and cast shadows over historic neighborhoods.
• The tourism industry, a cornerstone of our local economy, thrives on the city’s visual appeal and relaxed atmosphere. Altering that balance could lead to long-term economic consequences.

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:21AM on page 3

Suggestion

The argument that land is limited oversimplifies the issue. Palm Springs has opportunities for creative, sustainable development that respects the environment and community:
• The city’s own planning documents acknowledge that redevelopment of existing properties is a viable path forward.
• Sensitive lands such as hillsides and open desert should not be sacrificed for density. Instead, we should prioritize smart growth within already developed areas.

Scott Sep 9 2025 at 11:20AM on page 3

Suggestion

As a concerned resident and advocate for preserving the unique character of Palm Springs, I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning that would permit denser and taller buildings throughout our city.
Palm Springs is not just a place—it’s a feeling. It’s the open skies, the mid-century charm, the unobstructed mountain views, and the intimate scale of our neighborhoods that have drawn generations of visitors and residents alike. The proposal to allow taller, denser developments threatens to erode the very essence of what makes Palm Springs “Like No Place Else.”
There are alternative strategies that can meet housing goals without resorting to vertical sprawl:
• Adaptive reuse of existing buildings and underutilized commercial spaces.
• Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and gentle infill in appropriate zones.
• Public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing on city-owned land.
• Preservation incentives to maintain existing affordable units.

Russell Hill Sep 8 2025 at 1:18PM on page 4

Suggestion

Yes, I am comfortable...

James Bruce Sep 7 2025 at 2:53PM on page 7

Question

Where is the much-needed Traffic Study to demonstrate the issues this density would create on already under-performing heavy traffic?
The Gene Autry - Vista Chino intersection is already one of the most dangerous ones in the City.
The Serena Park plan studies have identified that this area will soon fail traffic wise without adding the traffic that this Zoning would permit.

Kyle Sep 5 2025 at 1:15PM on page 1

Suggestion

Increasing density and height along the major transit corridors such as Palm Canyon, Tahquitz Canyon, Ramon, Vista Chino, Sunrise, Farrell, etc. makes the absolute MOST sense.

Adding more mixed-use zones along transportation corridors will concentrate new development and make all neighborhoods more vibrant with more people closer to retail and employment opportunities.

Also, it will encourage more people to walk, bike, and or take transit. Hopefully, it will increase transit ridership on the Sun Bus to subsequently increase frequency and who knows, maybe add double-decker buses like Las Vegas and San Luis Obispo.

Providing greater flexibility and opportunities for residents to live at all income levels and ways to get around will make Palm Springs more equitable and a better place to live for all.

Kyle Sep 5 2025 at 1:15PM on page 1

Suggestion

Increasing density and height along the major transit corridors such as Palm Canyon, Tahquitz Canyon, Ramon, Vista Chino, Sunrise, Farrell, etc. makes the absolute MOST sense.

Adding more mixed-use zones along transportation corridors will concentrate new development and make all neighborhoods more vibrant with more people closer to retail and employment opportunities.

Also, it will encourage more people to walk, bike, and or take transit. Hopefully, it will increase transit ridership on the Sun Bus to subsequently increase frequency and who knows, maybe add double-decker buses like Las Vegas and San Luis Obispo.

Providing greater flexibility and opportunities for residents to live at all income levels and ways to get around will make Palm Springs more equitable and a better place to live for all.

Kyle Sep 5 2025 at 1:15PM on page 1

Suggestion

Increasing density and height along the major transit corridors such as Palm Canyon, Tahquitz Canyon, Ramon, Vista Chino, Sunrise, Farrell, etc. makes the absolute MOST sense.

Adding more mixed-use zones along transportation corridors will concentrate new development and make all neighborhoods more vibrant with more people closer to retail and employment opportunities.

Also, it will encourage more people to walk, bike, and or take transit. Hopefully, it will increase transit ridership on the Sun Bus to subsequently increase frequency and who knows, maybe add double-decker buses like Las Vegas and San Luis Obispo.

Providing greater flexibility and opportunities for residents to live at all income levels and ways to get around will make Palm Springs more equitable and a better place to live for all.

Gary Miller Sep 5 2025 at 12:43PM on page 2

Suggestion

I respectfully urge the Commission to disallow two-story buildings within this zone. Currently, the entire area consists solely of one-story structures, and permitting two-story construction would fundamentally alter the character and livability of the residential houses that are directly behind these structures, on E. Mesquite Ave.

A second story would directly jeopardize the privacy of the adjoining residential zone by creating sightlines into the backyards of existing homes. This intrusion would significantly reduce the sense of security and personal space that residents now enjoy. Additionally, taller buildings would obstruct existing views of North Palm Springs, which are an important aspect of the enjoyment and value of our properties.

The introduction of two-story development would therefore materially diminish the use and enjoyment of our backyards, compromise privacy, and erode the established character of the neighborhood. These parcels should be limited to single story structures.

Karin Sep 5 2025 at 11:20AM on page 11

Thank goodness we are protecting our open spaces!

Louise Sep 5 2025 at 9:04AM on page 7

No more huge developments downtown. It’s ruining the reason people come to Palm Springs for the small village and boutique experience without looking like a Vegas strip. Buildings that over power the beautiful mountains.

Mimi Katz Sep 5 2025 at 8:05AM on page 1

It makes no sense to me whatsoever that all of this expansion, bringing more and more residents to town, is even happening when we are told, time and again, to refrain from using too much water!

Anthony Sep 5 2025 at 7:07AM on page 1

We are opposed to the zone changes, we moved from NYC to Palm Springs because of the small town feel of the village. Taller structures will obscure homeowners and renters views of our mountains which are priceless. Every inch of land here in Palm Springs doesn't need development ,along with residential units are we building new schools or hospitals to meet the additional population increase? A bigger question is affordability, what proportion of housing will be so called affordable?

Michael Friedberg Sep 4 2025 at 12:23PM on page 2

Suggestion

I wholeheartedly agree with the MANY comments that higher-density development will alter the charm and character of Palm Springs, but rather than do what the constituents want, officials yield to political pressure from developers and only consider the potential additional revenues that more density brings. I have a home in San Diego where this is already taken place and is continuing. Increased traffic is a big problem (and loosening parking requirements for developers has monstrously impacted parking on nearby streets, which in Palm Springs isn't adequate at times even now). If we must increase density in Palm Springs, MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE CHARMING AND ALREADY "BUSTLING" TOURIST AREAS LIKE THE PALM CANYON-111 Corridor. Please DON'T SELL OUT those of us who elected you! You are there to REPRESENT us, not sell us out.

Steven Sep 4 2025 at 8:54AM on page 2

The increased building heights will destroy the distinctive and special character of the Palm Springs we know and love!

Peter Satin Sep 4 2025 at 8:38AM on page 1

Mission Creek crosses under the UPRR in the western portion of this parcel and is critical to maintaining wildlife connectivity with the larger Whitewater River channel.

Louise Sep 4 2025 at 8:01AM on page 1

Suggestion

Do not move to increase density and raise height limit of buildings to the detriment of the charm of our City. Shameful!

Carlene Sep 4 2025 at 7:15AM on page 6

Suggestion

Palm Springs is losing its small-town appeal. Large, multi-story structures ruin the coziness of the town.

Michael L Sep 4 2025 at 7:13AM on page 1

Suggestion

Please maintain the current building heights… PS is a resort town. It’s ok if it’s not possible for everyone to buy into… just like we all can’t buy a house in Beverly Hills or Newport Beach. It’s ok to not build on every square inch of our desert land… save and protect our open space and wildlife… if people want to live in a big city, with big city problems this shouldn’t be the place they call home…

William Sep 4 2025 at 2:03AM on page 1

Suggestion

We need a good supermarket in the upper west side. I live in Miralon, it would be nice walk or have a short drive to a good market. No Target Stores. We need a Jensen's, Wholefoods, Trader Joe's.

Warning message

April 2025 Open House Boards

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.