The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutITEM 3B - ARC APPEAL 10-21-24 APPL-2024-0001 w exhibits ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2024 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY JOSEPH PRANEVICIUS AND THE CARNELIAN RED TRUST DTD 6/6/2018, OWNERS / APPELLANTS, OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVING CASE AR-2024-0046, A MINOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION PROPOSING A ROUGHLY 715- SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SHADE CANOPY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1100 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, (APN 508-292-001), ZONE C-1, GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, TOURIST RESORT COMMERCIAL (“TRC”) CASE APPL-2024-0001 of CASE 2024-0046. (KL) FROM: Department of Planning Services PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant has filed an appeal pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.04.00 (D,2,c ) (Appeal of a decision of the Planning Director). The appeal seeks to remove or amend most of the conditions of approval associated with the Director’s approval dated July 30, 2024 of a Minor Architectural application (“MAA”), Case AR-2024-0046. An appeal of a decision of the Planning Director is heard by the City’s Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”). The decision of the ARC shall be final unless further appeal is made to the City Council pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05 (“Appeal to the City Council”). RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Director. BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE: The property is co-owned by Mr. Pranevicius and the Carnelian Red Trust DTD 6-6-2018. A public integrity disclosure form for the Trust is attached. . Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 2 of 16 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Related Relevant City Actions 7-22-15 Vacant Building registration (expired) 5-14-19 HSPB approved demolition of all three buildings on the site. 10-28-20 Planning approval of Case MAA 3.2161 to repaint / repair fire damaged former automobile service station building and adjacent dwelling (Related Bldg. Permit #2020-2066-95794.) 2020 Several expired residential building permits related to the dwelling on the parcel (addressed as 111 E Palo Verde Av) for a reroof, plumbing, mechanical and electrical. 8-1-22 Planning approval of Case MAA 3.2161 to modify the existing shade canopy to enclose most of the area beneath it for “Merchandise Display use”, based on drawings dated 4-2022. Later rescinded due to encroachment issues (requiring an encroachment permit for the canopy). 4-24-24 Planning reviewed building permit application #BLDC-2024-0728 to modify the existing shade canopy to enclose most of the area beneath it (based on drawings dated 3-29-24 & 4-1-24) and rejected the application, noting encroachment issues and requirement for MAA approval prior to Bldg. Permit. 5-29-24 The appellant submitted a revised Minor Architectural Application (Case AR-2024-0046) to modify the existing shade canopy structure to enclose most of the area beneath it. 6-14-24 Engineering reviewed building permit #BLDC-2024-0728 and placed a hold on the permit pending incorporation of Engineering Conditions of Approval. 7-30-24 Planning approval of Case AR-2024-0046 with conditions (based on drawings dated 3-29-24 & 4-1-24 to modify the existing shade canopy structure to enclose most of the area beneath it for a storage building). 8-13-24 Appeal request on the Planning Director’s of Case AR-2024-0046 approval dated 7-30-24. The project site is 0.24 acres in size, located at the southeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Palo Verde Avenue. There are three existing structures on the site that have been vacant for many years: a single-family residence, a commercial building built as an automobile service station, and a steel shade canopy structure located where the gasoline fueling pumps were located (pumps were removed many years ago). From research conducted in 2018, the current commercial building (a former gas station) was built around 1959 for a Mr. Floyd Bigley who purchased the property around 1946. The Bigley family lived in the single-family dwelling on the eastern half of the site. Photos of the site from the Palm Springs Historical Society taken around 1942 show a smaller gas station building previously existed on the site and the single-family dwelling east of Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 3 of 16 the gas station was extant at that time. The buildings have been vacant since at least the early 2000’s according to code enforcement records and the code-required vacant building registration appears to have expired. The steel shade canopy structure encroaches into the existing ROW of South Palm Canyon Drive approximately 3 to 4 feet. There is no encroachment permit on file for this structure. As noted above on August 1, 2022, the appellant submitted a Minor Architectural Application (“MAA”) (Case MAA 3.2161) to enclose most of the area beneath the shade canopy for commercial uses (“Merchandise Display”). The proposed building was designed with large display windows on three sides. The application was approved “over the counter”, by the Planning Department, however rescinded shortly thereafter due to information provided by the Engineering Department that the shade canopy structure currently encroaches into the Palm Canyon Drive right-of-way. On April 14,2024 the appellant submitted a building permit application (BLDC-2024-0728) to enclose most of the area beneath the shade canopy structure and during the plan check process the permit was stopped by the Engineering Department (placed on hold) due to unresolved ROW encroachment issues and lack of valid architectural approval from the Planning Department. The proposed building was again designed with large display windows on three sides, but this time the applicant’s project justification letter asserted the building was for “private personal storage”. On May 29, 2024 the appellant submitted a revised Minor Architectural application (Case AR-2024-0046) to enclose most of the area beneath the shade canopy structure which was approved on July 20, 2024 with conditions. Most of the conditions associated with this approval are the subject of the appeal. The materials that comprise the basis of the appeal are as follows (and attached to this staff report): • Appeal Letter from Eve Brackmann of Munck, Wilson, Mandala, LLP to Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services dated August 13, 2024 along with the following exhibits: • Exhibit “A” – Project Documents 2024-08-13-v1.pdf • Exhibit “B” – 2024-07-30 Approval w Conditions AR-2024-0046 1100 S Palm Canyon-2024-08-13_v1.pdf • Exhibit “C” – 1100 S Palm Canyon Dr Before and After Photos-2024-08013_v1.pdf • Exhibit "D” – 1100 S Palm Canyon – Parking Plan-2024-08013_v1.pdf • Exhibit "E” – Overhead Image of 1100 S Palm Canyon Dr-2024-08-13_v1.pdf • Exhibit "F” – Detail #5 with Architect’s Notes.pdf • Exhibit "G” – Updated Plan re (1) Parking, (2) Building C (no Connection to existing overhang), (3) Foundation and Framing Details • Exhibit “I”- Letter re Conditions workout Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 4 of 16 BASIS OF THE APPEAL & STAFF ANALYSIS: Section III “Appealed Conditions of Approval”, of the appeal letter dated August 13, 2024, which begins on page 4, identifies the specific conditions being appealed and the remedy sought which are outlined below with staff’s response to each. The conditions of approval referenced here can be found in the July 30, 2024 approval letter (Exhibit “B” attached) Condition of Approval PLN 1: Off-street Parking. Required pursuant PSZC 93.06.00. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plan showing the location of off-street parking compliant with PSZC 93.06.00 shall be submitted for approval. Appeal demand of PLN 1. The off-street parking requirements are not specified in Ex. B. A parking plan is included as Exhibit D to the Compendium. Response to Appeal demand and parking plan submitted in Exhibit D: PLN 1 does specify the parking requirements noting that “…off-street parking is required pursuant to PSZC 93.06.00.” and it states that “…a plan showing the location of off -street parking compliant with PSZC 93.06.00 is required.” The sketch in Exhibit D does not p rovide adequate information and much of what is provided appears is not compliant. The following are examples of information that is missing or in error: certain dimensions (example, end spaces not correct, distance from front of spaces to buildings, width of spaces not correct, required curbs and minimum turning radii of curbs at corners are not shown, delineation of new and existing curb and gutter not shown, the specifications for the decorative paving in the proposed bay parking, landscape peninsulas and parking lot screening, shade trees, dimensions from parking spaces to adjacent buildings, sidewalks between buildings and parking spaces, location and dimensions of perimeter sidewalks along the public streets, ADA path of travel and separation of pedestrian and vehicular movement, absence of a drive aisle and screening along Palm Canyon to prevent vehicles backing out into the ROW, a corrected table showing evidence that parking is provided for all proposed uses on the site, evidence that grades are adequate to convey drainage accordance with current stormwater regulations, parking lot lighting in accordance with PSZC 93.21.00. Wheel stops are shown which are prohibited. The condition is required to ensure the applicant provides drawings showing the off-street parking conforms to the zoning code. This condition has not been met and must remain. In her most recent letter, the appellant’s attorney appears to take the position that the applicant is not changing any of the “six existing parking spaces that are already on the site”, however other than one ADA-designated parking space, there are no other parking spaces demarcated on the paved areas of the site. From that, the letter suggests that the project can meet Code by merely maintaining what exists. However, this ignores two Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 5 of 16 key facts. First, the Code requires evidence that parking is provided for all proposed uses on the site, not just the new building. There currently exist on the site an office building and a single-family residence that do not have adequate parking under the Code and are currently legal non-conforming. Now that the site is being substantially improved, parking must be brought up to current Code for all proposed uses on the parcel. More importantly, the applicant proposes altering the existing shade canopy structure in the parking lot by enclosing most of the space beneath for a new building. The proposed enclosure of the space beneath the canopy structure interferes with on-site vehicular circulation including proper access to parking spaces proposed. Staff disagrees with any suggestion that this project does not now trigger compliance with parking requirements. Condition of Approval PLN 2: Trash enclosure. Required pursuant PSZC 93.07.02. A trash enclosure is required for all uses in all zones except single family zones. A trash enclosure conforming to zoning code standards must be shown on the site plan. Appeal demand of PLN 2. The trash enclosure requirement is unclear. Mr. Praner seeks clarification that the trash-enclosure requirement is met by placing all trash in the enclosed yard, as seen in the aerial view attached to the Compendium as Exhibit E.” Response to Appeal demand regarding PLN 2. This condition clearly states a trash enclosure is required pursuant to PSZC 93.07.02 for this commercial site. That section of the zoning code provides the requirements for the trash enclosure. There is no indication of a trash enclosure on the aerial photo in Exhibit E. The holding of trash in an enclosed back yard until pick-up by Palm Springs Disposal Service as proposed in the Appellant’s letter does not constitute a code-compliant trash enclosure. The City notes that Exhibit G, received October 15, 2024, has a trash enclosure sketched in on sheet 1 at the southeast corner of Building “A” and a plan view sketch on sheet 3 of a trash enclosure comprised of chain link fence with some type of “slats”. This enclosure does not conform to the requirements of PSZC 93.07.02 because the code states the enclosure shall be of masonry block or decorative block or other durable material w ith texture and color that blends with the architecture of the building. Ch ain link fence with slats of unknown material (wood? plastic?) is not durable. Texture and color , which are to blend with the architecture; are not noted. Generally, chain link fence also does not blend with the architecture of the building. There is no clear paved path denoted for waste disposal service to retrieve or return the dumpsters to the enclosure from the street to the far corner of the back yard. There is no apparent provision for organic waste, as well as recyclable material and trash as only two squares presumed to be dumpsters are shown within the trash enclosure sketch. The condition must remain to ensure an adequate trash enclosure is provided as required by the zoning code. Condition of Approval ENG 1: The Engineering Services Department recommends deferral of off-site improvement items (identified as “Deferred”) at this time due to Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 6 of 16 lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The owner shall execute a street improvement covenant agreeing to construct all required street improvements upon the request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner(s) prior to approval of the Grading Plan or issuance of grading or building permits. A current title report; or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property ownership. A covenant preparation fee in effect at the time that the covenant is submitted shall be paid by the applican t. Appeal demand of ENG 1. Mr. Praner should not be required to construct any off-site street improvements as a result of the subject project. Further, Mr. Praner has not received a copy of the “Covenant” stated in this condition. Response to Appeal demand to remove condition ENG 1: This condition simply outlines that some conditions are denoted as “deferred” and that a covenant for those that are deferred will be required at the present time. This is a standard condition that applies to all projects for which conditions are imposed now but deferred for implementation later. This condition is required any time a condition is “deferred”, and unless the applicant wishes to implement all the conditions at this time, this condition must remain . Condition of Approval ENG 2: Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. All improvements are subject to inspection and a 48-hour inspection notification is required. Appeal demand of ENG 2. As discussed above, there is no encroachment into the public right-of-way and thus no Encroachment Permit should be required. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 2: Again, this is a standard condition. In the event there is damage caused to existing improvements in the ROW as a result of construction of the project, the repair of such requires an encroachment permit. Also, as noted above, the relocation of vehicular access onto the site and provision of code- required parking spaces will require improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk and asphalt repair in the ROW. This standard condition must remain. Encroachment permits are for any new work or modification to existing street improvements (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, ramps, etc.). An encroachment permit has nothing to do with the canopy unless being modified. It indemnifies the City for work occurring in the public right of way. The following COA’s specifically relate to impacts of the project to Palm Canyon Drive. Condition of Approval ENG 3: Dedicate an additional 10 feet to provide the ultimate half street right-of-way width of 50 feet along the entire frontage, together with a property line - corner cut-back at the southeast corner of the intersection of Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 7 of 16 South Palm Canyon Drive and Palo Verde Avenue, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105. A current title report; or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property ownership. A right-of-way plan check fee shall be paid by the applicant in effect at the time that the dedication is submitted. Appeal demand of ENG 3. This “dedication” for the ROW appears to be an easement requirement which (as discussed above) the City lacks sufficient nexus to require. Response to Appeal demand to remove Condition ENG 3 requires that the applicant provide a 10-foot right of way dedication / easement along South Palm Canyon Drive for street widening purposes. That condition requires the dedication at the present time but implementation of that easement would not occur until the City widened the street. As part of efforts to resolve this matter prior to an appeal hearing, the City proposed to defer the 10’ right of way dedication/easement requirement until such time as a change in use for the proposed storage building occurs that causes increased traffic impact to the site (such as changing the existing storage building to a retail or other general commercial use). The proposal would have provided that upon a future change of use, the app ellant would have to apply for another minor architectural review ap plication, at which time the dedication could be secured to offset traffic impacts due to the change of use. However Staff and the appellant were unable to agree on a resolution prior to this hearing. That said, Staff maintains the City has the legal right (the “nexus”) to secure the 10 -foot right-of-way dedication at the present time, with implementation deferred until future street widening occurs. (NOTE: This analysis applies to several other conditions listed below.) Condition of approval ENG 4: The owner shall apply for an Encroachment Agreement from the Engineering Services Department and a Land Use Permit (From Planning Department) to allow the existing canopy and corner marquis sign along the frontage of the subject property to be maintained within that portion of the property to be dedicated as required for additional right-of-way. The agreement shall be executed by the owner prior to issuance of a grading , encroachment, or building permit. A current title report or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property ownership. A preparation fee in effect at the time that the application is submitted shall be paid by the applicant. Appeal demand of ENG 4. As discussed above, the existing canopy is not being modified, and thus it maintains its legal non-conforming status (i.e. it is “grandfathered”). Thus, there is no trigger for requiring an encroachment agreement nor a land use permit. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 4: The existing condition of encroachment of the canopy into the ROW represents a hazard to public safety and welfare. The liability Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 8 of 16 of privately-owned structures encroaching into a public ROW requires an encroachment agreement. This condition cannot be waived or deferred. The monument (“Marquis”) sign is abandoned and is required to be removed pursuant to the City’s sign ordinance (PSZC 93.20.10 (A,6,b). This condition must remain. And, as noted above with Condition PLN 2, Staff disagrees with the appellant’s assertions that the canopy will not be modified and will remain a legal non -conforming structure that is not required to secure an encroachment permit. The appellant contends that the steel shade canopy structure has existed on the site for many years and enjoys legal non - conforming structure rights. He further contends that because he is not “altering”, “adding to” or “enlarging” the canopy structure, an encroachment permit is not required to maintain this existing structure where it is. However, the Code provides that for a legal non- conforming structure, “any addition, alteration or enlargement thereto shall comply with all provisions of the zone.” (PSZC 94.05.03(A)). From all available plans submitted by the applicant, the proposed new storage building will surround/enclose the two columns of the canopy. The applicant has also admitted that existing electrical service to the canopy will be modified to provide electricity to the proposed addition beneath. The addition to the canopy is proposed within the footprint of the canopy structure. The canopy structure is being altered from an open parking shade structure to an enclosed building – regardless of the clever attempts to detail the building around the columns claiming to “not touch” the existing canopy columns or the underside of the canopy itself. The intent of the project is to alter the canopy structure and its use, from being an open parking lot shade structure to a storage or merchandise display building. The proposed project is an alteration and addition to the existing shade canopy structure that has the effect of terminating the structure’s “grandfathered’ status. As such, the entire structure (canopy and new storage building) must secure an encroachment permit to legalize the altered structure which extends into the existing public right of way. Condition of Approval ENG 5: Remove the existing curb & gutter and construct an 8 inch curb and gutter, 38 feet east of centerline along the entire frontage, with a 35 feet radius curb return and spandrel at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Palm Canyon Drive and Palo Verde Avenue in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200, 206, and 340. Deferred. Appeal demand of ENG 5. The project has no impact on ingress or egress, and creates no basis to require modification of the existing driveway. Response to appeal demand to remove: ENG 5 is related to the dedication of easement for future street widening noted in ENG 3. It is not related to ingress or egress of the existing driveway. It is deferred because it is related to in ENG 3. It should be noted that the project does have impact on ingress and egress because the Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 9 of 16 amount and location of off-street parking is being modified by the proposed addition. Bay parking is proposed along Palo Verde Avenue which significantly impacts vehicular access and requires curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. T he proposed addition interferes with on-site vehicular circulation leaving insufficient space for a drive aisle and landscape screening for vehicles parking in the spaces that take access from Palm Canyon Drive to turn around on site and head forward into the public street as required by Code. The added building square footage increases the amount of off-street required on the site. The sketches recently provided do not show a code-compliant on-site parking lot design. This condition must remain. As such, the driveway approach and vehicular turnaround requirements of this condition are vital to ensure proper access. Further, Staff disagrees with the appellant’s attempt to minimize the site improvements. The project involves the construction of a new building and Code will require more than six spaces on the site given all of the uses thereon. The improvements to this site are significant and fully justify the parking/circulation improvements required. Condition of Approval ENG 6: Remove the existing cross gutter & spandrel and construct the south half of an 8 feet wide cross gutter and spandrel at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Palm Canyon Drive and Palo Verde Avenue with a flow line parallel with and located 38 feet east of the centerline of South Palm Canyon Drive in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. Deferred. Condition of Approval ENG 7: Construct a driveway approach that is at least 14 feet wide in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 or 201A. An on-site vehicular turnaround area (hammerhead or similar configuration) shall be constructed and/or provided, in accordance with Zoning Code 93.06.00 C (8). Deferred. Appeal demand of ENG 6. Through 11: Likewise, although “Deferred” none of these requirements can be imposed by the City given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. The City lacks sufficient nexus to required these improvements, all or most of which appear to be off-site improvements that the City improperly seeks to impose upon a private property owner, Mr. Praner, in exchange for approval of a 715 sq. ft. storage structure that falls entirely on his own property and ius not in any way open to the public. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 6, 7, & 9; See response to Appeal demand of ENG 3. Condition of Approval ENG 8 Remove the existing sidewalk and construct a 8 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. Deferred. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 8: The Code requires sidewalks in Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 10 of 16 commercial zones to be a minimum of eight feet in width. The existing sidewalk does not meet this minimum standard. This condition is not required to be implemented until such time that the roadway widening outlined in ENG 3 is undertaken . For this reason, this too is proposed to be deferred as part of the scope of ENG 3. The proposed parking shown to take access from Palm Canyon Drive may require this condition to be implemented without deferral. The proposed building interferes with vehicular circulation and parking on the site. Providing on-site turn-around for the parking spaces that are proposed to take access from Palm Canyon Drive is a code requirement. This condition can only be deferred if the applicant can demonstrate provision of adequate parking elsewhere on the site such that the three spaces shown to take access from Palm Canyon Drive are not required at this time. The applicant must also demonstrate the project can provide adequate code-compliant off-street parking for all proposed uses on the site. According to the plans submitted, no such alternative parking is provided and the three spaces are presumed to be required along Palm Canyon Drive to support all uses on the site. Alterations to existing street improvement to ensure safe and code- compliant vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to off-street parking from Palm Canyon Drive are required. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 9: See response to Appeal demand of Condition ENG 3. Condition of Approval ENG 10: Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 5 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 340. (Additional pavement removal and replacement may be required upon review of existing pavement cross-sections, and to ensure grade breaks of the pavement cross-section do not occur within a travel lane.) If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Deferred. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 10: See response to Appeal demand of Condition ENG 3 Again, this relates to the required specification for roadway asphalt when / if the City requires widening of the roadway some time in the future. Condition of Approval ENG 11: Remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement where required, in accordance with applicable City standards. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 11: Off-site street improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt as noted above. Cutting of the existing asphalt in the roadway to install the new curb, gutter and sidewalk necessitated by the change in access to the off-street parking must be replaced according to City standards as outlined in this Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 11 of 16 condition. This condition must remain. See also response to Appeal demand of ENG 3. ENG 12. Through 17. Like the conditions in ENG 6-11, the City lacks a basis to require these, given the size, nature and scope of the Project. These Conditions, however are not “deferred and are being immediately required. The City lacks sufficient nexus between these improvements and the Project to require these conditions of approval. Staff disagrees with the appellant’s attempt to minimize the site improvements to indicate insufficient “nexus” to require that these conditions be fulfilled. The project involves altering the existing open shade canopy structure to create an enclosed building. It causes interruptions in the on-site vehicular circulation and parking, requiring new parking to be created elsewhere on the site and replacing rolled curb with standard 8-inch curb to prevent vehicles from driving onto the site and potentially hitting the proposed building . It requires the addition of off-street parking spaces to meet the parking requirements of all uses on the site including the uses in the new enclosed building beneath the canopy. The relocated and new parking spaces which include new bay parking spaces along Palo Verde require modification of curb, gutter, sidewalk, replacement / patching of asphalt in the roadway ROW abutting the new bay parking and replacement of very deteriorated asphalt on site. It also requires modification to curbs, sidewalks, and driveways on Palm Canyon Drive to provide proper vehicular access onto the site and prevent users of the proposed parking spaces there from backing out onto Palm Canyon Drive. There is clear nexus for the conditions imposed on this project. Condition of Approval ENG 12: All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced. Response to Appeal demand of ENG 12: The asphalt concrete on the site is very old and poorly maintained. Where it is severely deteriorated it must be replaced for the safe use of the lot by the public. This condition simply requires the applicant to remove and replace the damaged / deteriorated asphalt and existing damage to street improvements. Maintenance of typical street improvements is the responsibility of the owner of the property in front of which the improvements exist. This condition must remain. Conditions 13 to 16 relate specifically to project impacts along PALO VERDE AVENUE Condition of Approval ENG 13: Remove the existing curb cuts and construct a driveway approach with a minimum width of 14 feet in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 or 201A. Response to Appeal demand of ENG 13: The proposed building addition interferes with vehicular circulation and parking on the site. The current rolled curb along the Palo Verde frontage of the lot would does not conform in that it allows vehicular access to the site closer to the intersection of Palm Canyon and Palo Verde that code allows. Furthermore, allowing the rolled curb to remain while allowing the vehicular circulation space beneath the canopy to be eliminated and replaced with the proposed building creates a dangerous Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 12 of 16 condition that allows vehicles to enter the site without adequate space on the site to turn around or maneuver or even potentially hit the proposed building. The condition is required to protect public safety and create safe, code-compliant vehicular access to the site. (Note: the proposed addition of bay parking along Palo Verde in Exhibit D, will require this condition to be modified to a driveway approach wide enough to provide access to the parking spaces there.) Condition of Approval ENG 14: Construct an 8 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 14: With the establishment of bay parking along Palo Verde Avenue, an accessibility-compliant public sidewalk along the entire frontage is required to be installed. Condition of Approval ENG 15: Remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement where required, in accordance with applicable City standards. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 15: The existing pavement on the site is very deteriorated and poses a potential public hazard to those accessing the site. Furthermore, the proposed creation of bay parking along Palo Verde Avenue to replace the parking and circulation eliminated by the proposed alteration enclosing the shade canopy will require removal of existing asphalt pavement and replacement with decorative pavement. This condition is required. Condition of Approval ENG 16: All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced. Condition of approval ENG 17: All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 16 and ENG 17: Like ENG 11 the relocation and reconfiguration of off-street parking will require pavement in the ROW to be removed, curb and gutter around parking areas to be installed, which in turn means the existing deteriorated asphalt and existing broken street improvements will need to be repaired or replaced. This condition must remain. SANITARY SEWER Condition of Approval ENG 18: All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. The existing sewer service to the property shall be used for new sanitary facilities. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 18: Staff again disagrees with the appellant’s attempt to minimize the site improvements to: Although there are no sanitary facilities shown in the proposed new building, if they were to be added, they would need Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 13 of 16 to be connected to the public sewer system in the manner outlined in this condition. This condition would be in effect now, but for practical purposes, would not be implemented until a change of use results in sanitary facilities being installed in the building. Appeal demand to remove ENG 22 through 25 These conditions highlight the lack of understanding on the part of the City with regard to the nature and scope of the Project. There is no grading involved, whatsoever, nor (as a result) any issue with the changing runoff, with the project a nd thus these conditions should be removed. Condition ENG 22: In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.022 (h), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of eight hundred dollars ($800) (if there is disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more) at the time of issuance of grading permit for mitigation measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development. Condition 23: In cooperation with the California Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved “Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties” (Revised - RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 6819 East Gage Avenue, Commerce, Ca 90040 (Phone (760)782- 3271, (562)505-6415), Sonia.Oran@cdfa.ca.gov. DRAINAGE Condition 24: All stormwater runoff across the property shall be accepted and conveyed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer and released to an approved drainage system. Stormwater runoff may not be released directly to the adjacent streets without first intercepting and treating with approved Best Management Practices (BMPs). Condition 25: The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property and conduct the runoff to an approved drainage structure. On -site retention may be allowed on that portion of the property where historically, stormwater runoff is conveyed. All on-site grade slopes shall not be less than 0.5%. If onsite retention is utilized, retention basin calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer. This information required prior to site plan approval. Response to Appeal demand to remove conditions ENG 22 through 25. Staff again disagrees with the appellant’s attempt to minimize the site improvements to indicate Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 14 of 16 insufficient “nexus” to require that these conditions be fulfilled. The project involves altering an existing open shade canopy structure creating an enclosed building. The creation of the enclosed building will require more parking to be added to the site. The proposed building interferes with the existing parking and vehicular circulation on the site. The improvements to this site are significant and fully justify the required improvements set forth below. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 22. This is a standard condition on any project where there are existing paved areas removed, where new off -street parking is proposed and where new structures require trenching and excavation for footings. This condition will only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of soil is disturbed by the project. At the present time, it is unclear how much of the site would be disturbed. As noted above, this project will involve more ground-disturbing activity than just erecting a 715-square foot building. The project will require additional parking and fundamentally alter the vehicle circulation patterns on the site. There will also need to be substantial improvements to the lot’s deteriorated pavement. This condition must remain in order to address what could be substantial grading and ground-disturbing activity at the site. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 23. This is enforcement of regional and state regulations. The condition must remain. Again, we note that this condition will only apply if there is export of soil from the site. From communications with the applicant’s attorney, that is not anticipated. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 24. The existing asphalt which was most likely installed in the 40’s when the gas station was constructed may not meet current stormwater drainage requirements. The on-site improvements require that storm water be properly accepted and conveyed to meet current environmental codes and regulations. This condition must remain. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 25. If grading and grade elevations of the surrounding paved area is altered to construct the proposed new building, proper handling and conveyance of stormwater is required. This condition must remain. Appeal demand to remove ENG 26 through ENG 29. Likewise these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well. Condition ENG 26: Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Condition ENG 27: All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. Condition ENG 28: Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any intersection or driveway which does or will exceed the height required Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 15 of 16 to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. Condition ENG 29: All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 26: This is a standard condition for all projects. Staff understands from the applicant’s attorney that there is an existing underground power line to the canopy structure that would be utilized by the new building. Therefore, trenching and backfilling may not be required for this project, at which point this condition will have no practical effect. However, in the event that t here will be trenching to either connect the proposed new building to the existing electrical system or to improve or enlarge the existing underground line, it is appropriate to require that trenching and backfilling be done properly to City standards to avoid future differential settling of parking areas or sidewalks. This condition is valid and must remain. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 27: Undergrounding utilities is a requirement of the City’s Municipal Code for any new construction of this nature. Based upon representation of the applicant’s attorney, the proposed utilities to the new building are already underground so this condition would have no practical impact on the immediate project. However, should additional utilities be installed, they mu st be undergrounded and this condition must remain. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 28: The limitations of structures or landscape in the corner cut-off area at an intersection are standard throughout the City pursuant Zoning Code Section 93.02.00 (D). When a project of this nature is implemented on a parcel, these are standard conditions to which a developer must follow. Included in this condition is removal of the existing abandoned monument sign which is in the corner visibility cut-back area pursuant Zoning Code Section 93.20.10 (A,6,b) Freestanding sign structures shall be allowed to remain unused for a period not to exceed one year, after which such sign structure shall be removed. Response to Appeal demand of ENG 29: This is again, standard any time new landscaping is proposed in or around a public ROW. This condition must remain. Appeal Demand to remove ENG 30 and ENG 31. Likewise these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the project. They should be removed, as well. Condition ENG 30: A minimum of 48 inches of clearance for accessibility shall be provided on public sidewalks. Minimum clearance on public sidewalks shall be provided by either an additional dedication of a sidewalk easement if necessary and widening of the sidewalk, or by the relocation of any obstructions within the public sidewalk along the frontage of the subject property. Architectural Review Committee Memo Case #APPL-2024-0001: Appeal of Director’s decision – Addition at 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive October 21, 2024 – Page 16 of 16 Condition ENG 31: All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends, traffic control devices, signing, striping, and street lights, associated with the proposed development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 30; Sidewalks must conform to the ADA in terms of width, slope and cross slope as well as proper details where sidewalks meet a street corner. If the project proceeds, these existing non -conforming conditions must be brought into compliance; this is standard for all projects of this scale and larger anywhere in the City. This condition must remain, and as noted above, this project involves substantial alterations to the site and justifies these conditions. Response to Appeal demand to remove ENG 31 This is a standard condition. If existing off-site improvements in the ROW are damaged as a result of the construction of the proposed building and relocation / reconfiguration of parking, the applicant must be responsible for its replacement. This condition simply requires the applicant to clean up when they damage existing improvement in the process of building the project. “Nexus” clearly exists for this condition. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The proposed project which is the subject of this appeal is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The action to approve the proposed project on July 30, 2024 has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3, New construction or the conversion of small structures). CONCLUSION: Staff asserts that the conditions included in the approval of the project (Case AR -2024- 0046) dated July 30, 2024, are necessary, fair, reasonable and proportionate given the scope and impacts of the proposed project. The proposed project impacts vehicular circulation and access on and around the site and displaces vehicular circulation and access to paved areas where parking could be established. In displacing vehicular circulation on the parcel, alternative access to parking areas from Palm Canyon Drive must be established in a code-compliant manner. The project creates significant impacts and there is clear nexus for requiring the Conditions of Approval. It is recommended that the ARC deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Director. PREPARED BY: Ken Lyon, RA, Principal City Planner REVIEWED BY: Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services REVIEWED BY: William J “Jim” Priest, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Appeal letter dated 8-13-24 with attached exhibits “A” through “I”. 3. Public Integrity Disclosure Form Department of Planning Services Vicinity Map CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 1100 S PALM CANYON DR Direct Dial: 310-855-3314 E-mail: ebrackmann@munckwilson.com A Limited Liability Partnership  Dallas  Austin  Houston  Waco  Los Angeles  Boca Raton/Miami  Orlando  www.munckwilson.com August 13, 2024 VIA FEDEX AND ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL-- Apply for Plan (tylerhost.net) Christopher Hadwin Director – Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Appeal re Certain Conditions of Approval; Case AR-2024-0046 - Proposed new structure at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (APN 508-292-001) (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728) Dear Mr. Hadwin and the Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”) for the City of Palm Springs: We represent Mr. Joseph Pranevicius (“Mr. Praner”), the owner of that certain commercial real property located at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California (APN 508-292-001) (the “Property”), with regard to the above-referenced appeal (the “Appeal”). This letter brief and referenced exhibits are hereby submitted in support of the Appeal. I. The Project and Conditions of Approval Mr. Praner appreciates the City’s approval of his proposed new structure at the Property (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728) (the “Project”). The Project, as you know, involves construction of a small, free-standing commercial building of approximately 715 square feet, designed for the purpose of storing materials used in Mr. Praner’s West Hollywood Based interior design business. Copies of the Project documents submitted and approved (with conditions, as further discussed below) are included in the concurrently submitted altogether as Exhibit A and include the following: Sheet 1 dated 4-1-24 "Plot Plan"; Sheet 2 dated 3-29-24 "Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections"; Sheet 3 dated 4-1-24 "Construction Plans & Details"; Color Schedule; and, Justification letter (Executive Summary). A copy of the July 30, 2024 letter of approval with conditions is Exhibit B. Previously, Mr. Praner improved the other commercial structure on the Property, turning an old, dilapidated building into a very attractive, mid-century style building. (See Exhibit C hereto, “Before and After Photos”). As seen from the plans and other project submittal documents (Ex. A), Mr. Praner plans to continue the same theme with the subject Project, greatly increasing the attractiveness of this commercial property in a manner that nicely harmonizes with the generally modern, mid-century feeling of Palm Springs. The Project benefits Mr. Praner and the City alike. 2 Mr. Praner has been discussing this improvement with the City for some time, and in particular with the Department of Planning Services. The City’s Planning Department had approved the original plans on August 1, 2022, for permits to enclose the canopy overhang located on the Property. However, the Planning Department later withdrew said prior approval on or around September 27, 2022, referencing a purported right-of-way in favor of the City (the “ROW”), as further discussed below. Accordingly, Mr. Praner revised and re-submitted his original plans in order to avoid the issues of encroachment and setbacks, with a new design that does not enclose or touch the canopy. Unfortunately, however, it does not appear that the City took these revisions into account when issuing its Conditions of Approval on July 30, 2024. In short, the City is treating this like a complete redevelopment of the Property, when in reality it is simply the construction of a small, free-standing storage facility that does not in any way encroach into the City’s planned Right of Way expansion or trigger any need for off-site improvements, etc. II. The City Lacks Sufficient Nexus to Require the ROW Easement in Exchange for Project Approval. With regard to the ROW, as you know, the 2007 General Plan provides for a 50-foot ROW from the midline on each side of South Palm Canyon Drive, since it is classified as a “major thoroughfare.” However, this General Plan has not been codified into the City’s municipal code, and the City is relying on its police powers (rather than eminent domain proceedings and compensation) to require owners (including Mr. Praner) to sign easements in favor of the City as they develop their properties. In this instance, the City does not have a proper basis for requiring said easement, nor a number of the other conditions of approval stated in Exhibit B (as further discussed below). Municipalities may only take property in such a manner when they can demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the development of the property and the need to expand the thoroughfare. While a city can in many instances require dedication for a street right of way as a condition for a permit to improve the property, the requirement must be reasonably related to the proposed improvement. Otherwise, it is a taking that requires just compensation, i.e., must be done through the laws and protections of Eminent Domain. When a governmental entity demands that a landowner dedicate a portion of his or her property as a condition of granting a permit to develop the property, there is a “heightened risk that the purpose [of the dedication requirement] is avoidance of the compensation requirement, rather than the stated police-power objective.” [Citation.] “Under the well-settled doctrine of ‘unconstitutional conditions,’ the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use—in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property.” (Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 385, 114 S.Ct. 2309.) For this reason, the high court in Nollan held that the constitutionality of a dedication requirement turns on whether there is an “essential nexus” between the dedication and the public 3 purpose that would otherwise be served by denying the permit outright. (Nollan, at p. 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141; see Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 547, 125 S.Ct. 2074; Dolan, at p. 386, 114 S.Ct. 2309.) (City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal.5th 576, 591; citing Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528.) In that same vein, denying the permit outright would serve no public purpose (in fact, it would be contrary to public policy in favor of developing dilapidated property into something attractive and useful), let alone one that serves the street-dedication ROW. Presumably, at some point, the City would decide to actually widen the road and would then have to invoke Eminent Domain proceedings and ultimately pay Mr. Praner just compensation for taking the property at that point. Using the permit-approval process to dedicate the property now without compensation, where the proposed development has no nexus with the dedication, falls outside the City’s charter and police power. In short, where (as here) the required dedication does not bear any relationship to the benefit conferred on the applicant or the burden imposed on the public, it is considered a taking of property without payment of just compensation. For instance, in Rohn v. City of Visalia, the court concluded that the city's attempt to condition the building permit on the dedication of a portion of respondents' property was an attempt to "disguise under the police power its actual exercise of the power of eminent domain" because the proposed dedication bore no relationship to the present or future use of the property. (214 Cal.App.3d 1463.) Notably, California courts have often held that just compensation must be provided to property owners in right-of-way/street-dedication cases just such as this one. “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19.) The measure of this compensation is the fair market value of the property taken. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1263.310.) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1263.320, subd. (a).)” (City of Porterville v. Young (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1265 [condemnation action for 12-foot strip along one side of a property to widen a roadway]; see also, e.g., City of Fresno v. Cloud (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 113 [valuation dispute in action to condemn 40-foot strips across two parcels to widen roads, as part of the city’s “master plan of streets and highways”].) In this instance, the City does not have sufficient nexus to require the ROW easement from Mr. Praner, nor the corollary encroachment permit. Mr. Praner merely proposes to build a storage facility under the existing canopy (without modifying the canopy at all), and this will not in any way encroach into any existing or future right of way or setback, nor will it increase traffic (as opposed to, say, the effect on traffic of some sort of retail development or multi -family 4 housing); and by the same token, nor would a widened road serve Mr. Praner’s purpose of creating storage area for his own business. As noted above, while the canopy does indeed overhang slightly into the ROW, it predates the 2007 General Plan that the City contends established the ROW, and thus is currently legally nonconforming. The structure to be built in the subject project is designed such that it does not in any way touch, attach to, or modify the canopy. Given the size, nature and location of the new structure, the City simply cannot demonstrate sufficient nexus to require Mr. Praner to sign the ROW easement. Nor does the new structure in any way encroach into the existing 5-foot setback from the existing 40-foot-wide street, and thus it creates no issue with Zoning Code (§ 92.12.03(D)(1)). The City has no basis to enforce the ROW against Mr. Praner due to the factors described above, and thus no basis to require an encroachment permit for a 5-foot setback from the 50-foot ROW. III. Appealed Conditions of Approval Based on the foregoing, Mr. Praner hereby appeals the following Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit B: • PLN 1. The off-street parking requirements are not specified in Ex. B. A parking plan is included as Exhibit D to the Compendium. • PLN 2. The trash-enclosure requirement is unclear. Mr. Praner seeks clarification that the trash-enclosure requirement is met by placing all trash in the enclosed yard, as seen in the aerial view attached to the Compendium as Exhibit E. • ENG 1. Mr. Praner should not be required to construct any off-site street improvements as a result of the subject Project. Further, Mr. Praner has not received a copy of the “Covenant” stated in this condition. • ENG 2. As discussed above, there is no encroachment into the public right-of- way and thus no Encroachment Permit should be required. • ENG 3. This “dedication” for the ROW appears to be an easement requirement, which (as discussed above) the City lacks sufficient nexus to require. • ENG 4. As discussed above, the existing canopy is not being modified, and thus it maintains its legal-nonconforming status (i.e., it is “grandfathered”). Thus, there is no trigger for requiring an Encroachment Agreement, nor a Land Use Permit. • ENG 5. The Project has no impact on ingress or egress, and creates no basis to require modification of the existing driveway. • ENG 6-11. Likewise, although “Deferred” none of these requirements can be imposed by the City given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. The City lacks sufficient nexus to require these improvements, all or most of which appear to be off-site improvements that the City improperly seeks to impose upon a private property owner, Mr. Praner, in exchange for approval of a 715 sq. ft. 5 storage structure that falls entirely on his own property and is not in any way open to the public. •ENG 12-17. Like the conditions in ENG 6-11, the City lacks a basis to require these, given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. These Conditions, however, are not “Deferred” and are being immediately required. The City lacks sufficient nexus between these improvements and the Project to require these conditions of approval. •ENG 18. This does not apply because there are no “sanitary facilities” in the proposed structure. •ENG 22-25. These conditions highlight the lack of understanding on the part of the City with regard to the nature and scope of the Project. There is no grading involved, whatsoever, nor (as a result) any issue with changing runoff, with the Project and thus these conditions should be removed. •ENG 26-29. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well. •ENG 30 and 31. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well. IV.Conclusion While a number of the Conditions for Approval seem reasonable, those listed above are not, for the reasons as stated. We would welcome a meeting with the appropriate City personnel to discuss this and seek an informal resolution, so that Mr. Praner can move forward with the Project. Notwithstanding, Mr. Praner is prepared to seek any and all further administrative remedies that the City requires. Mr. Praner has already experienced years of delay with this project, which has caused him a great deal of financial harm. Accordingly, we look forward to hearing your response as soon as possible. Very truly yours, MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP By: Eve A. Brackmann cc: William (Jim) Priest (William.Priest@bbklaw.com) Ryan Guiboa (ryan.guiboa@bbklaw.com) Joseph Pranevicius (pranerdesigns@aol.com) EXHIBIT – A – From: orangetri@yahoo.com <orangetri@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 11:11 AM  To: Ken Lyon <Ken.Lyon@palmspringsca.gov>  Subject: Fwd: Case AR-2024-0046 - paint colors 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. Ken, The paint brand is Dunn Edwards. Mai - #DE-6373 Porpoise Doors- #DE-6376 Looking Glass Accent- #DE-5229 Clay Terrace ((East Elevation wall) Secondary Trim- #DE-6375 Castlerock (East Elevation Door Wall) Hope this helps to clarify, Joseph EXHIBIT – B – EXHIBIT – C – EXHIBIT – D – EXHIBIT – E – EXHIBIT – F – EXHIBIT – G – EXHIBIT – H – From: William Priest <William.Priest@bbklaw.com> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 5:29 PM To: Eve Brackmann <ebrackmann@munckwilson.com> Cc: Georgiana Nikias <GNikias@munckwilson.com>; Christopher Hadwin <Christopher.Hadwin@palmspringsca.gov>; Ken Lyon <Ken.Lyon@palmspringsca.gov> Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR- 2024-0046 [External] Good evening Eve. After talking with staff further about this matter, the City offers the following compromise and explanations to resolve this matter without further appeal or litigation: PLN 1: The project would still be required to provide parking per PSZC 93.06.00. Under section 93.06.00(D)(19), a “self-storage” or “mini-warehousing” use requires a minimum of 6 parking spaces per complex. The Code doesn’t distinguish based upon size or type of the complex. Further, based upon the conceptual parking plan, it appears that bay parking will be provided and largely realigned along the Palo Verde Avenue side of the site since the new building will be taking away other parking space on the site. However, there appears to also be three parking spaces planned along Palm Canyon Drive. So, there’s more going on with this project then just floating a 715 sq. ft. building in isolation and the City maintains there is sufficient nexus to require Code compliant parking spaces. Section 93.06.00 further states that the parking must be provided for “all uses” on the site. The condition requires submittal of a more detailed parking plan prior to issuance of building permits, including curbs, dimensions, landscaping and shade trees. PLN 2: The project must still provide a Code-complaint trash enclosure. For clarification purposes, placing trash in the enclosed yard does not meet the Code requirement under PSZC 93.07.02. There must be a dedicated enclosure. The City would require this of any new commercial development, regardless of size, and we maintain that the activities on the site provide enough nexus to justify a trash enclosure. ENG 1: The City is willing to reflect in this covenant that certain conditions are deferred until a change of use happens – see Condition ENG 3. ENG 2/ENG 4: The City would still require the project to secure an encroachment permit for the gas station canopy structure and monument sign. While we understand that Mr. Praner’s intention is to “float” the new building under the canopy structure, that canopy structure is currently supported by two columns. The plans Mr. Praner submitted indicate that the building will encompass the two columns. The construction will therefore have to wrap around both columns, providing flashing and roofing to secure the interior of the new building from moisture and other outside elements. Therefore, the new building will alter, add or expand the canopy structure since they will touch, thereby eliminating its legal non-conforming status and requiring compliance with current Code (See PSZC 94.05.03(A)). Because the canopy encroaches into the current public right of way (not including the 10’ additional dedication we have been discussing), and will have lost its legal non-conforming building status, the City may require the project to secure an encroachment permit to continue operating in the current public right of way. ENG 3/ENG 6 – 11: The City is willing to amend these conditions along these lines: The 10’ right of way dedication and street pavement/curb/gutter improvements along South Palm Canyon Drive will not be required at this time for this specific storage/warehouse project. Rather, if the project should change its use in the future (such as changing to a general commercial/retail use) the owner/applicant will have to come back to the City for an amended minor architectural permit and the City will, at that time, assess whether to require the 10’ right of way dedication and P/C Drive improvements to offset traffic impact. That may require amendment of the encroachment agreement at that time as well. In any event, this condition would not be deferred until the City chooses to widen P/C Drive, but instead upon the change of use by Mr. Praner or his successor. ENG 5: While the City would be willing to defer the other street, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements on the Palm Canyon Drive side, the City would still require improvements to the driveway approach(es) of the site to be current with Code and ADA regulations, which we cannot waive. Again, the City is not requiring this in isolation. While the new building may have limited occupancy, it is creating something of a “cascade effect” by taking parking from one area and relocating it elsewhere on the site – there will be improvement throughout more of the site than just the storage/warehouse building. ENG 12 & 13: The City maintains that these improvements can be required now as a function of the new project (which includes both the new building and parking spaces) in that it only requires the replacement/repair of existing asphalt concrete pavement where required and broken/off grade existing improvements along the project frontage. It is simply a requirement to update and fix any pavement on the site that is broken or not up to current Code. These are not improvements well into the street, but within the immediate vicinity of required driveway approaches, sidewalks, etc. ENG 14/ENG 15: While the City would be willing to defer improvements on the Palm Canyon Drive side, the City would still require curb cuts, driveway approaches, and sidewalks on the Palo Verde side of the site to be current with Code. Again, the City is not requiring this in isolation. While the new building may have limited occupancy, it is creating something of a “cascade effect” by taking parking from one area and relocating it elsewhere on the site – there will be improvement throughout more of the site than just the storage/warehouse building. For example, the proposed parking spaces along Palo Verde Avenue are likely to cause the removal of the current curb and gutter there, requiring these improvements. ENG 16/ENG 17: The City maintains that these improvements can be required now as a function of the new project, just as with ENG 12 & ENG 13. ENG 18: Based upon what has been presented in the application, it does not appear that the storage/warehouse building will have restroom or sanitary facilities. Therefore, the City would be willing to defer this condition like ENG 3. If the use should change to a general commercial/retail use that would require sewer improvements, they would be required at that later time. ENG 22: At this point, it is unclear from the plans just how much grading/ground disturbing activity the project will entail. The construction of the new building will necessarily entail digging to install footings, trenching to run electrical lines to the building, and the parking lot improvements. This will require some grading to establish proper drainage/retention of stormwater on the parking lot. I note that this condition just requires posting of a bond that would be refunded after the improvements are completed and this is only triggered if 5,000 sq. feet of land is disturbed, which may or may not be the case here. ENG 23: We have included this condition because there is likely to be some grading on the site due to the parking improvements. I note that this condition only applies if there is export of soil. If there will not be, then this condition will not be effective and need not be addressed. That said, the City wishes to keep this in just in case and to comply with State regulations on these issues. ENG 24/ENG 25: The City will still require that a stormwater runoff system be installed given that a new building will be constructed and parking lot improvements are being required due to new development. This is a Regional Water Board requirement if the drainage pattern on the site is altered. This project is a significant change to the site and, therefore, the City maintains there is sufficient nexus to require these improvements. ENG 26: The City would still require this. This condition simply requires that all utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement be backfilled and repaired per City specs. As noted above, it appears that there will be at least some trenching and excavation work done for this project due to the new building and parking improvements. And this condition just requires the project to clean up any issues created by trenching and excavation. ENG 27: Same thing here. If utility lines are going to be installed (which we assume will provide power to the new building), they must be installed underground. The City requires this of all new construction. ENG 28: The City intends to keep this in. As long as the project improvements aren’t constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any intersection or driveway, or it meets height limits if located therein, then there will be compliance. ENG 29: To the extent that any tree plantings related to parking improvements fall within the public right of way or within 10 feet of a public sidewalk, the root barrier requirement will apply. However (and I will defer to staff on this one when they see a more complete application), Mr. Praner may be able to locate shade trees in the parking area such that it doesn’t trigger this requirement. ENG 30: This is an ADA accessibility requirement and the City does not believe it can waive this requirement. This is also required given that the parking along Palo Verde Avenue will likely impact the location of the sidewalk, curb cuts, etc. ENG 31: This condition requires that all damaged, destroyed or modified pavement legends, traffic control devices, signing, striping and street lights be replaced or fixed. Given that the City is not, at this time, requiring right of way dedications or improvements going well into streets, it is unlikely that this condition will apply to this project. That said, the City wants to keep this in here in case some damage gets into the street and needs to be repaired. That should sum it up. Please feel free to review this proposal and let me know your thoughts. Take care. Jim Priest. William J. (Jim) Priest Of Counsel william.priest@bbklaw.com T: (909) 483-6648 | C: (909) 576-9203 bbklaw.com | EXHIBIT – I – Direct Dial: 310-855-3314 E-mail: ebrackmann@munckwilson.com A Limited Liability Partnership  Dallas  Austin  Houston  Waco  Los Angeles  Boca Raton/Miami  Orlando  www.munckwilson.com October 15, 2024 VIA E-MAIL William J. Priest, Esq. Best Best & Krieger LLP 2855 E. Guasti Rd., Suite 400 Ontario, California 91761 Re: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, Case No. AR-2024-0046 – Joseph Praner (Pranevicius) Dear Mr. Priest: This letter responds to your email of October 3, 2024, which provided the first detailed response we have received from your client, the City of Palm Springs, since our August 13, 2024 Letter of Appeal, on which you also were copied. That October 3 email also followed multiple requests from me in emails to you for such correspondence, beginning September 20, 2024. I have also been asking for the City’s exhibits or other submissions for the hearing but have received none to date, and am informed that we will not receive them until this Thursday. Although the hearing before the City’s Architectural Review Committee is scheduled for this coming Monday, October 21, 2024, I hope that we will nonetheless be able to resolve these issues informally this week and thus avoid the hearing. However, if we are unable to do so, my client is not willing to postpone the hearing. Our appeal includes (as set forth in detail in my August 13 letter, which has also now been submitted to the City in advance of Monday’s hearing, along with our exhibits), the following conditions: PLN 1, PLN 2, ENG1-18, and 22-31. Your October 3 email addresses each of these, which we do appreciate. Our response to each one is as follows. For reference, please see the enclosed three-page diagram that we received today from the architect, George Klisak (an experienced architect, who has worked on projects in the City of Palm Springs for decades, and who designed this improvement). Please note that Mr. Klisak is available by telephone to answer any questions about these diagrams or the project in general, and also plans to attend the hearing on Monday (unless we are able to resolve these issues and avoid the hearing). The diagram includes the following three sheets: 2 • Sheet 1: Revised parking plan. Parking removed from Palo Verde Avenue by Building B (house). The original 6 parking spaces are shown undisturbed, next to buildings A (office) and C (overhang). • Sheet 2: Proposed plan for construction of the free-standing improvement underneath the Canopy (Building C)—shows there is no connection to overhang columns or canopy. • Sheet 3: Details of Building C—Foundation Plan, and Framing Plan. Here are our specific responses to your notes regarding each of the at-issue conditions: • PLN 1. As you mentioned in your October 3 email, the project must provide parking per Palm Springs Zoning Code § 93.06.00. We dispute your categorization of the use as “self-storage” or “mini-warehousing,” since the use will be for the owner’s private business’ own storage needs and not open to the public. Notwithstanding, the requirement for “a minimum of 6 parking spaces” is satisfied by the existing 6 spaces, and the additional three spaces on the Palo Verde Avenue side by Building B on the original plan submitted will not be added. Please refer to Sheet 1 on the enclosed. Do you agree that this resolves the Code requirements for parking on the site? • PLN 2. Mr. Praner will provide a diagram/plan for a Code-compliant trash enclosure in the yard of the house, where the current unenclosed trash is located. Do you agree that this resolves the trash-enclosure issue? • ENG 1, 3, and 6-11. We would like some clarification. It appears that the City is willing to amend these conditions such that the 10-ft. right of way dedication (“ROW”) and pavement/curb/gutter improvements along South Palm Canyon Drive will not be required at this time for this specific minor architectural project. This is without prejudice to any change of use in the future, at which time the City will require an amended minor architectural permit and will revisit the ROW requirement and the offsite improvement requirements. This sounds very acceptable to us, and is the crux of what we have been requesting, and if so then we truly appreciate the City’s willingness to compromise in this regard. Can you please confirm that the City is willing to remove the ROW easement condition at this time? • ENG 2/4. There appears to still be a misunderstanding about the nature and design of the plans. Please refer to sheets 2 and 3 on the enclosed, showing that the improvement is not attached in any way to the canopy columns or canopy itself, and that the improvement will not need to have flashing and roofing attached to the columns (or canopy) as you state in your notes. Likewise, there is no “cascade effect” of altering, adding to, expanding, or otherwise modifying the canopy structure in any way, and its legal non-conforming status will thus not be eliminated. As a result, no encroachment permit as to the current public right of 3 way should be required. If you would like to discuss this further with Mr. Klisak, I can try to arrange a telephone conference. Please let me know. • ENG 5. As noted above, there is no cascade effect and Mr. Praner will change the plans so that he is not adding any parking, and will just have the current 6 spaces, which meets code requirements. Do you agree that this satisfies this condition? • ENG 12, 13, 16, and 17. Mr. Praner will agree to repair existing asphalt and concrete where required on site only (not on the City’s sidewalks/property), and assure that all of the hardscaping is to current code. Do you agree that this will satisfy this condition? • ENG 14 & 15. As noted above, Mr. Praner will not modify the parking or add any additional parking along Palo Verde. Do you agree that this satisfies these two conditions? • ENG 18. Agreed. • ENG 22. The project will not come near to disturbing 5,000 sq. feet of land, and in fact the estimate is 250 sq. ft. Thus, it should not require the bond. Do you need to speak further with Mr. Klisak about this, and/or will the City agree to remove the bond requirement based on the current plans? • ENG 23. No export of soil is anticipated. Can you please confirm that as long as no soil is exported, this condition will not be required? • ENG 24 & 25. The drainage pattern onsite will not be affected. The parking lot will not be modified, and there will be no export of soil or grading. As seen from Mr. Klisak’s notes on Detail No. 5, the new freestanding floating structure will not be touching any existing structure and will be completely inset back under the existing canopy. Do you need to speak further with Mr. Klisak about this, and/or will the City agree to remove these conditions, given the foregoing? • ENG 26. Agreed. (Although I note again that there will now be no parking lot improvements, only repairs.) • ENG 27. This does not apply. There are existing underground power lines, already, and no new ones will be added. Will the City agree to remove these conditions, given the foregoing? • ENG 28. Agreed. • ENG 29. Agreed. • ENG 30. There will be no parking lot modifications, as noted above. Does this satisfy this condition? 4 • ENG 31. Agreed. I look forward to discussing the foregoing with you at your earliest convenience. Please give me a call or send me an email with a proposed time for us to discuss. Thank you. Best regards, MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP Eve A. Brackmann Encl.