Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A - Public Comment4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A From:Laura Slipak To:City Clerk Subject:Fuego Night Club Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 11:40:38 AM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hi City Clerk! Again I see them wanting to open a club next to where I live, would you like to live next to a club? With people wondering the street all night? Across from what’s already the worse and scariest Rite aid in the city! Drug attics, homeless drug dealers! Please don’t let them take over this amazing neighborhood that the owner is trying so hard at cleaning up. I work for Lars Viklund at his hotels and help him run this building. When he first bought it we had drug dealers , drug attics living here. Little by little they moved out or where evicted before the pandemic, we finally have great tenants and are happy with all the upgrades! Speaking of upgrades . He has spent over 20 million on his hotels. Other hotels in the area fully agree! Avalon, Ingleside Inn Including Micheals House a rehab center across the street . BevMo is not happy either! They already have people hanging out in front of their front doors . A few tenants have already let me know if a nightclub goes in they will move out. Won’t be easy renting next to a loud club with who knows who wandering around. Please take this seriously! Best, Laura Slipak 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Laura Slipak GM Group Sales/Events C- 310-729-7727 A collection of Palm Springs Boutique Hotels La Serena Villas Del Marcos Hotel The Three Fifty Hotel Azúcar Restaurant psboutiquehotels.com 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A From:Laura Slipak To:City Clerk Subject:Fuego Night Club Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 11:40:38 AM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hi City Clerk! Again I see them wanting to open a club next to where I live, would you like to live next to a club? With people wondering the street all night? Across from what’s already the worse and scariest Rite aid in the city! Drug attics, homeless drug dealers! Please don’t let them take over this amazing neighborhood that the owner is trying so hard at cleaning up. I work for Lars Viklund at his hotels and help him run this building. When he first bought it we had drug dealers , drug attics living here. Little by little they moved out or where evicted before the pandemic, we finally have great tenants and are happy with all the upgrades! Speaking of upgrades . He has spent over 20 million on his hotels. Other hotels in the area fully agree! Avalon, Ingleside Inn Including Micheals House a rehab center across the street . BevMo is not happy either! They already have people hanging out in front of their front doors . A few tenants have already let me know if a nightclub goes in they will move out. Won’t be easy renting next to a loud club with who knows who wandering around. Please take this seriously! Best, Laura Slipak 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Laura Slipak GM Group Sales/Events C- 310-729-7727 A collection of Palm Springs Boutique Hotels La Serena Villas Del Marcos Hotel The Three Fifty Hotel Azúcar Restaurant psboutiquehotels.com 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A From:Jeff Denean Jones To:Tiffani Bailey; City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Comment about Proposed Nightclub at 383 S Palm Cub Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:05:09 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hi Tiffani - Thank you for confirming you got my message yesterday. I wanted to ask if these photos could be forwarded to city council for review. These pictures show 383 South Palm Canyon building proximity to 373 South Palm Canyon and 372 South Belardo - the Orlean’s Apartments. For tonight’s call, do I make my comment during public comment or is it during the discussion about Fuego Nightclub appeal? Lastly, our property manager said she will email in her comments and the consensus from all the residents opposed to the nightclub. Thank you again. Kindest Regards, Jeff Denean Jones, CTA pronouns: they | them | their 760.563.8448 w 760.832.2135 m Donating to Ukraine Crisis Relief Fund will help support much-needed humanitarian assistance in impacted communities in Ukraine and surrounding regions where Ukrainian refugees have fled. Go to GlobalGiving to learn more. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeff Denean Jones <jeffdenean@gmail.com> Date: Mar 7, 2022, 6:39 PM -0800 To: cityclerk@palmspringsca.gov <cityclerk@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Comment about Proposed Nightclub at 383 S Palm Cub 4/21/2021 Public Comment Item 2A Dear Planning Commission - My name is Jeff Jones. I reside at 372 South Belardo (Orleans Apts), which is also part of the 373 South Palm Canyon property. I have spoken with fellow residents as well as property management and property owners (who also own La Serena Villas at 339 S Belardo, Del Marcos at 225 W Baristo, and The Three Fifty Hotel at 350 S Belardo). We are all in agreement that a nightclub at 383 S Palm Canyon will be very disruptive to our quality of life, the quality of our neighborhood, and the quality of the boutique hotels here in the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood. Therefore, we are opposed to the proposed site for this or any nightclub at 383 S Palm Canyon. I’m including photos of the property and its proximity to the Orleans apartment complex - a multi-unit property with 30 units. Please advise on next steps for us to officially state our objections should this proposal pass the planning commission. I thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me at 760.832.2135 if you have any questions. Kindest Regards, Jeff Denean Jones, CTApronouns: they | them | their 760.563.8448 w760.832.2135 m Facebook | Instagram | YouTube 4/21/2021 Public Comment Item 2A From:Christy Holstege To:City Clerk Subject:Fwd: Fuego Nightclub Oposition Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:21:24 PM Attachments:image078940.png image476008.png Christy Gilbert Holstege, Esq. Councilmember District 4 City of Palm Springs Begin forwarded message: From: Matt Shough <matt.shough@avalonpalmsprings.com> Date: April 21, 2022 at 11:57:08 AM PDT To: Christy Holstege <Christy.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: Fuego Nightclub Oposition  NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good Day Councilmember Holstege, I am reaching out regarding tonight’s Council Meeting topic of the petition to the Planning Commissions denial to convert the Bank property at 383 S. Palm Canyon into the Fuego Nightclub. I as well as my fellow hoteliers on Belardo have significant concerns about the impact this nightclub would have to our hotels and guests. While I understand there has a been a noise mitigation study my understanding is this only related to the soundproofing of the walls in the nightclub. I do not believe there has been any thought given to the impact of hundreds of people coming in and out of a nightclub and congregating after 2am. I fear we would be creating another Zelda’s that would be in the heart of downtown and bringing numerous issues to our neighborhood. While I will be speaking at tonight’s meeting, I do make myself available for further discussion on this matter. I can be reached at my mobile of 773-220-8738. Thank you for your time and attention, 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Matt Matt Shough​ General Manager Avalon Hotel and Bungalows 415 S Belardo Road ​Palm Springs, CA 92262 Ingleside Inn 200 W Ramon Road ​Palm Springs, CA 92264 Avalon Palm Springs | Ingleside Inn A Collective Hotel by Proper Hospitality 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A From:Cristina Van Dyck To:Tiffani Bailey Subject:Fuego Nightclub Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:43:52 PM NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Sent from my iPhone Tiffani, I have resided at 325 S. Cahuilla Road, Palm Springs since January of 2006. I love our special and unique community. While l enjoy the diversity and energy of the downtown district, l am opposed to allowing any more night clubs. Moxie and The Pub (and soon, Chill) has, unfortunately, brought the Zeldas crowd, and the problems we had with Zeldas (excessive noise, fights and shootings, to name a few), closer to our residential and inns/hotel area. Fuego Night Club will only intensify these issues. Also, Fuego would directly impact a residential building and a hotel. Residents and hotel guests expect and deserve a certain amount of peace and quiet. Please submit this to the committee. I will, unfortunately, not be available to speak tonight. Sincerely, Cristina Van Dyck 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Judy Deertrack 450 East Vista Chino, Unit 2011 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Thursday, April 21, 2022 To the City Council Palm Springs, California RE: ITEM 2A AN APPEAL BY LWSC LLC (BUILDING OWNER), c/o PSPC ENTERPRISES LLC, (dba FUEGO NIGHTCLUB) OF THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A NIGHTCLUB / COCKTAIL LOUNGE USE WITHIN AN EXISTING 9,504- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH ACCOMPANYING OFF-STREET PARKING, LOCATED AT 383 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE CBD, (CASE 5.1544 CUP) To the Honorable City Council: I concur with the staff recommendation that the proposed Fuego project be denied at its present location because of multiple environmental impacts (as detailed in the staff report) including noise, traffic, parking, significant change of land use, and incompatible land uses between commercial and residential, all occurring at a serious level. I commend staff for their recommendation of denial. I do not concur with the City’s conclusion that the Fuego project is exempt from CEQA, because the staff report does not set forth the required Findings of Fact under CEQA 15301 for the “Existing Facilities Exemption” which requires finding “negligible or no expansion of use.” Nor does the staff report set forth CEQA required Findings of Fact under “Exceptions to the Existing Facility Exemptions,” finding “unusual circumstances,” or “cumulative impacts” (CCR 15300.2) -- discussed later. It is unlikely a CEQA exemption can survive the proper application of the required Findings of Fact. There is a hazardous reliance upon the recommendation of denial without CEQA procedural compliance, and even the attached Conditions of Approval are absent critical mitigation measures that would result from using a CEQA Checklist. The City Council may choose to approve this project “as is,” and that is their option. But that decision should be informed by an analysis of the Initial Study in order to be adequate. Applicant / Developers have attached a Noise Impact Assessment with mitigation measures from Eilar Associates, but the significance of the study is that it is rendered deficient because it was not developed and submitted under the CEQA Checklist criteria for Noise that appears in the Initial Study. The very purpose of CEQA is to frame the mitigation response according to CEQA criteria, and under its format and direction. Eilar Associates has submitted a study outside the protections of CEQA and should not be used for that reason. Whatever the City Council decides, the record is deficient, and the decision is potentially subject to remand. If the City prepared an Initial Study, it would most likely conclude site conditions appear to support general plan inconsistency (Land Use and Planning), and serious residential impacts cannot be mitigated (Noise / Population and Housing / Transportation and Traffic). Even with parking, the ordinance allows 28 parking spaces for about 350 people, and although the 34 available spaces may comply with the ordinance -- this is an area stressed with chronic parking shortages, and this project presents an aggravation. The impact includes depriving residents of close parking access late at night in what may become an unsafe area. Developers can ask for a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) when impacts cannot be properly mitigated, but in such circumstances, the City also has safe legal grounds to deny the SOC request. 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 2 This matter has been set for public hearing without the preparation of an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the City has determined that an Exemption to CEQA exists for the Fuego Project under 14 CCR § 15301. Existing Facilities. The State of California at its Office of Historic Preservation describes the important public purpose of the Initial Study as follows: “The Initial Study is used to decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (Neg Dec). The lead agency can issue a Negative Declaration if it finds the proposed project will have no potential for significant impacts. If the Initial Study identified potentially significant effects resulting from the project, but the project is altered or the applicant agrees to conditions which will mitigate the identified significant impacts, then the lead agency may issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the Initial Study finds substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, then an EIR must be prepared. Intended to provide decision makers with the necessary information to make a well-informed decision, the EIR is a detailed report that identifies the potentially significant environmental effects the project is likely to have; identifies feasible alternatives to the proposed project; and indicates the ways in which significant effects on the environment can be mitigated or avoided.” . . . . “The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a number of functions; two major functions are described here. One is to provide decision makers with information about the environmental impacts of projects prior to granting approval. The second is to allow the public to comment on the impacts of projects in their community. Through the comment process, citizens can help projects avoid and minimize impacts by developing project alternatives and mitigation measures.” https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=23622 The Initial Study clearly assists decision makers (City Council) with information about environmental impacts of projects to grant approval, but it also uses the same information to deny approval, and to protect that denial from attack in a court of law. CEQA informs the decision makers and informs the public so that any public comments can access the invaluable information, reports, data, and studies required under California law to add clout and meaning to the public input. CEQA 15301 (Existing Facilities) The exemption claimed by the City of Palm Springs - “Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.” Where are the “Findings of Fact” to support the conclusion that the Fuego Project is exempt from CEQA and an Initial Study. This exemption would require a finding that this project is a minor alteration of a private structure, and there has been negligible or no expansion of former use. Can City Council make this finding? 14 CCR § 15300.2. (Exceptions) No Findings were made by the City - Exceptions to the Claimed Exemption “(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. (c)Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Can the City Council conclude the project is categorically exempt from CEQA (Existing Facility) and make “Findings” that 15300.2 Exceptions (b) and (c) do not apply? I believe not. The City of Palm Springs has openly discussed in the staff report that “Moxie” and “Village Pub” were at least two other projects in the area that presented significant cumulative noise, parking, and public disturbance issues. Yet, for purposes of the CEQA Findings for the Initial Study, the evidence was ignored. 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A 3 For purposes of CCR 15300.2 (c) Exception, the City also has failed to discuss the criteria to be applied to the assessment of “unusual circumstances” under Berkeley v. Logan, California Supreme Court, 2015 (no available page #): “On the other hand, evidence that the project will have a significant effect does tend to prove that some circumstance of the project is unusual. [emphasis added] An agency presented with such evidence must determine, based on the entire record before it — including contrary evidence regarding significant environmental effects — whether there is an unusual circumstance that justifies removing the project from the exempt class. This reading of the guideline is not inconsistent with the phrase ―reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c).) A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. Alternatively, under our reading of the guideline, a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes ―a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subd. (c).)” These legal requirements combine to require that the City Council, prior to acting on staff recommendations, direct staff to prepare adequate findings; to prepare an Initial Study; and to assess under the California Environmental Quality Act, whether this project is a (1) major, rather than minor alteration to an existing facility (CEQA 15301); or if exempted, (2) whether “unusual circumstances” are present to support an exception to the exemption -- using Berkeley (CCR 15300.2 (c)), or (3) whether “cumulative impacts” are present to support an exception to the exemption (CCR 15300.2 (b)), or (4) whether the Eilar study is deficient because not prepared subsequent to legally required CEQA analysis. Ultimately, the City Council can use CEQA to determine whether the project can adequately be mitigated, particularly on affordable housing impacts, and whether it is willing to issue a Statement of Overriding Consideration (and I hope it does not!). These are complicated legal issues, with layers of regulations under CEQA, including its exemptions and exceptions to exemptions, and the shifting standards of review (see Berkeley); and also sensitive because of the recommendation of denial and a potential for litigation. This is a project where the scrutiny of the City Attorney is going to be very important. Again, I support the ultimate recommendation of denial, and hope that the City buttresses its decision with proper environmental review. Thank you. With regard, Judy Deertrack Resident of Palm Springs 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A From:Judy Deertrack To:City Clerk; David Newell Subject:Comment Letter / City Council Public Hearing / Item 2A / Fuego Date:Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:01:38 PM Attachments:2022.04.21_PSCC_Fuego Project_Item 2A_Comment Letter.pdf NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To the City Clerk, In the face of these complex issues and the inexcusably twisted Supreme Courtreasoning on CEQA exemptions and exceptions, I compliment planning staff for their hard work and conscientious recommendations. Thank you! My apologies that such a detailed comment letter, with a full assessment of CEQA legal requirements, has come in at the last moment. I did not find out about thisproject until quite late in the game. My apologies to all. You may want to forward acopy of this to the City Attorney because of the legal issues, which I believe willprobably stand up. Thanks for all the hard work everyone puts out. Even theattorneys and judges have to really work at all of this, it puts quite a burden on staff. With regard, Judy Deertrack Resident760 325 4290 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com BRUCE T. BAUER, ESQ. Of Counsel ADMITTED IN CA REPLY TO: 1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 T (760) 322-2275 • F (760) 322-2107 bauer@sbemp.com April 21, 2022 VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL cityclerk@palmspringsca.gov Anthony J. Mejia, MMC City Clerk david.newell@palmspringsca.gov David A. Newell, AICP, MPA Assistant Director of Planning CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Nightclub / Appeal from Planning Commission Decision denying Cocktail Lounge Use at 383 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone CBD, (Case 5.1544 CUP) /City Council Hearing April 21, 2022 (Agenda Item No. 2A) Dear Messrs. Mejia and Newell: Please accept this letter on behalf of our clients concerning a project that is proposed to be built in the City of Palm Springs (the “City”), that is described as an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a nightclub and cocktail lounge in an existing 9,504-square foot building to be located at 383 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California (the “Nightclub.”) This Nightclub project was rightly and soundly defeated at the Planning Commission level based on a unanimous vote (7-0). The applicant for this project, LWSC LLC c/o PSPC Enterprises LLC, (Applicant) has filed an appeal (Appeal) from the Planning Commission’s denial of the Nightclub which is now on the City Council’s agenda for April 21, 2022 (item No. 2A). Our clients are owners of, or have an interest in, the following business establishments in the City, many of which are located near the proposed Nightclub, including as follows: Del Marco Hotel, La Serena Villas, The Three Fifty, Avalon Hotel, The Ingleside Inn, Melvyn’s Restaurant & Lounge, Chi Chi Restaurant and Estrella Spa. In addition, one of our clients is the owner of the 31-unit apartment building, the Orleans Building Apartment Homes. Collectively, our clients have invested millions of dollars in the City of Palm Springs. Our clients are strongly opposed to Applicant’s Appeal and strongly urge the City Council to deny that Appeal. Please circulate this letter to all of the City Councilmembers in advance of the hearing scheduled on April 21, 2022, regarding this matter. 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Anthony J. Mejia, MMC David A. Newell, AICP, MPA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 21, 2022 Page 2 As pointed out above and in the Staff Agenda, Applicant’s proposed Nightclub was denied on March 9, 2022. Applicant has submitted its Appeal in which it asserts that it has addressed the numerous and serious concerns that had been raised at the Planning Commission including concerns about noise emanating from their Nightclub since it is immediately adjacent to residential dwellings, parking problems, safety concerns, operating hours, etc. Applicant has not addressed these serious issues and the Appeal should be denied. 1. SUMMARY OF NIGHTCLUB PROJECT Applicant proposes a large Nightclub be granted a C.U.P. by the City. This Nightclub would be permitted to have up to 327 people located therein although the existing parking lot, located directly adjacent to a 31-unit apartment building, yet it only has 34 parking spaces. The Applicant for this proposed Nightclub could hardly have picked a worse location in the City to operate such a full throttled nightclub. There are already challenging operations to existing businesses in that location resulting from the operations of The Village Pub and Moxie. Those establishments have parking and noise problems. Their patrons spill out of those establishments after hours causing noise, parking and crime problems. There are also existing problems with homeless and drug dealing across the street at BevMo! and Rite Aid. 2. LOCATION OF NIGHTCLUB ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. One of the most disturbing aspects of the proposed location is that it directly abuts a 31-unit apartment complex, the Orleans Building Apartment Homes (the “Orleans”). The Orleans is not a commercial enterprise. It is instead a complex of 31 apartments with residents who will be living and sleeping adjacent to an extraordinarily busy nightclub with its customer exiting the club at all hours up until closing time at 2:00 a.m. All of the parking for this proposed Nightclub abuts the Orleans. It does not take much imagination to consider the problems and noise attendant with drunken patrons of the Nightclub interacting with one in that parking lot after hours. Those problems will make quiet enjoyment in the Orleans nearly impossible. Many of the Orleans’ tenants are elderly and have medical conditions and are not capable of speaking up on these issues. However, their quality of life will be forever compromised should the Nightclub be approved. We urge the Planning Commission to give voice to those residents and reject the request of Applicant and deny its Appeal. There are additional issues with respect to the Nightclub including the fact that it should be subjected to more exacting environmental review. 3. CEQA REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to “look before they leap” and consider the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions. CEQA is 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Anthony J. Mejia, MMC David A. Newell, AICP, MPA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 21, 2022 Page 3 intended to inform government decisionmakers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage. In the City’s Staff Report the City has concluded that the Nightclub is categorically exempt from CEQA review, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines (Existing Facilities), and that no environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed use of the Nightclub. This conclusion is in error. The § 15301 Exemption for Existing Facilities is inappropriate for the Nightclub because it proposes a use that is fundamentally different from the prior use of the existing facility. See, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15302. As the Staff Report indicates, the site for the Nightclub was a commercial bank. A commercial bank has a fundamentally different purpose and capacity than the activities anticipated with the Nightclub. That much should be obvious. A commercial bank has a limited number of patrons and employees at any given time. Parking for such an establishment then is far less than that required of a nightclub. A bank has customers who patronize it sporadically during its operations. However, a nightclub, on the other hand, may meet its capacity of patrons at a given time (327-person occupancy.) The density of use of a bank and nightclub, and attendant parking requirements, are not comparable then. Moreover, if there were a line out of the nightclub for patrons wishing to enter such a nightclub those patrons would also need to park nearby. Therefore, the Nightclub does not qualify for the Existing Facilities Exemption because it will be a totally different use from the previously existing commercial bank. “The relevant issue in determining whether the existing facilities exemption applies is whether the project involves ‘expansion of use beyond that existing or former use.’ (§ 15301, italics added.) San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 349, 370, 371. Here the Nightclub proposes significant changes to use that existed previously for the building. Applicants now argue that the property was previously used as an “event space” as though it was used in the same manner that they are proposing. Of course, the property was never not utilized in that manner that Applicant proposes. While the property may have been used an event center, it was done so sparingly. Moreover, and more importantly, even it was open as such, it was with small crowds, and closed early. The property was NEVER a nightclub, which is a horse of a different color entirely. Since the Existing Facilities exemption does not apply here the Applicant would be required to undertake a full blown CEQA analysis before the Nightclub project could even proceed. 4. NOISE AND PARKING ISSUES The importance of CEQA review if evident in reviewing the consideration of noise and parking issues that will arise as a result of the proposed Nightclub. 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Anthony J. Mejia, MMC David A. Newell, AICP, MPA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 21, 2022 Page 4 Despite the fact that this proposed Nightclub proposes to operate from 4:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m., no consideration has been given to the noise that is naturally attendant to patrons leaving a large club in the parking lot that adjoins the above apartment building. Applicant now proposes to shorten the hours of operation from 2:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Cutting the hours of operation by one hour hardly matters and would make no significant difference to the apartment dwellers at the Orleans. As pointed out above, there are going to be noise problems emanating from the large number of patrons who will be exiting the Nightclub at all hours. Even when a club closes, there is often a lengthy delay when patrons exit the club, mingle and then exit the parking lot. Those interactions – often loud, boisterous and sometimes violent – can last well past the time the club has closed. While Applicant studied noise emanating from the proposed Nightclub itself, it has presented NO study or consideration of the noise that will naturally follow from its patrons on the outside of the club. Likewise, the issue of parking and traffic have not been carefully considered in connection with the proposed Nightclub. The site of the proposed Nightclub has an existing 34-space parking lot located underneath and around the building. However, the project contemplates the maximum number of guests is to be 327. On the face of it, the 34-spaces at the project site will not come close to satisfying the parking requirements of 327 people. The area in question is already suffers from a deficit of available parking. Our clients are acutely aware of these problems. The parking issues have already been very challenging for our clients’ apartment tenants, hotel guests, and employees due to the lack of parking in this location. Our clients’ assigned parking spaces are often occupied by others looking parking in this area. These parking issues are especially challenging during the busy weekend period from Thursday through Sunday and at nighttime. This timeframe is also the timeframe that the Nightclub proposes to operate. With 327 people looking for parking outside of the available 34 parking spaces, patrons will be driving around the block interacting with other motor vehicle traffic. The congested area will only become far more congested. Parking problems that already exist will become nightmarish. Applicant now proposes to park customers differently to ally the concerns of opponents of the Nightclub. These proposed changes do not add anything meaningfully to the issues at hand. Applicant still proposes to have customers (“VIP” customers) park in their parking lot. It is not difficult to imagine the impossibility of policing such a policy. How is a club supposed to monitor all of work and safety concerns of the operations of a busy nightclub, while simultaneously policing all corners of the large complex, AND enforce parking restrictions. In any event, the Applicant still proposes having a fully parking lot. It is impossible to prohibit late night noise emanating from employees and VIP customers coming and going through a narrow parking lot at late hours. There is nothing that Applicant can do to ameliorate the noise that is attendant to ANY parking lot let alone a parking lot with patrons from a nightclub. There will be unacceptable noise levels to anyone who is sleeping nearby in the Orleans project. 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A Anthony J. Mejia, MMC David A. Newell, AICP, MPA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS April 21, 2022 Page 5 CONCLUSION. For all of the above reasons, we oppose the proposed Nightclub since it will exasperate the already difficult conditions that exist in that area and will make life for the residents located adjacent to that proposed Nightclub unbearable. Therefore, the City Council is urged to deny the Appeal. Sincerely, SBEMP LLP Bruce T. Bauer, Esq. cc: clients 4/21/2022 Public Comment Item 2A