There are no such stops in our City.

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.

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.

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

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

This is legally erroneous.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I am comfortable...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank goodness we are protecting our open spaces!

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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…

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.

I don't think this map accurately interprets California law. these areas do not meet he criteria for two or more "major" transit stops.

This is One Las Palmas, a private gated community with large single family homes on estate sized lots greater than 15,000 sf in size. This development should be classified R-B, similar to Old Las Palmas as the lots are similarly sized.

The Oasis del Sol Organization Board is opposed to a building at Tacquitz and Sunrise tha would exceed the current height limitations

I have serious concerns about the legitimacy of this public comment period because the outreach materials make incorrect statements about the current state of California law, including that buildings over five stories in height are allowed as a matter of right and those areas which qualify as major transit stops under the Public Resources Code. By giving erroneous interpretations of statute early in the process, you have intentionally distorted and/or limited people's expectations of those aspects of the process that can be changed.

The homes directly adjacent would be most impacted by such tall, large structures, but could also bring potential issues for the entire area/neighborhood. These tall buildings in this area would look directly into the backyards of many of our homes, will add traffic and parking issues to an otherwise peaceful, single-family neighborhood. For those homes directly adjacent to a five-story building would have decreased light, severe shadow impacts, loss of privacy and quality of life. They would also block the westerly views of the mountains, which impact home values. These new buildings would also be out scale with the low-density, low-profile single-family homes. There would also be increased traffic in the area and could create the need for more parking on our quiet neighborhood streets. Finally, this proposed rezoning is in conflict and likely a violation of Palm Springs General Plan Principles, which prioritizes these points: 
Compatibility with existing neighborhood character
Appropriate transitions between different land use intensities
Protection of established residential areas

The Sunrise Park neighborhood deserves better. Please protect the character and livability of our neighborhood. Do not allow for this zoning change here.

Designating the lots indicated in red adjacent to Sunrise Way and Tahquitz Canyon way would be a violation of the General Plan, which designates them as office with a .35 FAR. I have discussed the proposed violation of the General Plan with the City Attorney. Council and staff insisted that various state-level housing laws mandate this zoning. I acknowledge the complexity of recent housing laws, including reduced parking requirements near transit stops (AB 2533), density bonuses (Government Code Sections 65915–65918), and overrides of General Plans (AB 2011), which overlap in sometimes illogical ways. However, my analysis confirms these laws do not support the proposed zoning.

Staff has used adjacency to public transit as a proxy for a more nuanced interpretation of the law. Several statutes permit high density development within a half mile of a “major transit stop,” defined under Public Resources Code 21064.3 as: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by bus or rail transit. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a service interval of 20 minutes or less during peak commute periods.

State and federal guidelines clarify what constitutes a “rapid bus transit station.” Caltrans requires: 1) dedicated lanes or busways for part of the route; 2) frequent service (15–20-minute headways during peak hours); 3) enhanced stations with platform-level boarding and amenities like real-time displays. Similarly, the Federal Transit Administration mandates: 1) at least 50% dedicated lanes or intersection priority; 2) defined stations with enhanced amenities; 3) high-frequency service. Hence, there is no “rapid bus transit station” within the geography boundaries of our City. Additionally, no two “major” bus routes serve this area on a 20-minute interval, failing even the more permissive test in Public Resources Code 21064.3(c). No reasonable interpretation of these laws could classify a municipal bus shelter as a “rapid bus transit station.” Yet, staff persists in this tortured interpretation.

Additionally, the provisions of AB 2011 require that office zones subject to residential development have a minimum of 50 feet of frontage on a “Commercial Corridor,” as defined in government Code section 65912.101(b). The following parcels do not meet the criteria, as they have no such frontage: 180 N. Luring (APN 502-06-4009); 160 N. Luring (502-06-4011); 140 N. Luring (APN 502-06-4008); 1700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way (APN 502-06-5022); 1785 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way (APN 502-16-1002); 1801 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Unit 2 (APN 502-16-1011); and 1750 Arenas Way (APN 502-16-1003).

All these pitfalls being stated, the question becomes how does the City deal with this issue. The City faces two paths:

1. Zone the parcels as office or professional and address residential development applications permitted under state law as they arise. Nothing requires these sites to be affirmatively zoned to meet the outer boundaries of State law. This aligns with the Code’s use of the phrase “notwithstanding,” meaning that the zoning can be office an application for other uses can be evaluated based on State law as it then exists (it changes frequently); or

2. The City can attempt to adopt precarious zoning standards that meet the bare minimum of housing codes, risking lawsuits if the zoning overshoots minimum State requirements (e.g., by including hotel zoning or exceeding floor-area ratios). Misalignment with State requirements invites legal challenges, exacerbated by the unpredictable nature of judicial interpretation.

I respectfully submit that option 2 is the one which will not place the City on the leading edge of the inevitable legal challenges that these controversial laws will invite. The safer option is to undershoot—designate the zoning as office or professional, with exceptions entertained “notwithstanding” the zoning, as State law may direct at the time. The City should plan around the rule, not the exception. In this regard it would be in good company. A study by the Terner Center for Housing and Innovation at UC Berkeley investigated how Bay Area cities were handling these changes and determined that of the 106 of the Bay Area municipalities, 16 attempted to thread the needle and affirmatively zone the State requirements, while the remining 90 (84%) played it safe buy doing exactly what I am proposing—zone in conformity to the General Plan and entertain exceptions as they come.

Under no circumstances can the zoning be “mixed-use.” The General Plan designates mixed-use development for five specific areas: Indian Canyon and San Rafael, Artist Colony, Uptown, Vista Chino and Sunrise Way, Palm Canyon and Sunny Dunes, Smoke Tree, Palm Canyon East Gateway, and the Higher Education Campus. This location is not among them.

I would be happy to provide a more comprehensive legal summary, but I was denied a meeting with staff and a proper explanation of the rationale behind the proposed zoning. Regardless, I see no legal path to the zoning as proposed.

Five story mixed use development at the corner of Sunrise and Tahquitz way would be a violation of the General Plan designation and FAR ratios and will result in this City being sued. I discussed this violation of the General Plan with the City Attorney. Council and staff insisted that various state-level housing law changes mandated this zoning. I acknowledge the complexity of recent housing laws, including reduced parking requirements near transit stops (AB 2533), density bonuses (Government Code Sections 65915–65918), and overrides of General Plans (AB 2011 and its progeny), which overlap in sometimes illogical ways. However, my analysis confirms these laws do not support the proposed zoning.

Regarding adjacency to transit, staff has used this as a proxy for a nuanced interpretation of the law. Several statutes reference a “major transit stop,” defined under Public Resources Code 21064.3 as: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by bus or rail transit. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a service interval of 20 minutes or less during peak commute periods.

State and federal guidelines clarify what constitutes a “rapid bus transit station.” Caltrans requires: 1) dedicated lanes or busways for part of the route; 2) frequent service (15–20-minute headways during peak hours); 3) enhanced stations with platform-level boarding and amenities like real-time displays. The Federal Transit Administration mandates: 1) at least 50% dedicated lanes or intersection priority; 2) defined stations with enhanced amenities; 3) high-frequency service. Additionally, no two “major” bus routes serve this area on a 20-minute interval, failing even the more permissive test in Public Resources Code 21064.3(c).

No reasonable interpretation of these laws could classify a municipal bus shelter as a “rapid bus transit station.” Yet, staff persists in this tortured interpretation.

The core issue, however, is practical. The City faces two paths:
1. Zone the parcels as office or professional, addressing low-income development applications permitted under state law as they arise. This aligns with the code’s “notwithstanding” exceptions to zoning or General Plan restrictions.

2. Adopt precarious zoning standards that meet the bare minimum of housing codes, risking lawsuits if the zoning overshoots state requirements (e.g., by including hotel zoning or exceeding floor-area ratios). Misaligning with low-income housing exceptions invites legal challenges, given the unpredictable nature of judicial interpretation. The safer option is to undershoot—designate the zoning as office or professional, with exceptions entertained as state law directs. The City should plan around the rule, not the exception.

Under no circumstances can the zoning be “mixed-use.” The General Plan designates mixed-use development for five specific areas: Indian Canyon and San Rafael, Artist Colony, Uptown, Vista Chino and Sunrise Way, Palm Canyon and Sunny Dunes, Smoke Tree, Palm Canyon East Gateway, and the Higher Education Campus. This location is not among them.

This is not a comprehensive legal summary, as I was denied a meeting with staff and a proper explanation of their reasoning.

If I read correctly, the updated plan includes mixed use for up to seven stories of commercial development. I am very much against this in any part of Palm Springs. We homeowners paid for those beautiful mountain views when we bought our properties. I for one do not want their images marred by development we moved out here to get away from. Thank you,

Your website makes it very difficult to read the proposed zoning map. As an architect I'm used to reading zoning maps so I managed but I don't see how you would expect most people to read it.
The map should also be available as a link and a pdf with a clear legend!
"Stuff" will hit the fan once people find out you are proposing 7 story buildings lining Palm Canyon and 5 story building directly next to single family homes limited to 1 story.

The spirit of Palm Springs changes immensely if taller buildings are allowed, particularly if tall buildings are allowed near the apron of the mountains. Two stories should be the maximum of height above ground within 0.75 miles from the mountain base. Three stories may be allowed in non-residential areas that are further than 0.75 miles from the mountain base. Four stories may be allowed for buildings within 0.25 miles from Interstate 10 and its feeder lanes. There might be NO RESTRICTION on building several floors below ground level. Below-ground parking structures should be encouraged.

we need more

not a good look 7 story structures obscure the view of the mountains

no higher than 5 stories 4 preferably

love it