Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6/21/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.C.
ppLM Sp ti V N cgOFOR % City Council Staff Report DATE: JUNE 21, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-374, THE "750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCATED AT 750 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374 FROM: David Ready, City Manager BY: Edward Kotkin, City Attorney SUMMARY: The City Council approved the "750 Lofts" project in September 2015. A community interest group filed a lawsuit alleging violations of law in the approval process, and seeking an order to have the project approvals rescinded. The lawsuit resulted in the issuance of a judgment denying the challenge to the approvals in all respects but one — the City's consideration of the issue of parking for the project. Pursuant to the court's order, the City is to set aside its approvals until the City addresses the project's parking issues according to the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The status quo is that the City's past approvals of this project are currently set aside. That said, the court decided that the scope of the defect in the City's processing of the 750 Lofts project was narrow, a failure to consider the parking requirement arising from the "event space" incorporated in the project. The Court tasked the City only with addressing that single defect and filing a response to its final orders on the merits of the case. The developer recalls discussions with the City regarding the potential removal of the "event space" from the Project during the entitlement process. The developer also indicates that the parking study for this Project did not reference or include the event space. The list of permitted uses and development standards reflected in the conditions of approval for the Project entitlements did not contain the "event space." Regardless of the terms and conditions of approval, and despite any party's understanding that the event space had been removed from the Project plans prior to Council approval of the Project, that removal did not in fact take place. ITEM NO. _C' City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017-Page 2 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ While the judicial set-aside of the project approvals pending City action regarding parking affords the City Council discretion to take alternative actions delineated below, the proposed Resolution conforms to the Court's entire and specific direction to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-374, THE 750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCATED AT 750 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374." DISCUSSION. In 2014, 750 Lofts, LLC applied for approval of Planned Development District PD-374, General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Major Architectural Application (the "Entitlements") in order to construct a thirty-nine (39) room hotel on 1.13 acres of property located at 750 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs (the "Property"). The Property, while itself not a historic structure, is located within the Las Palmas Business Historic District. On October 12, 2014, the Historic Site Preservation Board ("HSPB") reviewed the General Plan Amendment ("GPA"), Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), and Planned Development District ("PDD")for the original project application which, at that time, included a hotel with forty-six (46) rooms, sixty-two (62) parking spaces and a maximum height of fifty feet (50'), with lower heights at the street frontages. The HSPB approved the Project subject to certain conditions, one of which required that the Major Architectural Application ("MAX) come back to the HSPB for review. The Project, including the MAJ, was brought back to the HSPB on January 13, 2015, and at that time, the HSPB approved the Project subject to conditions requiring reductions in building height, limitations on rooftop structures, and a requirement that the parking study be reviewed by the City Engineer for adequacy of off street parking such that the Project would not adversely impact the historic district. The Project was revised in an effort to respond to the HSPB conditions, resulting in a hotel of only thirty-nine (39) rooms, thereby reducing room count by seven (7), and reducing some building heights. An initial study was prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and was circulated for a twenty (20) day period from February 6, 2015 to February 25, 2015. With the revisions to the Project prompted by the HSPB review, the initial study was revised and re-circulated for public comment from June 29, 2015 to July 20, 2015. 02 City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017- Page 3 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ On June 24, 2015, July 22, 2015, and August 12, 2015 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the project. At its August 12, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the Project be approved subject to the conditions of approval. On September 16, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing and, after taking public testimony, approved the Project. This project approval included Council votes in favor of the GPA, PDD, CUP, MAJ and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and deleted HSPB conditions 1, 2 and 3. A copy of the City Council minutes from that meeting is attached to this staff report as Attachment B. The staff report and attachments considered by the City Council at that meeting, four hundred eighteen (418) pages in length, will be available to the Council prior to this public hearing on a flash drive, available to the public on the City's website and at the City Clerk's office. Further, a "hard-copy" of the staff report will be available to the public at the City Council meeting on June 21, 2017. The permitted uses and development standards that exclude the "event space" and are referenced in the study above are reflected in condition PLN 16, at pages 347-48 of the staff report and accompanying materials On October 23, 2015, Advocates for Better Community Development filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate (the "Petition"), seeking to compel the City to rescind its approval of the Entitlements. In adjudicating the Petition, the Court heard three (3) basic arguments: (a) that the City Council abused its discretion when it deleted the HSPB conditions without sending the Project back to the HSPB, (b) that the City violated its municipal code for approving the Project without considering the parking requirements for the "event space', and (c) that the approval of the Project was "spot zoning." The Court denied the Petition as to the claim that the City Council abused its discretion in deleting the HSPB conditions and it found nothing in the municipal code that requires the Council to refer the revised Project back to the HSPB. The Court also denied the Petition as to the claim of spot zoning, finding that no spot zoning occurred as no "island" was created, and the Court further found that even if it had been spot zoning, such zoning was in the public interest as it provided tourist accommodations and revitalized Indian Avenue. The Court, however, granted the Petition as to the issue of parking, and on April 6, 2017, issued a "Peremptory Writ of Mandate' (the "Writ") to the City. The Writ, attached to this report as Attachment C, requires neither more nor less than that the City set aside its approvals of the Entitlements until such time as the City adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the City's Municipal Code. While the elimination of the event area may have been intended, Project plans inadvertently continued to show the event area as part of the Project. At hearing on the Writ, the court noted that the administrative record in this case was "messy." The inclusion of the event area in the Project plans when that use is not reflected in condition of approval PLN 16 that enumerates permitted uses and development standards is at best ambiguity regarding the parking requirement in the administrative record. 03 City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017-Page 4 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ With the elimination of the event area/space, the Project consists of a thirty-nine (39) room hotel, a one hundred thirteen (113) seat restaurant on Palm Canyon Drive, a thirty-nine(39) seat lounge on Indian Canyon, and a twenty (20) seat roof top lounge. Palm Springs Municipal Code requires one (1) parking space for each hotel room in any hotel having less than fifty(50) rooms, and one (1) parking space for every three (3) seats in restaurants and lounges. Given the PSMC requirements, the parking requirement for the Project includes thirty-nine (39) spaces for the hotel and fifty-eight (58) spaces for the restaurant and lounges, for a total parking requirement ninety-seven (97) spaces. The Project plans as approved will provide for a total of one hundred eight(108) spaces, thirty-four(34) of which will be on-site valet spaces. The Project is conditioned to provide valet service at all times. Condition of Approval number ADM 15 provides that any deviation from the number of restaurant or lounge seats shall require prior approval by the Director of Planning by means of an amendment to the use permit associated with each use, thereby assuring that the City retains control to enforce Project compliance with the PSMC as to parking. An independent traffic engineer reviewed the Project's parking requirements, exclusive of the event area, and found that based on the PSMC and the widely accepted and used Urban Land Institute shared parking methodology, the forecast shared parking demand for the Project can be accommodated by the one hundred eight (108) off-street parking spaces in the Project. When this matter first appeared on the City Council agenda on May 3, 2017, the Council took affirmative action rescinding Ordinance No. 1886 (the past approval of the PDD), Resolution No. 23899 (the past approval of the MAJ), and directing staff to schedule a public hearing in this matter. The public hearing was originally noticed for May 17, 2017, subsequently re-noticed for June 7, 2017, and then continued, after being opened and properly adjourned until June 21, 2017. Documentation of the two (2) notices of public hearing are provided herewith as Attachment D. ALTERNATIVES: Reject staffs recommendation in this matter, and direct staff as to how to comply with the Court's Writ. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental assessment prepared and approved in conjunction with the 750 Lofts Project is the controlling environmental assessment for purposes of this Resolution. The only defect in this assessment, per the Court's ruling issued in relation to the Writ, was analysis of parking related to the event area. Although the Writ set aside the City's prior approval of that assessment, the analysis of the Project contained therein, clarified by this staff report and the proposed Resolution, i.e., the Project does not include the event area, supports the recommended action. 04 City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017-Page 5 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ FISCAL IMPACT: No significant change to City revenue or expenditures is expected as a result of adopting the proposed Resolution. Edward Z. Kotkin, Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S., City Attorney Assistant City Manager David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D FI n Fagg, AICP City Manager Director of Planning Services Attachments: A. Resolution B. City Council Minutes, September 16, 2015 C. Peremptory Writ of Mandate D. Notices of Public Hearing 05 ATTACHMENT A 750 Lofts, June 21 , 2017 06 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD- 374, THE "750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCATED AT 750 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, FINDS: A. In 2014, 750 Lofts, LLC a California limited liability company applied for approval of Planned Development District PD-374, General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Major Architectural Application (the "Entitlements") in order to construct a 39 room hotel on 1.13 acres of property located at 750 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs (the "Property'). B. The Property, while itself not a historic structure, is located within the Las Palmas Business Historic District. On October 12, 2014, the Historic Site Preservation Board ("HSPB") reviewed the General Plan Amendment ("GPA"), Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), and Planned Development District ("PDD") for the original project application which, at that time, included a hotel with forty-six (46) rooms, sixty-two (62) parking spaces and a maximum height of fifty feet(50'), with lower heights at the street frontages. The HSPB approved the Project subject to certain conditions, one of which required that the Major Architectural Application ("MAX) come back to the HSPB for review. C. The Project, including the MAJ, was brought back to the HSPB on January 13, 2015, and at that time, the HSPB approved the Project subject to conditions requiring reductions in building height, limitations on rooftop structures, and a requirement that the parking study be reviewed by the City Engineer for adequacy of off street parking such that the Project would not adversely impact the historic district. D. The Project was revised in an effort to respond to the HSPB conditions, resulting in a hotel of only thirty-nine (39) rooms, thereby reducing room count by seven (7), and reducing some building heights E. An initial study was prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and was circulated for a twenty(20)day period from February 6, 2015 to February 25, 2015. With the revisions to the Project prompted by the 1_ 07 HSPB review, the initial study was revised and re-circulated for public comment from June 29, 2015 to July 20, 2015. F. On June 24, 2015, July 22, 2015, and August 12, 2015 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the project. At its August 12, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the Project be approved subject to the conditions of approval. H. On September 16, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing and, after taking public testimony, approved the Project, including the GPA, PDD, CUP, MAJ and Mitigated Negative Declaration and deleted HSPB conditions 1, 2 and 3. I. On October 23, 2015, Advocates for Better Community Development filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate (the "Petition"), seeking to compel the City to rescind its approval of the Entitlements. J. In adjudicating the Petition, the Court heard three (3) basic arguments: (a)that the City Council abused its discretion when it deleted the HSPB conditions without sending the Project back to the HSPB, (b) that the City violated its municipal code for approving the Project without considering the parking requirements for the "event space', and (c) that the approval of the Project was "spot zoning." K. The Court denied the Petition as to the claim that the City Council abused its discretion in deleting the HSPB conditions and it found nothing in the municipal code that requires the Council to refer the revised Project back to the HSPB. L. The Court also denied the Petition as to the claim of spot zoning, finding that no spot zoning occurred as no "island" was created, and the Court further found that even if it had been spot zoning, such zoning was in the public interest as it provided tourist accommodations and revitalized Indian Avenue. M. The Court, however, granted the Petition as to the issue of parking, and on April 6, 2017, issued a "Peremptory Writ of Mandate' (the "Writ") to the City. The Writ requires neither more nor less than that the City set aside its approvals of the Entitlements until such time as the City adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the City's Municipal Code. N. On May 3, 2017, the Council took affirmative action rescinding Ordinance No. 1886 (the past approval of the PDD), Resolution No. 23899 (the past approval of the MAJ), and directing staff to schedule a public hearing in this matter. O. Staff first issued and gave proper notice of this public hearing to take place on May 17, 2017, then re-noticed this public hearing for June 7, 2017, and then continued, after being opened and properly adjourned until the date of this Resolution's consideration, and adoption, June 21, 2017. z 08 P. At the public hearing in this matter, prior to adopting this Resolution, the City Council considered a report from its staff inclusive of a true and correct copy of the Writ, received any and all written or oral testimony offered, and deliberated upon the approval of this Resolution to the extent deemed appropriate by the City Council. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FURTHER FINDS AND RESOLVES: Section 1: The true and correct recitals above are incorporated by this reference herein as the factual basis for this Resolution. Section 2: The list of permitted uses and development standards reflected in the Project's conditions of approval did not contain the"event space." Regardless of the terms and conditions of approval, and independent of whether the parking study in support of the Project referenced or included the "event space," that space was not removed from the Project plans prior to Council approval of the Project, and ambiguity existed in the administrative record as to whether the Project included the event space. Section 3: With the elimination of the event area, the Project consists of a thirty-nine (39) room hotel, a one hundred thirteen (113) seat restaurant on Palm Canyon Drive, a thirty-nine (39) seat lounge on Indian Canyon, and a twenty (20) seat roof top lounge Section 4: Palm Springs Municipal Code ("PSMC") Section 93.060.00(16) requires one (1) parking space for each hotel room in any hotel having less than fifty (50) rooms. Section 5: PSMC Section 93.060.00(30) one (1) parking space for every three (3) seats in restaurants and lounges. Section 6: Given the PSMC requirements, the parking requirement for the Project includes thirty-nine (39) spaces for the hotel and fifty-eight (58) spaces for the restaurant and lounges, for a total parking requirement ninety-seven (97) spaces. Section 7: The Project plans as approved will provide for a total of one hundred eight (108) spaces, thirty-four (34) of which will be on-site valet spaces. The Project is conditioned to provide valet service at all times. Section 8: Condition of Approval number ADM 15 provides that any deviation from the number of restaurant or lounge seats shall require prior approval by the Director of Planning by means of an amendment to the use permit associated with each use, thereby assuring that the City retains control to enforce Project compliance with the PSMC as to parking. Section 9: An independent traffic engineer reviewed the Project's parking requirements exclusive of the event area, and found that based on the PSMC and the widely accepted and used Urban Land Institute shared parking methodology, the forecast shared parking demand for the Project can be accommodated by the one hundred eight (108) off-street parking spaces in the Project. -3- 09 Section 10: Since the issuance of the Writ and pending the City of Palm Springs' adoption of this Resolution, all Project approvals have been and remained effectively "set aside."As such, the City has neither processed nor issued any Project permits. To ensure certainty on the part of all parties regarding the status of all Project approvals and resolutions pending adoption of this Resolution, the City Council formally rescinded approval of the PDD and the MAJ on May 3, 2017. Section 11. The environmental assessment prepared and approved pursuant to and in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act in conjunction with the Project is the controlling environmental assessment for purposes of this Resolution. The only defect in this assessment, per the Court's ruling issued in relation to the Writ,was the City's parking analysis related to the "event space." Although the Writ set aside the City's approval of that assessment, the analysis contained therein, complemented by this Resolution's clarification that the event area/space is no longer a part of the Project, supports the recommended action. Section 12: This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption, and the City Attorney and City Clerk are hereby directed to take all necessary action to ensure the City's timely compliance with the Writ, including without limitation the filing of a Return to the Writ, explaining the City's action(s) taken to comply with the terms of the Writ. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby orders that (i) an additional condition shall be placed on the Project which expressly requires that the "event area," also referenced in the Writ and from time to time in relation to the Project as "event space," is eliminated from PDD-374, and that (H) subject to that change, the approval of PDD-374 and all related approvals and resolutions, including without limitation Ordinance No. 1886 and Resolution No. 23899, adopted arising from and related to the Project are hereby reinstated and affirmed in their entirety. ADOPTED this 2111 day of June, 2017. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: Kathleen Hart, Interim City Clerk a- 10 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, Kathleen Hart, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kathleen Hart, Interim City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California -s- 11 ATTACHMENT B 750 Lofts, June 21 , 2017 12 City Council Minutes September 16, 2015 Page 4 No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Mills requested Staff address the history and background of the current street name. ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 23897, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME OF ARQUILLA ROAD SOUTH OF EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE AND NORTH OF EAST TWIN PALMS DRIVE TO WILLIAM KRISEL WAY AND APPROVING A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION." Motion Councilmember Foat, seconded by Councilmember Mills and unanimously carried 4-0 on a roll call vote. AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Mills, Mayor Pro Tem Lewin, and Mayor Pougnet. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Hutcheson. Councilmember Foat stated she has a property ownership related conflict of interest with respect to Item 1,C., would not participate in the discussion or the vote, and left Council Chamber. 1.C. 750 LOFTS, LLC, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 39-UNIT HOTEL WITH ACCESSORY USES ON A 1.13-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER CEQA, ZONE C-1/R-3/PDD 104/RESORT COMBINING ZONE/LAS PALMAS BUSINESS HISTORIC DISTRICT HDA (CASE 5.1350 PDD 3741GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ): Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as outlined in the Staff Report dated September 16, 2015. Mayor Pougnet opened the public hearing, and the following speakers addressed the City Council. JIM CIOFFI, Representing Applicant, outlined the features of the development, and introduced the development team who provided in detail the proposed development, and requested relief from Planning Conditions Nos. 20 and 26. DOUG JONES, spoke in support of the project, commented on the beautiful design and construction. CLAIRE BEST HAWLEY, requested the City Council consider the long term ramifications on the spot zoning of allowing a high-rise hotel on the site. 13 City Council Minutes September 16, 2015 Page 5 JORDAN HAWLEY, commented on the positive aspects of Palm Springs and stated the project is not consistent with the City as a premier destination. PATRICK HARBINSON, appreciated the effort the Developer has done to address the concerns of the community, but spoke in opposition to the project. ROBERT FEY, stated the property is functionally obsolete, stated the project will attract tourists worldwide. FRANK TYSEN, stated they are fighting with the City and Developers working together and trying to accommodate the Developer, spoke in opposition to the project, and strongly against the zoning modification to the Central Business District. SERGIO ESPERICLIETA, Cathedral City, read comments by the Planning Commission, commented on the lack of parking, the height of the building, and spoke in opposition to the project. JIM STUART, stated the project will be good for business in the Community, and commented on the variety of the types of buildings in the business district. NIKOHL VANDEL, Palm Springs, commented on the Environmental Impact Report. EMILY HEMPHILL, Applicant Rebuttal, commented on the use of variance and the use of Planned Development District as allowed in the Zoning Code, commented on the parking in the area, the use of a mitigated negative declaration rather than an EIR, and the length of time of review by City officials and commissions. No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Mills commented on the use of a PD, stated the zoning changed only for this project, noted this is a preliminary PD that will be further reviewed, stated he was in support of including Condition No. PLN 20 and requested the City Council consider the replacing "may" with "shall" and PLN 26, commented on Condition No. PLN 8 and the lack of detail on the plans, Condition No. PLN 21 should be revised to submit a study on how trash will be accommodated in the project, commented on Condition No. 28 and the requirement for shading devices and requested a shading study shall be submitted with the final PD, noted that Condition No. ENG 22 was duplicative with Condition No. ENG 28, and requested 14 City Council Minutes September 16, 2015 Page 6 the City Council consider including another condition that prohibits the conversion of units to condominiums. Mayor Pro Tem Lewin complimented the Architect and the Developer, stated it is a creative and wonderful project, and the project was amended as comments were received by the community. ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 23898, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR A 39-ROOM HOTEL WITH ACCESSORY SPA, RESTAURANT AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE/BAR USES ON A 1.13-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (CASE 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ);" 2) Adopt Resolution No. 23899, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR A 39-ROOM HOTEL, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HIGH-RISE BUILDING, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPA, COCKTAIL LOUNGE/BAR USES, AND HOTEL UNITS WHERE MORE THAN 10% OF THE UNITS HAVE KITCHEN FACILITIES ON A 1.13-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (CASE 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ);" 3) Adopt Resolution No. 23900, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2007 PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 22077, MODIFYING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "NCC" (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO "CBD" (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) FOR A 39-ROOM HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESSORY USES ON A 1.13 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE;" and 4) Waive the reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and introduce Ordinance No. 1886, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 374 IN LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A 39-ROOM HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESSORY USES ON A 1 .13-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (CASE 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ)" amending the Conditions of Approval as follows: (i) retain Condition No. PLN 20 to delete the outdoor drapes, (ii) require the submission of Plans to screen the mechanical equipment and approved at the time of final, (N) Condition No. 21 to provide a detail study on how the trash will function to be approved at the time of final, (iv) Condition No. PLN 28 to provide a study for shading to be approved at 15 City Council Minutes September 16,2015 Page 7 the time of final and prohibit reflective glazing, (v) add a condition that prohibits the conversion for condo purposes, and (vi) eliminate Condition No. PLN 26. Motion Councilmember Mills, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Lewin and unanimously carried 3.0 on a roll call vote. AYES: Councilmember Mills, Mayor Pro Tern Lewin, and Mayor Pougnet. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Foat and Councilmember Hutcheson. Councilmember Foat returned to the dais. Councilmember Mills stated to avoid the appearance of a business related conflict of interest, he would not participate in the discussion or vote on Item 1.D., and left Council Chamber. 1.D. AMENDMENT TO THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW RESIDENT ACCESS TO TRAM WAY AND TO DESIGNATE A 5-ACRE PARCEL TO THE PLAN AREA AS PERMANENT OPEN SPACE (CASE 5.1154-A SP): Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as outlined in the Staff Report dated September 16, 2015. Mayor Pougnet opened the public hearing, and the following speakers addressed the City Council. MARVIN ROOS, representing Applicant, provided a status report of the project, requested the City Council approve the amendment and the use of Tram Way to remove boulders and to place the boulders on the remainder parcel to reduce impact and trips to the surrounding neighborhood. BRADLEY KAIN, stated the project has been a construction site for the last year, commented on the other projects and the stress to the neighborhood due to the projects, and requested the construction trucks be moved to Tram Way and requested the City Council approve the access. SCOTT BRIDGEMAN, stated there is a lack of communication, and requested the City Council approve the amendment to move construction trucks to Tram Way. NANCY STUART, Palm Springs, stated the Winter Park Authority Board voted 5-0 to deny an access easement onto Tram Way, and commented on the placement of boulders. 16 ATTACHMENT C 750 Lofts, June 21, 2017 17 1 2 3 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 6 7 1 ADVOCATES FOR BETTER Case No: RIC1512884 8 COMh1UNITY DEVELOPMENT I 1PR+W01 'ED1 PEREMPTORY WRIT g Plaintiff/Petitioner, OF MANDATE i vs. 10 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a California 1 I municipal corporation; CITY COUNCIL 12 OF CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, and DOES 1-25, inclusive i 13 Defendants/Respondents 14 750 LOFTS, LLC, a California Limited 15 Liability Company,and ROES 26-50, 16 inclusive. 17 Real Parties in Interest. 18 TO RESPONDENT, City of Palm Springs and Palm Springs City Council: 19 20 Consistent with the Judgment entered in this case ordering that a Peremptory Writ of 21 Mandate issue from this Court, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT upon receipt of this Writ, the Palm Springs City 23 Council shalt set aside its approvals/resolutions adopted for the "750 Lofts" Project(Case 5.1350 24 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/33795 MAJ) until such time as the City of Palm Springs has adequately 25 addressed all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the City's Municipal 26 Code. 27 28 IPROPO.tif7))PLREMFI'(I WRITOFMANnnI'E - l - 18 I The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Peremptory Writ of Mandate and the 2 Judgment issued in this action. The Court shall retain jurisdiction by way of a Return to the 3 Peremptory Writ of Mandate until the Court has determined that the County has complied with this 4 Writ. The City of Palm Springs is hereby directed to file a Return to the Writ, no later than 90 days 5 from service of this Writ, explaining the action(s) taken to comply with the terms of the Writ. 6 r. . h 7 Clerk r 9 `"'nr Fncas 10 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE, 11 +_ 12 Date: j 13 14 15 Hon. Sharon J. Waters Judge of the Superior Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IP1?0J'lNF1)1 PI RI Mr (IRY MM (11-IdAN0A I 2_ 19 ATTACHMENT D 750 Lofts, June 21 , 2017 20 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Date: June 7, 2017 Subject: 750 Lofts Development— Case 5.1350 PDD 374 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on May 27, 2017. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ��'/Z Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board, and in the Office of the City Clerk on May 25, 2017. I declare under enalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on May 25, 2017, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (92 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2ef- /Z� Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk ,�l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 750 LOFTS DEVELOPMENT— CASE 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 7, 2017. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in Primrose B, Palm Springs Convention Center, 277 North Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider Case 5.1350 — PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ for the 750 Lofts development, including the adoption of Ordinance No. 1886 and Resolution No. 23899 for the purpose of addressing all parking issues, including the event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An initial study was conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted by the City Council on September 16, 2015 (Resolution #23898). This MND will be the controlling environmental assessment for this development proposal. As this action will only lessen the impact of the approved project and will not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed, no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments can be made to the City Council by email at City.Clerk(a)palmspringsca.gov or letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: Kathleen D. Hart, MMC, Interim City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b)[2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward Kotkin, City Attorney, at (760) 323-8205. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Felipe Primera telefono (760) 323-8253. \"az - Kathleen D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk as • pjj O � 2 . f9N� MISSION,RD_ T CAHUILLARD:: n rn PRESCO`IT DR � O N BELARDO RD BELARDO RD _ oI� LI PALM C ( -- �_ ANYON DR N PALM CANYON DR 0 O 17 _ INDIAN CANYON DR � T � Tv1 ~ 3 N CALLE ENCILIA C1l T\r y AVENIDA OLIVOS U) (n cn O-AVENIDAPALOS-VERDES < VIA CORTA AVENIDA PALMAS-- ts11 U) —�Vf --= '— -- CALLE EL SEGUNDO �MIRALESTE � � I W I I79 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Date: May 17, 2017 Subject: 750 Lofts Development AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathleen D. Hart, MMC, Interim City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on May 6, 2017. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kat teen D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Kathleen D. Hart, MMC, Interim City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board, and in the Office of the City Clerk on May 4, 2017. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. YA -�4'1 Kathleen D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathleen D. Hart, MMC, Interim City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on May 4, 2017, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (75 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. YAA-(3&-- Kathleen D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 750 LOFTS DEVELOPMENT CASE 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of May 17, 2017. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Primrose B Meeting Room at the Palm Springs Convention Center, 277 North Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider Case 5.1350 — PDD 374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ for the 750 Lofts development, including the adoption of Ordinance No. 1886 and Resolution No. 23899 for the purpose of addressing all parking issues, including the event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An initial study was conducted and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted by the City Council on September 16, 2015, (Resolution No. 23898). As this action will only lessen the impact of the approved project and will not result in any new environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed, no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments can be made to the City Council by email at City.ClerkCcDpalmspringsca.gov or letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: Kathleen D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Doug Holland, City Attorney, at (760) 323-8201. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Felipe Primera telefono (760) 323-8253. �L' , .r Kathlleen�D. Hart, MMC Interim City Clerk a5 ^� o 9 O � ; i " • s� a Ifl MISSIONRD W 7 m m i9 0. CAHUILLARD 0 _ n r l J D O r 70 m AA PRESCOTTDR. iU D N BELARDO RD r� A BELARDO RD O 3 O PALM CANYON DR 0 O CANYON PALM CANYON DR ys D -u rmmv ,,n^ m � V J T1 -0 M DAVENIDAOLIVOS (QZn z CALLE ENCILIA. 0 (D c D 0 AVENIDA PALOS VERDES CI) D VIA CORTA AVENIDAPALMAS m (/) CALLE EL SEGUNDO :......j --VIAMIRALESTE g N Z • • PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE! PUBLIC RECORD oeSEE CITY CLERK FOR COPIES City of Palm VFL LLLSL7 Office of the City Clerk 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • PalmSprings, California 92262 Tel: 760.323.8204 • Fax:760322.8332 •TDD 760.864.9527 •www.palmspringsca.gov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting held on June 7, 2017, the City Council continued Public Hearing Item No. 2.C. to June 21, 2017: 750 LOFTS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 374, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION 3.3795, CASE 5.1350, LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE: ACTION: 1) Open the public hearing, and take no public testimony at this time. 2) Continue the public hearing to June 21, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. 3) Direct the City Clerk to post a notice of continuance. I, Kathleen D. Hart, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 2017, as required by established policies and procedures. A 4L� KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC Interim City Clerk Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 19-7 ® engineering traffic engineering•transportation planning group, me. acoustical engineering•parking studies air quality&greenhouse gas analysis LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: KITTRIDGE HOTELS DATE: July 31, 2015 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500 JOB NO.: 2441-2014-01 Pasadena, CA 91101 SUBJECT: Proposed 750 Lofts Project (Updated 07/30/20)5) ATTN: Mr.Andy Carpiac Parking Analysis,City of Palm Springs WE ARE FORWARDING_ By Messenger x By E-Mail By Blueprinter By Fedex NUMBER OF COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 PDF copy for your use SENT FOR YOUR STATUS PLEASE NOTE Approval Preliminary X Revisions Signature X Revised Additions x Use Approved Omissions File Released Corrections REMARKS: Attached is a PDF copy of the Proposed 750 Lofts Project Parking Analysis (Updated 07/24/2015). City of Palm Springs. Please call me at (949)474-0809 extension 214 if you have any questions. BY: I , Associate Principal COPIES TO: -t'J4Q'N 1,il3YI•y„i ICe. $,bl P. %y. i:rkrables/RKf070878.x1s nesoport beach c.alr')rnic gab .o 1N2441-2074-07 i49.cJd.0809 bl S•4u 47-1. K2 vv".rkengineer.com 33 PROPOSED 750 LOFTS PROJECT PARKING ANALYSIS (UPDATED 07/31 /2015) City of Palm Springs, California 31M IAGRM, \ 1 6 S . i cta cia O°o CPO c c V i 4 9 I ' _------ — I . r--t— I I S � I — j 4 -j k F---------------- engineering group, inc. 4 am enoineering traffic engineering•transportation pianning group, inc. acoustical engineering .parking studies air quality&greenhouse gas analysts July 31, 2015 Mr. Andy Carpiac KITTRIDGE HOTELS 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91 101 Subject: Proposed 750 Lofts Project — Parking Analysis (Updated 07/30/2015), City of Palm Springs Dear Mr. Carpiac RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this updated Parking Analysis for the proposed 750 Lofts Project. The proposed site is located to the north of Granvia Valmonte, and is bound by North Palm Canyon Drive on the west and North Indian Canyon Drive on the east, in the City of Palm Springs, as shown in Exhibit A. The mixed-use project will consist of construction of a proposed hotel including the following components: • 39-room hotel; 20-seat roof-top area; 113 seat quality restaurant (approximately 4,722 square feet); and • 39-seat lounge area. The proposed project is planned to provide 74 designated off-street parking spaces and will provide valet parking services. The valet service is planned to operate for majority of the day and will enable double parking of vehicles resulting in added parking capacity. The valet service is expected to add a minimum of approximately 34 parking spaces beyond the 74 designated parking spaces. Therefore, the project is planned to provide a minimum of 108 parking spaces when accounting for the valet services. It should be noted that an agreement was previously in place between the project site and a hotel on the same street, the Colony Palms Hotel, that allowed for overflow parking rights for the Colony Palms Hotel on the project site. That agreement expired in early 2014 and has been terminated per the original terms of the agreement, as recorded on title. An aerial image of the site plan is shown in Exhibit B. -__.1.41 ,0,3 C, Z 4 ` ,5)J www.rkengineer.corn ' 5 Mr. Andy Carpiac KITTRIDGE HOTELS July 31, 2015 Page 2 The multi-use nature of the proposed project provides an opportunity for shared parking within the overall project site. The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code permits a shared parking analysis for multi-use development. The location of the project site and its proximity to the downtown area create opportunities for users and visitors to access the project site by other modes of transportation such as walking, or use of public transportation such as trolley or taxi. Additionally, it is likely some hotel guests will utilize taxi or shuttles to and from the airport_ The City of Palm Springs Municipal Code parking requirements in conjunction with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking methodologies has been utilized to evaluate the adequacy of the parking for the overall project site. Both weekday and weekend parking demands have been evaluated, based on the hourly variations in parking demand. Based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and the proposed land uses, the project would require 96 parking spaces without assuming mode and internal adjustments or a shared parking condition. Based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and a 50% reduction for mode and internal adjustments, the project would require 68 parking spaces without assuming a shared parking condition. Utilizing the shared parking concept as applicable to the proposed project, the shared peak parking demand far the project has been estimated to be 60 parking spaces during peak weekday conditions and 62 parking spaces during peak weekend conditions. If you have any questions regarding this study, or need further review, please do not hesitate to call our office at (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Alex Tabrizi, P.E., T.E. Tiffa Giordan .I.T. Associate Principal Engineer II QROFESSIO,y ?ACE d1DALlr Fy �r Attachments C 78923 , s YF1231 17 r' EXP s 51 16 # EXP. 3r R � OfCAUF TG:df/RK 10708.doc A�OFCpG1F 56 1N'2441 2014 01 PROPOSED 750 LOFTS PROJECT PARKING ANALYSIS (UPDATED 07/31/2015) City of Palm Springs, California Prepared for: KITTRIDGE HOTELS 234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91 101 Prepared by: RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 4000 Westerly Place, Suite 280 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mohammad "Alex" Tabrizi, P.E., T.E. Tiffany Giordano, E.I.T. 91koFESS/0 19 ESSS, _ G 76923�.r 7R 2722 EXF, EXP. 31 !� * tk * t OFCALIF OFCAIoF July 31, 2015 TG:dt1RK 10708-dcc 37 IN:2441-2074-01 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Project Description ................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Parking Analysis..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 City of Palm Springs Parking Requirements 2-1 2.2 Shared Parking Parameters 2-2 2.3 Shared Parking Results 2-4 3.0 Conclusions............................................................................................ 3-1 TG:dt1RK 10708.doc 38 JN:2441-2014-01 List of Attachments Exhibits LocationMap .......................................................................................................... A SitePlan ................................................................................................................ .. B Tables City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Required Parking ............................................. 1 ULI Hourly Weekday Shared Parking Analysis................................... . .... ..... .._... . ... 2 ULI Hourly Weekend Shared Parking Analysis ........................................................ ... 3 ULI Hourly Shared Parking Analysis: Summary ....................................................... ... 4 Appendices City of Palm Springs Parking Requirements................................................................ A Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Methodology...................................... B Shared Parking Termination ...................................................................................... C TG:dt1RK10708.doc LN:2441-2014-01 1 .0 Project Description RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this parking analysis for the proposed 750 Lofts Project located in the City of Palm Springs. The project site is located to the north of Granvia Valmonte, and is bound by North Palm Canyon Drive on the west, and North Indian Canyon Drive on the east, as shown on Exhibit A. The proposed development will replace the existing buildings on-site. The site plan is shown in Exhibit B. The proposed mixed-use project will include the following: • 39-room hotel, • 20-seat roof-top area; • 113 seat quality restaurant (approximately 4,722 square feet); and • 39-seat lounge area. The proposed project is planned to provide 74 designated off-street parking spaces and will provide valet parking services. The valet service is planned to operate for majority of the day and will enable double parking of vehicles resulting in added parking capacity. The valet service is expected to add a minimum of approximately 34 parking spaces beyond the 74 designated parking spaces. Therefore, the project is planned to provide a minimum of 108 parking spaces when accounting for the valet services. It should be noted that an agreement was previously in place between the project site and a hotel on the same street, the Colony Palms Hotel, that allowed for overflow parking rights for the Colony Palms Hotel on the project site. That agreement expired in early 2014 and has been terminated per the original terms of the agreement, as recorded on title. The termination records are provided in Appendix C. 1-1 40 The proposed project will be served by two (2) driveways, one (1) existing full access driveway on North Palm Canyon Drive, and one new (1) right-in/right-out only driveway on North Indian Canyon Drive. The proposed project site is currently zoned as a Planned Development (PD) district by the current City of Palm Springs Zoning Map. This analysis determines the parking requirements for the proposed project land uses based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code. The analysis also evaluates the shared parking demand for the proposed multi-use site utilizing the Urban Land Institute (ULO shared parking concepts and methodology and applicable rates of hourly parking demand and utilization for each use. Based on the City Municipal Code without any shared parking assumptions or reductions for mode and internal adjustments, the proposed project requires 96 parking spaces. Therefore, the site is forecast to supply an excess of 12 parking spaces based on the required number of parking spaces for the City of Palm Springs. Without assuming a shared parking condition for the proposed uses, using the City Municipal Code and assuming a total of 50% parking demand adjustment associated with noncaptive and modal reduction, the total combination of the proposed uses (hotel, lounge, roof-top area, and restaurant) for the proposed project would require a total of 68 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, based on the City Municipal Code and the mode and internal adjustments, without any shared parking, the site is forecast to supply an excess of 40 parking spaces. When accounting for the shared parking conditions, the proposed project is forecast to have a maximum parking demand of 62 parking spaces occurring at 8:OOPM and 11 :OOPM during the weekend conditions. Hence, assuming shared parking conditions, the proposed project is forecasted to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces. 1-2 41, Based upon the shared parking analysis, an adequate number of parking spaces is forecast to be provided to accommodate the proposed land uses during any time of weekday or weekend. 1-3 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 43 1-4 2.0 Parking Analysis 2.1 City of Palm Springs Parking Requirements As shown in Table 1, without assuming adjustments for mode and internal capture nor any shared parking opportunity between the uses, the total combination of the proposed uses (hotel, lounge, roof-top area, and restaurant) for the proposed project would require a total of 96 off-street parking spaces based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code. The applicable City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Parking Requirements are included in Appendix A. The project is planned to provide 108 off-street parking spaces when accounting for the valet services. Therefore, based on the City Municipal Code, the site is forecast to supply an excess of 12 parking spaces. 2.2 Mode and Internal Adjustment The location of the project site and its proximity to the downtown area create opportunities for users and visitors to access the project site by other modes of transportation such as walking, or use of public transportation such as trolley or taxi. ULI recommends a 30% noncaptive reduction and a 60% mode adjustment for restaurants that are near resort hotels (Appendix B). This analysis assumes a total of fifty (50) percent adjustment in parking demand associated with the restaurant, lounge and roof-top area land uses to account for noncaptive and modal reductions. This estimate is conservative based on the ULI recommendations and the downtown area features. Additionally, it is very likely some hotel guests will utilize taxi or shuttles to and from the airport. 2-1 44 Table 2 provides the required number of parking spaces as a result of the City Municipal Code and the 50% reduction for mode and internal adjustments. As can be seen from the table, the combination requires 68 parking spaces. Therefore, the project will supply an excess of 40 parking spaces. 2.3 Shared Parking Parameters The multi-use nature of the proposed project provides an opportunity for shared parking within the overall project site. Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking between two or more uses is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour of day; and • Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip. The key goal of shared parking analysis is to find the balance between providing adequate parking to support a development from a commercial viewpoint while minimizing the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources devoted to parking. Multi-use developments that share parking result in greater density, better pedestrian connectivity, and, in turn, reduced reliance on driving, typically because multiple destinations can be accessed by walking. RK has used procedures developed by the Urban Land Institute (UU) from their 2005 publication, Shared Parking, Second Edition. This document contains the latest procedures and data with respect to parking demand and shared parking. This shared analysis utilizes the parking demand rates from the City of Palm Springs Parking Requirements for each of the proposed project's land uses. d5 2-2 The ULI shared parking analysis evaluates the types of land uses, parking rates, monthly variations of parking demand by land use, differences between weekday and weekend parking demand, the hourly distribution of peak parking demand for each type of land use, and captive versus non-captive parking demand within the project site. This analysis is based on a selection of ULI procedures to evaluate peak parking demand that will occur at the proposed 750 Lofts Project. The ULI parameters were used in conjunction with the City of Palm Springs parking rates and 50% reductions for mode and internal adjustments to analyze shared parking demand at the project site. The analysis is based on the following inputs and calculations for each land use: 1 . ULI peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. The ULI Shared Parking model proportions the parking rates between visitors and employees for weekday and weekend conditions, each with their own parking demand characteristics. While the ULI parking rates were modified to reflect the City of Palm Springs' Municipal Code, the split between employees and visitors identified in the ULI analysis was used. 2. ULI hourly variations of parking demand. Throughout the day, a different percentage of employees and visitors are expected. 3. ULI weekday versus weekend adjustment factor. Weekdays and weekends attract a different percentage of visitors and employees based on the land use. 4. Captive trip reductions. As with most multi use developments, the proposed project is expected to have a small percentage of captive trips between users within the development, which further reduces the parking demand. The parking demand is reduced due the fact that multiple land uses are visited while parking only once. s6 2-3 5. Modal adjustment reductions. It is expected that some visitors may use different modes of transportation, and it is typical to take a modal adjustment for this type of development. Jhe modal adjustment takes into account modes such as walking, biking, and other non-auto modes of transportation to and from the site for employees. As previously noted the location of the project site and its proximity to the downtown area create opportunities for users and visitors to access the project site by other modes of transportation such as walking, or use of public transportation such as trolley or taxi. ULI recommends a 30% noncaptive reduction and a 60% mode adjustment for restaurants that are near resort hotels (Appendix B). This analysis assumes a total of fifty (50) percent adjustment in parking demand associated with the restaurant and roof-top area land uses to account for noncaptive and modal reductions. This estimate is conservative based on the ULI recommendations and the downtown area features. It is very likely some hotel guests will utilize taxi or shuttles to and from the airport_ However, this analysis is considered conservative since it does not account for any modal or captive adjustments associated with the hotel use. The analysis also does not account for the following ULI procedure which could potentially further reduce parking demand associated with the proposed project: 1. ULl monthly adjustment factors. Throughout the year, differing land uses peak during different months. For example, retail land uses are typically expected to peak during the end of the year in late December. The parking demand is reduced during the months that the land use is not expected to peak. For this project, it is assumed that the land uses will be peaking throughout the year to be conservative. r'r 2-4 2.4 Shared Parking Results Table 3 and 4 provide the hourly shared parking demand for the weekday and weekend, respectively, based on the number of required parking spaces determined by the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, 500% reductions, and the ULI-based hourly parking demand. The tables also calculate the split of demand between visitor and employees based on the ULI methodology and the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code parking rates with 50% reductions. Table 5 provides a detailed summary of the percent of parking spaces expected to be occupied throughout a typical weekday and weekend assuming shared parking conditions. As shown in Table 5. • During a typical weekday, the expected peak will occur at 9:00 PM with 60 parking spaces occupied, or 55.6% of the total supplied parking. During a typical weekend, the expected peak will occur at 8:00 PM and 11.00 PM with 62 parking spaces occupied, or 57.4% of the total supplied parking. It should be noted that the project will provide valet services. When valet services are utilized, vehicles can be double-stacked, allowing additional parking spaces. A valet parking plan should be developed for the project site and approved by the City and the Fire Department. It should be noted that the proposed project, assuming shared parking conditions, is forecasted to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces. The proposed 750 Lofts Project would provide a total of 108 off-street parking spaces. Based upon the shared parking analysis, adequate number of parking spaces are forecasted to be provided to accommodate the proposed land uses during any time of weekday or weekend. 4R 2-5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 19 2-6 3.0 Conclusions The following conclusions have been reached with respect to the proposed 750 Lofts Project: 1 . The project would consist of hotel, lounge, roof-top area, and restaurant uses, which are compatible from a shared parking standpoint. Peak parking demand will not occur simultaneously from all of the various uses. 2. Based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and the proposed land uses, the project would require 96 parking spaces without assuming mode and internal adjustments or a shared parking condition. 3. Based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and a 50% reduction for mode and internal adjustments, the project would require 68 parking spaces without assuming a shared parking condition. 4. Utilizing the shared parking concept as applicable to the proposed project, the shared peak parking demand for the project has been estimated to be 60 parking spaces during peak weekday conditions and 62 parking spaces during peak weekend conditions. 5. The proposed project is planned to provide 108 off-street parking spaces with the valet service in use. The valet service will allow double-stacking of vehicles, increasing the parking supply. 6. Based on the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code and the ULI shared parking methodology, the forecast shared parking demand for the proposed project can be accommodated by the 108 off-street parking spaces planned to be provided by the proposed project. �QV 3-1 7. The project should monitor its peak parking demand as needed to refine parking management operations at the site. C: 3-2 Exhibits � 2 V Exhibit A Location Map Tamarisk Roatl 4 SITE V.Ak. 6 Gramta Valnionte � u p O V Ll c ANp Road Legend: Oi =Study Area Incersect�on J —=Driveway to Ise Removed 1 =Proposed Prolxt Drrvev y N 2441-2014-01(ExA) engineering PROPOSED 750 LOM PRO)ECT-PARKING ANALYSIS.City of Palm Spmg%,Cahlwnia group, inc. V Exhibit B Site Plan °; cea cia ! � � Au"Itmal ;, t tlTA c°B . ( � $ tilt a 1 - 1 .: 1 I 1 Q I 4 t .- 1 - 1 1 C i O c -- fC r --- -J 4 ----j I C CL 1 1 1 1 I L1 _1 77. .E N engineering PROPOSED 750 LOFTS PROJECT-PARKING ANALYSIS,Oty of Pdm S"V.GaSfwTU group, inc. C ,7 V '� Tables 55 Table 1 Proposed 750 Lofts Project City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Required Parking Size Land Use No. of Spaces Required SIP(Gross) Rooms Seats Hotel NIA 39 N/A 39.0 Restaurant 2 4,722 N/A 113 37.7 Lounge3 WA N/A 39 13.0 Roof-Top Bari N/A N/A 20 6.7 Total Proposed Project 96.3 Required Parking Per Palm Springs Code° 96.0 Project Site Proposed Parking Spaces Provided 108.0 Parking in Excess Per Code 12 Parking Analysis is based on City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 93.06.00 SF = Square Feet In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code,there shall be provided one(1)garage,carport, or open parking space as an accessory for each of the first fifty(50) guest rooms in any establishment. Establishments with more than fifty(50) guest rooms shall provide 0.75 parking spaces as an accessory for each guest room in excess of fifty(50). In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, restaurants shall provide one(1)space for each thirty- five(35)square feet of gross floor area where the public is served, or one(1) space for every three(3) seats. 3 In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, cabarets, cocktail lounges, and discotheques as a separate use or within a restaurant shall provide(1)space for each thirty-five(35) square feet of gross floor area where the public is served, or one(1) space for every three(3) seats. 4 From the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code: When computation of the required number of parking spaces results in a fractional parking space, one(1) additional parking space shall be required for one-half(112) or more fractional parking space and any fractional space less than one-half(1/2) of a parking space shall not be counted- i:Yktables�RKr070878.xls p 1N:2441-2014-01 6 Table 2 Proposed 750 Lofts Project Required Parking with Mode and Internal Adjustments Size Land Use No. of Spaces Required SF(Gross) Rooms Seats Hotel N/A 39 N/A 39-0 Restaurant 3 4,722 N/A 113 37.7 Restaurant Mode&Internal Adjustment(50%)4 18.8 Subtotal Restaurant 18.8 Lounge' N/A N/A 1 39 13.0 Lounge Mode&Internal Adjustment(50%)4 6.S Subtotal Lounge 6.5 Roof-Top Oar' N/A N/A 20 6.7 Roof TopBar Mode& Internal Adjustment(50%)" 3.0 Subtotal Roof Top Bar 3.7 Total Proposed Project 68.0 Project Site Proposed Parking Spaces Provided 108.0 Parking in Excess with Adjustments 40 SF = Square Feet ' In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code,there shall be provided one(1)garage, carport, or open parking space as an accessory for each of the first fifty(50)guest rooms in any establishment. Establishments with more than fifty(50)guest rooms shall provide 0.75 parking spaces as an accessory for each guest room in excess of fifty(50). z In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code,restaurants shall provide one(1) space for each thirty- five(35)square feet of gross floor area where the public is served, or one(1)space for every three(3)seats. I In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, cabarets,cocktail lounges, and discotheques as a separate use or within a restaurant shall provide (1)space for each thirty-five(35)square feet of gross floor area where the public is served, or one(1)space for every three(3)seats. " Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed development, it is expected that approximately 50%of the visitors to the proposed project will be either internally captured from the hotel(25%), and therefore will not be needing an additional parking space, or will be using other modes of transportation (25%),such as walking or biking,and will not be needing a parking space. A total reduction of 50%is used conservatively, and it can be expected to be higher. The 50%reduction is not included nor addressed in the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, rVktableARK t 0708T8.As IN:2441-7014-01 r 7 V T.bl.3 N000red 750 Loft Project URI Noudy W.eNtley Aeretl Putlng M.fy311 Or,or "'.0. Y.FrW ete weekde, •rl/9rd lYtlr9 Man.).6r IlquiM lMinpwMr IVY1MSce Vob U" Nee..ne 9rnrn.l Ur'r wiM Wt gppl i9UY1 WUMI I¢roMl I1:OYMI 1YWM 1.Y4M ]WM SWM l:ppM LMM S1oM ):40M 4mM iSM f0A]M IIKM i 4ejreemnn 9W I rnJYvrvn 9'n 9`rfi NN 1lR W% 61X !Y. INr /v; qa N eM <59r Y Y.X nR 'W\ r. Ma YYIIn9UrrwrC l9> }9.0 !!S }IA liA IIB IiF )1.1 /r5 !}• ]59 Si. i9U )OS tiA ] i9F M1rnl ulilv.4m SV Slry, ]Uy. iUr. I:L'k 144% la IWO, IYf.X IIx.W 94% )M t!A ]rK YYM iM1. h% 111% rygar 9.. Iw\iyyruna u.n )n !S ]./ U.S e.S i) tl9 LLS YS !S e.n IA 1.1 Il 1] Il n. InrJ VNir.9lx.rwv }9a lltlipJ 19Y rr] I 19.9 rye SU )Y.l Y4MrYrl.xm Y\ UM Ya IYA .0% /S9\ 15X X a:n. SN. K% IerM N% Ir:% 95R !]% YNr 9Urerd Vq 9U r1.Y UL .A 4.5 11➢ 11.4 1 e.1 .11 I•.".` 119 Mwrn• IeA Yvnwrr Jriulwn J0. ]U% Srl% 15% 9p.: YU[ Y'% rA.'Y. M f%. Sf% I IW1 INX IWIS IrXx 'Mh xi ' Irt�XY IY 3i 3.9 1.9 i9 21 lYy ICb IVW YYYpINrM\0 YU U.O IlS Ie.1 1)9 p6 '6. IXP .. 4nmr J19rww.. w Iw .IR u% Irn (m\ na }.a bsX 9T 5m\ ]x ys% Ir. I a. ea ]... w �') MYIwrO YO LLr. uv �.s ..( (I ll ) 1! !Y S S.S •S t] YI IY.rV. e.s rrlrm.rr, U% )M\ SM:. }4u 4A 90h 9ux rn 11 In "I Irl. Lro# R'91 rolaN. rrl'nS9w I)I - Y.r1i.Ylkrvr0 4U Y.S Y• ...9 U.9 9.9 U9 09 01 4B 4Y [ 0 I 1Y I,0 In Y.9 IrAi 4.4 tYW i.airiy fNnw•Y Uq Y.I 4S I.1 S.0 5. W lA It 6J 65 6.5 45 .4 Sf. Mrm\UrYuuun Uf. Ip rry .a ItC 6rt 159. ]Sa YA 4A 9% )s% it% 10% 16T iiX /W M✓glMrrd M1O W 4y' YO PS I.! l.9 U 1.1 'A :.) !Y i' r. Y 3.1 mnrp 1.S hr.mr Yrlun0.rr rl% tW lli nv, qSe an kR 9J 1. 11 IS% lu IU IUJX IU:rX 1. MT SX ter' rry.lrw Jx Wr1.q Vmrd Yp U 0.1 _.) i.5 U.S Uf YS Y.S 0.S SS ..9 4ti uM1 OM1 or •n rlt rl 1..41.ny(A.ru'4 r) (M },S 11 L/ if ll 1.5 11 W�Jr,b�.451rd hMlOerrY }p ]l 93 M 39 u 51 51 N O Q A 5] Si 59 M14 59 59 .wirwp P.M1irpfywb•(YwMq.icpl lrrWq C.pa)/N IOB SpuI ]9 ]5 ]9 i] aU ReSl 5} 59 a if A 51 51 N Y so 59 CM T}ble4 P,"-,d 7"L..'PIP Ull M.1,Wiehend Shied P.&.,Arulylis 4ry a1 PIP 1PM1p} .4..ft I.m u.a IwNlXd vwllMwhn 11u1 wIrM UX w.k.AlWNvw Y.ay..m.lwutlan MCYw Mwrul 'NY.544ud }y}N )pp%N }yplN yCbyl IOm.W IIApyA 13m N1 1:IOIM ]%OM 36 M. MbIN fm1Y MWM 19]A1 Y�IX M1Y 19bIM 11191Y ' NiwlrrlYY� fl 'I Ywual rrr4Nb.+r Yax 95x 394 LqY. ,J0. )[,1 63T rl'% /T M M5 vhl Y.A R'R YIM1 9N. }i% 9 � ,fiver ]]1 rY4y flmnd 31a 31.9 Evl t9, if.! i).E $i3 215 tl.] I)i XA 'IAS 28.1 YRI )GR 11! ll< il.l x 'nP vw>..r lrlrw.YM tx py IIYw Irlp. Ia% Ircn loon Saw. x e>1. :stb tar m 11}. '. Pykv90erv^J 9i IA it 41 .Y 5Y 59 5• S• 59 \t etl 1.5 1.! lJ l.] >.) ).) laul I1a IrvY P{IeM ai'n>M 31.) 31.1 31A 191 21, 11, !).i A.1 N.I 31e 31f 13a At. XI no Pwr,nr 11.{ n Ul al VY pn Pt IA YP.L f5% {Y} Y,X 1S4 tlF. yN. Rx Ir:aY. ps 'A% 9oi Nucr 194 '.. PIP .1. IPA 21 R,a MA I II I it 111 Is> fiu 1 .,v I{b t^N9�� {tl IF,em NtlNum IK Xk 'rW s3% ]Ha A% >Si 1 ]SY R% /'N IMY ICO4 IpbA Ip>n I]9X Iw% tlY% to >.k ltl SA to IdY Ins +arkwq aamw.b oA Cb a6 q: "I "I IbJ ItlA 11J 1/.t ''i Wlnnr ViL>Yfm Pi,P L^.. Jn p% MY '.S% iR ilA Nx 4q4 SiM1 w4 Ma Wia ry% "A' qpy pry, •...nY Drr,m a9 0> ao Vu 9V 1. 2, ae14 L, In.n9. 4.4 pnYnranl>aean OG >4R 19\ Nn Ise "I Air tN IS% Iry nc 'NR 'Pw4 P. :ph :aa4 1. .1 w r,Yx911rIY✓+1 9Y 4t al ab a• 9Y Vtl ab v6 r..b a.Y iV IU IL IY I IG !aW 64 N.J Ynrng anw] O.Y P.l VA I.i ll {.3 oA Ye 1.R i4 'A 11 1.1 rvr.m.Vti4{�m N4 Yr Ile IM rM .11 N; 9P a.a 11 >A !! f./ Gn rwr11141H1m YA Nk YL M% A% 14Y /5M la III, Ab I:n 1. Ibwb IWX iw,, 19. i.P, b55 N.µr nY ,.b Pyurf lLmM L.0 u. JPi u_ n: l., ,.a x, ub ut A I. m A. J.. ob r„ 'arYYwbY Pwv�J u,lP,I93 >.I 1,9 1A ]I, )A 113.> 3A 3,{ 3J IPAPP 19PIP,I yOwyd 33 34 a M H % N Y N N 6 aA fl •A i N fl R RenlHylbNlg Opithl UtuMp Yiey PnlMP UpMyylP}IPaN ry ]} )1 ]3 3 )1 i5 N N N a7 9 fl N M N l} Y V• ,M'EHl.rou 91 nrd Table 5 Proposed 750 Lofts Project ULI Hourly Shared Parking Analysis: Summary Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekend Forecast Remaining Percent forecast Remaining Percent TIME Parking Parking Occupied TIME Parking Parking Occupied Demand Supply Demand Supply 6!00 AM 29 79 26.9% 6:00 AM 32 76 29.6% 7:00 AM 33 75 30.6% 7:00 AM 34 74 31.5% 8:00 AM 38 70 35.2% 8:00 AM 36 72 33.3% 9:00 AM 36 72 33.3% 9:00 AM 35 73 32.4% 10:00 AM 38 70 35.2% 10:00 AM 33 75 30.6% 11:00 AM 44 64 40.7% 11:00 AM 36 72 33.3% 12:00 PM 51 S7 47.2% 12:00 PM 43 65 39.9% 1:00 PM 51 57 47.2% 1:00 PM 44 64 40.7% 2:00 PM 50 58 46.3% 2:00 PM 44 64 40.7% 3:00 PM 43 65 39.8% 3:00 PM 44 64 40.7% 4:00 PM 47 61 43.5% 4:00 PM 45 63 41.7% 5:00 PM 53 55 49.1% 5:00 PM 50 58 46.3% 6:00 PM 57 51 52.8% 6:00 PM 58 50 53.7% 7:00 PM _ 57 51 52.8% 7:00 PM 59 49 54.6% 8:00 PM 58 50 53.7% 8:00 PM fit 46 57.4% 9:00 PM 60 48 55.6% 9:00 PM 61 47 56.5% 10:00 PM 58 50 53.7% 10:00 PM 61 47 56.5% 11:00 PM 54 54 50.0% 11:00 PM 62 46 57.4% iArktab1esVtK10708TB.x1s IN:2441-2014-01 60 Appendices 61 Appendix A City of Palm Springs Parking Requirements �2 10f1612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) Palm Springs Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No frames ZONING CODE Chanter 93 00 CFNERAL CONDfTIONS 93.06.00 Off-street parking. A. Intent and Purpose. t. These regulations are intended to create properly designed and integrated off-street parking areas, with adequate capacity, circulation and landscaping organized aesthetically to positively relate to the use or building being serviced. 2. "Off-street parking" means an area together with the required number of parking spaces and improvements thereon, as required by this section, for vehicle parking and maneuvering necessary to serve particular land uses, irrespective of the zones in which they occur. & General Provisions. 1. Applicability. These standards shall apply: a. Upon construction of any main building; b. Upon establishment of any off-street parking; c. Upon alteration or enlargement of an existing building (including the addition of dwelling units or guest rooms or where the use is intensified by the addition of floor space or seating capacity). 2. a. Provision of Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking required in connection with any existing building or use shall be provided so long as such building or use remains. Any off-street parking which is permitted but not required by this Zoning Code shall comply with all regulations herein. b. Nothing shall prohibit the employee of a particular use or building, for which off-street parking is being provided, from using such off-street parking. 3. Nonconforming Parking. a. Buildings or uses which have insufficient off-street parking per the requirements of this Zoning Code, shall not be expanded unless sufficient additional parking spaces can be provided in accordance with the standards of this Zoning Code. Existing parking shall be counted as meeting this requirement only if it is laid out in compliance with the standards at the time of its establishment. b. In the case where parking requirements far particular uses become equal to or more restrictive, those uses established prior to the change in parking requirements may be continued without providing additional parking, as long as there is no interruption of such use for a period greater than one hundred eighty(180)days. C. If such use is interrupted for a greater period,and the parking is nonconforming for such use, the planning commission may require reoccupation by a use which meets the intent of the current parking requirements or may grant continued nonconforming status according to Section 94.05.06. d. Where a use which is nonconforming according to the current parking standards is replaced by another type of use, such new use shall meet the intent of the current parking requirements. e. Exception. Class l historic structures shall be exempt from the requirement to provide additional parking or pay in-lieu fees http:ii�.gcode.uslcedesrpalmspdngs+ 63 1117 10116/2014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) for any new use allowed by the Zoning Code for the zone in which the Class 1 historic structure is located. 4. Computation of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces. When computation of the required number of parking spaces results in a fractional parking space, one (1) additional parking space shall be required for one-half(%:)or more fractional parking space and any fractional space less than one-half(VS)of a parking space shall not be counted. 5. Location. a. Single- or Multiple-family Dwellings and Hotels. Parking facilities shall be located on the same lot or building site as the buildings they are required to serve- b. Hospitals, Rest or Convalescent Homes, Boarding or Rooming Houses and Fraternity and Sorority Houses. Parking facilities shall be located not more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the building they are required to serve. i. Exception. When approved by the planning commission, hospitals may provide parking facilities more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the building they are required to serve. provided that, an automatic parking gate or similar method of control approved by the commission shall be installed to insure that the parking lot will not be used by other developments in the area. c. Other Uses. Parking facilities shall be located not more than three hundred(300) feet from the building or use they are required to serve, except as follows: i. Note. Distances specified in subsections (B)(5)(a), (B)(5)(b) and(13)(5)(c) of this section shall be measured from the nearest point of the parking facility to the nearest point of the building or use served by such parking. 6. Mixed Uses or Occupancies. In the case of mixed uses or occupancies, the total number of required off-street parking spaces shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Off-street parking facilities provided for one use shall not be considered as providing the required parking facilities for any other use, unless a joint use of parking facilities has been approved by the planning commission as specified in this section. 7. Joint Use of Off-Street Parking Facilities. In the case of uses which operate at hours not coincident with adjacent uses, parking credit may be given for the use of those adjacent parking spaces under the following conditions: a. Sufficient evidence shall be presented to the director of planning and building demonstrating that no substantial conflict in the principal hours or periods of peak demand of the structures or uses for which the joint use is proposed will exist: b. The credited space may not exceed the distance authorized in this section from the subject use,- C. The spaces most be attributed to the user by a covenant running with the land from the owner designating the spaces and their hours of use to the subject use; or d. A lease agreement from the owner to the subject user specifying the spaces and their hours of use with a requirement to notify the city if the lease is broken. 8. a. In-Lieu Payments. In the C-B-D zone, in-lieu of furnishing the parking spaces required by the provisions of this section, the parking http:IN. .gcode.us/codes/paimsprings/ 64 2117 1011B12014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs.California) requirement or any portion thereof may be satisfied by the payment of such amount as may be prescribed by resolution of the city council, into the parking fund of the city prior to the issuance of a building permit. In-lieu parking may be used to satisfy requirements in other zones only if a parking district has been established to include the subject property. b. Funds placed in the parking fund of the city, pursuant to the provisions of this section. shall be used and expended exclusively for the purpose of acquiring and developing off-street parking facilities, limited insofar as practicable to the general vicinity of the premises for which the in-lieu payments were made. 9. Uses Not Specified. Where the parking requirement for a use is not specifically defined herein, the parking requirement for such use shall be determined by the planning commission in the manner set forth in Section 94.01.00; and such determination shall be based upon the requirement for the most comparable use specified herein. 10. Administrative Relief. The director of planning and building may grant a reduction of width of required parking spaces by not more than six(6) inches and modification of other design standards subject to the finding that special circumstances would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Administrative relief from the number of parking spaces required by this section may be granted by the director of planning and building in the manner set forth in Section 94.06.01 (Minor modification). 11. Specific Parking Plan. Economies in parking may be achieved by large or mixed use developments. The director of planning and building may approve a specific parking plan for these kinds of development under a land use permit. C. Parking Design Standards. I. Plot Layout Plan. The layout plan of any proposed parking shall be completely dimensioned and shall include all of the informational requirements as set forth in the appropriate application forms. In addition, the site plan shall indicate the following: a. School plot plans shall indicate: number of employees (including teachers and professional staff); number of students at ultimate enrollment; and square footage of assembly areas or number of seats; b. Plot plans for places of public assembly shall indicate, the number of seats in assembly area; or if no fixed seating, the total gross floor area ofthe assembly areas; C. Multiple-residential plot plans are to indicate the number of bedrooms in each unit as well as total number of units; d. Hospital plot plans shall indicate the number of beds and total gross floor area; C. Automotive repair shop plans are to indicate the number of service bays and number of hydraulic lifts; f. Restaurants, discotheques and cabarets are to indicate the square footage of area where the public is served and/or the amount of proposed seating. 2. Improvement of Parking Areas. All parking areas shall be improved per city specifications as follows: a_ Graded for Adequate Drainage. All drainage flows shall be carried by concrete gutters or swales. 65 http:tMw .gcode.uslmdes/paimspfings/ 3/17 1011612014 Palm Springs Municipal Cade(Palm Springs,California) In. The minimum pavement section shall be a minimum of two and one-half(2-1/2) inch asphalt concrete pavement over native soil,or equal. The pavement section shall be designed using "R' values, determined by a licensed soils engineer and submitted with the fine grading plan to the city engineer for approval. C. Parking stalls clearly delineated with a four (4) to six (6) inch stripe; "hairpin" or elongated"U" design; or other approved striping or stall delineation, except for single-family dwellings. d. Continuous six(6) inch concrete curbs installed to serve as wheel stops for cars, edging for planting areas, and protection for walls at entrances and exits, located no closer than five (5) feet from any building, hedge or fence, except for parking garages where a two (2) foot minimum protection space is required from the nose of the space to the face of the wall. 3. Landscape Treatment. Landscaping shall be incorporated into the design of all off-street parking areas, including covered, decked or underground parking (but which may require special landscape treatment),as follows: a. Parking Lot Shading. Trees,of suitable eventual size, spread and climatic conditioning, shall be placed throughout the parking area to provide adequate shade for pedestrians and vehicles. Shade trees shall be placed so as to shade the following amount of the total parking area: Percentage of Total Parking Area to Parking Spaces Required be Shaded 5-24 spaces 30%minimum 25-49 spaces 40%minimum 50+spaces 50%minimum i. 'free coverage shall be determined by the approximate crown diameter of each tree at fifteen (15) years of age. ii. A shade plan shall be submitted with detailed landscaping plans, which shows canopies after fifteen(15) years growth to confirm the above percentages.Tree locations should no( interfere with required lighting of public areas or parking areas. b. Landscaped Planters and Perimeter Treatment. Trees shall be placed in planters that must also include plant material such as groundcover or appropriate vines and screen shrubs. Boulders, gravel and the like, may be integrated with plant material into a well-conceived plan; berming or other aesthetic approaches integrating into the overall design are encouraged. i. Alternative. The planning commission may approve covered parking structures to be incorporated into the landscape shading for the purposes of providing equivalent shaded area. C. Labeling the Plant Material. A plant list shall be included giving the botanical and common names of the plants to be used. d. Irrigation System. An automatic irrigation system sufficient to sustain healthy planted areas shall be provided. Irrigation water shall be contained within property lines. 4. Lighting. ss http:huamv,gcode.uslcodes/palmsprings/ 4117 10/1612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) Parking lot lighting must be in accordance with Section 93.21.00, Outdoor lighting standards. 5. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle racks or bicycle parking facilities may be required in any,development submitted for architectural approval after the effective date of this Zoning Code. If required, the location and design of these facilities shall be shown on the site plan. 6. Tandem Parking. Automobile parking so arranged as to require the moving of any vehicle in order to enter or leave any other stall shall be prohibited in any zone unless specifically approved by the director of planning and building. 7. Traffic Circulation Within Off-street Parking Areas. Parking stalls, driveways, porte cocheres and landscape planters shall be arranged so that a free flow of vehicular traffic and adequate site clearances are permitted at all times. City standards and specifications relating to curve radii and similar maneuvering requirements shall apply. 8. On-site Turn-around. Automobile parking so arranged as to require the backing of motor vehicles onto a major or secondary highway shall be prohibited in any zone. 9. Pedestrian Walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided between the parking area and the building or use being served. t0. Handicapped Parking Spaces (for all projects other than single-family residential development). If parking spaces are provided for self-parking by employees or visitors,or both, then accessible spaces complying with this section and state and federal guidelines shall be provided according to the table below. These spaces need not be provided in the particular parking lot but may be provided in a different location, subject to Section 93.06.00(B) and approval by the director of planning and building. if equivalent or greater accessibility, cost and convenience is ensured. Number of Parking Handicap Spaces Spaces Provided Required 1-25 spaces 1 space 26-50 spaces 2 spaces 51-75 spaces 3 spaces 76-100 spaces 4 spaces 101-150 spaces 5 spaces 151-200 spaces 6 spaces 201-300 spaces 7 spaces 301-400 spaces 8 spaces 401-500 spaces 9 spaces 501-1000 spaces 2% of total 1001+ spaces 20, plus I for each 100 total spaces over 1000 Al facilities providing medical care and other services for person with mobility impairments, parking space shall be provided according to the table above except as follows: a. Outpatient Units and Facilities. E 7 Nip//w .gcode.uskodeslpalmspnngs/ 5l17 1011612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs.California) Ten(10) percent of the total number of parking spaces provided serving the unit or facility, b. Units and Facilities That Specialize in Treatment or Services for Person With Mobility Impairments. Twenty (20) percent of the total number of parking spaces provided serving the unit or facility. Individual spaces shall be nine(9) feet wide plus a five(5) foot walkway at the right side; two (2)spaces can share a common walkway. Ramp access shall be provided from the parking area to the interior walkway system. One (1) in every eight(8)accessible spaces, but not less than one(1), shall be served by an eight (8) foot walkway at the right side and shall be designated as"van accessible." 11. Controlled Access to Off-street Parking Areas. Proposed off-street parking areas designed to control public access shall require planning commission approval upon recommendation from the fire and police departments and traffic engineer. Ingress and egress design should include vehicle maneuvering and"stacking" space to avoid internal and external traffic conflict. 12. Off-street Parking Adjacent to Streets. Where parking areas front, side or rear on a street, there shall be a landscaped boarder of not less than ten (10) feet in depth, adjacent to the property line, and a decorative solid masonry wall and/or landscaped berm at least four(4) feet in height plus adequate landscaping shall be erected between the property line and the paved parking area, unless otherwise prescribed in this Zoning Code. Such wall or berming shall be reduced to thirty (30) inches in overall height within any corner cutoff area. (See Exhibit"B, ' found at the end of this section). 13. Off-street Parking Abutting Residential Zones. Where parking areas side or rear directly on a residential zone, a solid masonry wall six(6) feet in height shall be installed on the property line, such wall shall be reduced to a maximum four and one-half(4 1/2) feet in height within the front or side front area of the adjacent property, and a landscape border not less than five(5) feet in width shall be installed between the wall and the paved parking area. (See Exhibit"C," found at the end of this section)- [4. Off-street Parking Abutting Nonresidential Zones. Where parking directly abuts a nonresidential zone, there shall be a five(5) foot landscape border adjacent to the property line. (See Exhibit"D," found at the end of this section). 15. Parking Bays. Along local and collector streets in residential, commercial and industrial zones, parking may be provided in bays opening directly into the street, subject to the approval of the planning commission. The arrangement shall be developed in accordance with current city specifications and shall conform to the following standards(See Exhibit"E,"found at the end of this section). a. Parking shall be installed at an angle of ninety (90) degrees with the street. Fach stall shall be at least nine (9) feet wide and eighteen (18) feet deep, and entirely on private property. b. There shall be a landscaped area with a minimum width of nine(9) feet between each five(5) parking spaces in a parking bay. C. In the case of a corner lot, no bay shall be nearer than thirty(30) feet to the ultimate right-of- way lines of the intersecting local street. For intersecting streets other than local streets, no bay shall be nearer than one hundred (100) feet to the ultimate right-of-way of the intersecting major or secondary thoroughfare, and fifty(50) feet to the ultimate right-of-way line of the intersecting collector street. This dimension may be varied upon approval by the city traffic engineer cohere it can be determined there will not be a detrimental affect on public health, safety and welfare. d. No parking bay or driveway opening shall be installed closer than six (6) feet to any side or rear lot line. e. For residential and commercial zones, paving material shall be decorative paving, colored h11p:11w .gcode.us/codeslpalmsprings/ U 6117 10/162014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) and/or patterned to relate to the overall design. f. For industrial zones paving material shall be six(6) inch concrete or asphalt concrete with minimum two and one-half(2 1/2) inch thickness. g. A continuous six(6) inch concrete curb shall be installed to serve as a wheelstop, located no closer than five (5) feet from any building, wall or fence. Individual wheelstops shall be prohibited unless approved by the director of planning and building. 16. Underground, Decked and Covered Parking. The minimum dimensions for underground,decked or covered parking shall be as required for uncovered surface area parking as specified throughout this section, except additional minimum dimensions may be necessary for specific circulation conditions resulting from underground or decked parking. a. A level transition area between the street and a ramp serving underground or decked parking shall be provided for a distance which will provide adequate site distance at the street. b. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop landscaping as deemed appropriate by the planning commission. 17. Compact Car Parking. Up to forty(40) percent of the total parking provided may be compact spaces, subject to planning commission approval. The first twenty (20) spaces of any proposal shall be standard sized spaces. Compact parking space dimensions shall be eight (8) feet by fifteen (15) feet (ninety(90) degree parking). Spaces shall be properly marked for compact cars only. 18. Drive-Through Facilities. Such facilities shall conform to the following regulations. Exceptions to these regulations may be permitted by the planning commission when existing on-or off-site conditions warrant alternative design solutions. a. Safe on- and off-site traffic and pedestrian circulation shall be provided, including, but not limited to, traffic circulation which does not conflict with entering or exiting traffic to the site, parking or pedestrian movements. h. A stacking area shall be provided for each service window or machine and shall provide a minimum of seven (7) tandem standing spaces inclusive of the vehicle being serviced. The standing spaces shall not extend into the public right-of-way nor interfere with any internal circulation patterns. Vehicles at service windows or machines shall be provided with a shade structure. C. The drive-through facility shall be designed to integrate with existing or proposed structures, including roof lines,building materials, signage and landscaping. d. Amplification equipment, lighting and location ofdrive-through elements and service windows shall be screened from public rights-of--way and adjacent properties. D. Off-street Parking Requirements. The number of off-street parking spaces required shall be no less than the following for all zones within the city of Palm Springs unless otherwise noted in this Zoning Code: I. Automobile Rental Agencies. One (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area, plus one(I) storage parking space for each vehicle to be stored on the lot. (Number of storage spaces to be determined by the maximum number of vehicles to be stored at any one time.) 2. Automobile Service Stations. Pour(4) spaces plus four (4) spaces for each service bay. Exception: Stations with mini-marts shall provide parking at the rate of one (1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area within enclosed structures plus one (1) space for water/air dispensers, if provided. 69 http:IAm .gcode.us/codes/palmspringsl 7117 1011612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) Note: Submitted plans shall show the number of service bays and number of hydraulic lifts. 3. Banks, Savings and Loans, and Other Financial Institutions. One(1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (For drive-through, see Section 93,06.00(C)(I 8)). Off-street parking spaces provided in the drive-through parking area may be considered as part of the required parking provision, at the discretion of the planning commission. 4. Bowling Alleys. Five(5) spaces for each alley, plus two (2) for each billiard table, plus one(1) for each five(5)seats in any gallery. 5. Cabarets, Cocktail Lounges and Discotheques, as a Separate Use or Within a Restaurant. One (1) space for every thirty-five (35) square feet of gross floor area where the public is served,or one (1) space for every three (3) seats. 6. Car Wash. Four(4) spaces and stacking parking equal to five(5) times the capacity of the car wash; five (5) for every two (2) self-operated wash stalls. 7. C-B-D Zone (Central Business District) Parking Requirements. a. Uses within the central business district(C-B-D)zone shall provide one(1)space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area where parking is to be provided on site at the time of development. Where"in-lieu" payments are used to satisfy,parking requirements, then the parking requirement shall be at the ratio of one(l) space for each four hundred(400) square feet of gross floor area. b. Mixed-use developments, which exceed twenty thousand (20.000)square feet of gross floor area, shall provide one(1)space for each three hundred twenty-five(325)square feet of gross floor area.Additional parking need not be provided for restaurants, provided that, no more than twenty-five (25)percent of the total floor area of the whole complex is devoted to restaurant use. C. See Section 92.09.04(A) for requirements. 8. Convenience Markets, Supermarkets and Liquor Stores. One (1) space for every two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. 9. Neighborhood Shopping Center(C-D-N) zone and community shopping center(C-S-C)zone uses. One(I) space for each two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet of gross leasable floor area for all uses, including restaurants and theaters. 10. Furniture, Appliance Stores, Art Galleries and Interior Decorators. One (1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross Floor area, but not less than five (5) spaces; and one (1) space for every company vehicles. IL Game Courts. Three (3) spaces for every one (1) court. 12. Golf Courses(full size)and Driving Ranges. Six(6) spaces per hole plus the requirements for additional uses on the site; for driving ranges, one (1) space per tce, plus the requirements for additional uses on the site. Miniature golf, three(3) spaces per hole plus additional parking for ancillary commercial uses. 13. Gymnasiums and Health Studios. One (1) space for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area, plus one (I) for each employee. 14. Homes for the Aged, Sanitariums, Children's Homes, Asylums, Nursing and Convalescent Homes. See Section 94.02.00(H)(7).One (1) space for each two (2) beds or one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) http:/Av .gcode.us/codes/paimsprings? 70 8117 1011612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) square feet of gross floor area, whichever provided the greater number, plus one (I) for each three (3) employees. 15. Hospitals. Two (2)spaces for each bed, plus one (1) space for every vehicle owned and operated by the hospital. 16. Hotels and Clubs, a. There shall be provided one (1) garage, carport or open parking space as an accessory for each of the first fifty (50)guest rooms in any establishment- b. Establishments with more than fifty(50)guest rooms shall provide 0.75 garages/carports, or open parking space as an accessory for each guest room in excess of fifty(50). Resort hotels and resort hotel complexes shall comply with the following additional standards- C. One (1) parking space shall be provided for every sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area of dining room, bar and dancing areas, and places where the public is served. As an alternative where seating can be determined, one (1)parking space for every five (5) seats shall be provided.An additional twenty (20) percent of the above required parking spaces shall be provided for the use of the employees. d. Commercial accessory uses shall provide one (1) parking space for each employee. C. Parking for the single largest places of public assembly only, such as auditoriums, exhibition halls, theaters, convention facilities, meeting rooms, and other places of public assembly(excluding foyers, corridors, restrooms, kitchens, storage, and other area not used for assembly of people) shall be based on the following standards: i. Up to thirty (30)square feet of the single largest above ancillary facility may be provided per each guest room without providing additional parking. ii. The single large public assembly floor area in excess of thirty(30) square feet per guest room shall provide off-street parking at the ratio of one (1) space for each thirty (30)square feet or one (1) space for each six seats if the seats are fixed. 17. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses (including open industrial uses). One(1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area. 18. Mini-warehousing- Self-storage or Dead Storage. A minimum of six(6) spaces per complex;additional parking to be as required by the director of planning and building. Where a caretaker's residence is provided, a minimum of two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for the exclusive use of such residence in addition to those required for the miniwarehouse function. 19. Mixed-use Developments (with a gross floor area exceeding twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, including retail but excepting the C-B-D zone). One(1) space for each two hundred fifty(250) square feet of gross floor area. Additional parking need not be provided for restaurants; provided that, no more than twenty-five(25)percent of the total floor area of the whole complex is devoted to restaurant use_ a. The percentage of floor area devoted to restaurant uses without additional parking may be increased by the planning commission where it finds that the nature of the use will no, require increased parking,that other adequate arrangements exist to satisfy the parking demand or that other similar factors exist. 20. Mortuaries and Funeral Homes. One (1) space for each twenty (20) square feet of floor area of assembly rooms plus one (1) per employee, plus one (1) for each car owned by such establishments. 21. Motor Vehicle or Machinery Sales. 71 httpiMmw.gcode.uslcodeslpalmspringsl 9/17 1 011 612 01 4 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) One (1) space for each eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area to be clearly delineated as public parking. Plus any parking required for repairs as specified in Section 93.06.00(D)(2). 22. Motor Vehicle Repair Shops. Four(4) spaces for each service bay or lift or one(1)space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 23. Plant Nurseries, Building Materials, Yards and Outdoor Display Sales. One(1) space for every five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area and/or outdoor display area, plus one (1) space for every company vehicle. 24. Offices,Nonmedical. One (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area for facilities up to ten thousand(10,000) square feet in floor area. Nonmedical offices with a floor area which exceeds ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall provide parking at one(1) space per two hundred fifty(250) square feet of gross floor area in excess of ten thousand(10,000) square feet. 25, Offices, Medical and Dental. One (1) space for each one hundred fifty(150) square feet of gross floor area for facilities up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in floor area, Medical and dental offices with a floor area which exceeds ten thousand (10,000) square feet shall provide parking at one (l) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area in excess of ten thousand (10,000)square feet. 26. Private Park and Recreation Uses. One (1) space for every three persons based upon the approved capacity of the facility. 27. Public Park and Recreation Uses. One (I) space for each eight thousand (8,000) square feet of active recreational area within a park or playground, plus one(1) space per acre of passive recreational area within a park or playground. 28, Places of Public Assembly. Churches, auditoriums, exhibition halls,theatres, convention facilities, meeting rooms and other places of public assembly shall provide one(1) off-street parking space for every three (3)seats, if seats are fixed; one (1) space for each twenty-four(24) square feet of assembly area; which does not include foyer, corridors, restrooms, kitchens, storage and other areas not used for assembly of people. For churches. off-street parking shall be required for primary seating only. a. Note. Submitted plans shall show the number of seats in assembly area; or if no fixed seating, the total gross floor area of the assembly area. 29. Residential Uses. Note. Submitted plans shall show the number of bedrooms in each unit as well as total number of units. a. Single-family Homes. Two (2)spaces for each dwelling unit, within a garage or carport. Trellises, or other construction providing a seventy (70)percent shade factor, may be used. b. Condominiums or Residences within a Planned Development District(PD). i. Primary parking (per unit) shall be required as follows: (A) Studio and efficiency One (1) primary space units (B)One (1) bedroom unit One and one-quarter (1 '/4) primary spaces 72 hllp:llw -gcode.us/codeslpalmspdngst 10117 1 011 6/2 0 1 4 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs California) (C)Two(2) bedroom One and one-half(1 '/2) units primary spaces (D)Three (3)or more hree-quarters('/a) bedrooms iprimary space per bedroom (E) Mobile home parks Two(2) spaces per mobile site ii. Guest Parking. In addition to the primary parking required above, one (1) designated parking space per each four(4) units shall he provided for guest parking, except that mobile home parks shall provide designated guest parking at a rate of one (1) space per each seven(7) units, unless guest parking can be provided on a private street. iii. Covered Parking. (A) One (1) covered parking space shall be provided for each unit. Trellises providing a seventy (70) percent shade factor may be used. (B) This requirement shall not apply to existing lots of record which are substandard in area or dimension requirements as established elsewhere in the Zoning Code. C. Apartments. Apartment uses shall have the same requirements as condominiums for primary parking and guest parking. except that covered or enclosed parking spaces are optional. d. Rooming, Boarding and Fraternity Houses. One(t) space for each sleeping room or one(1) space for each two (2) beds, whichever yields the greater number. 30, Restaurants (Freestanding). One(1) space for each thirty-five(35) square feet of gross floor area where the public is served,or one (1) space for every three (3) seats. a. Restaurants in Large Mixed-use Commercial Complexes, Additional parking need not be provided for restaurants in mixed-use commercial complexes(commercial, office, retail) which have a gross floor area which exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; provided that, no more than twenty-Five (25) of the total floor area of the whole complex is devoted to restaurant use- b. Note. Submitted plans shall show the square footage of area where the public is served and/or the amount of proposed seating. 31. Retail Stores Not Otherwise Specified Herein, Including Ice Cream Parlors and Donut Shops. One(1) space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area. 32. Schools. a. Day Nurseries. One (1) space for each employee plus one(1)space for each five(5) children in attendance. b. Elementary and Intermediate. One(1) space for each employee. C. High Schools. One(1) space for each eight (8)enrolled students, plus one(1) space for each employee. 73 httpIMv .gcode.us/codes/palmspdngs/ 11117 10/16/2014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs,California) d. Colleges. One (1) space for each three(3)enrolled daytime students, plus one(1) space for each employee. e. Trade Schools and Business Colleges. One (1) space for each one hundred fifty(150) square feet of gross floor area. 33. Self-service Laundries. One (1)space for every three(3) machines. 34. Wholesaling and Warehousing. One (1) space for each eight hundred(800) square feet of gross floor area, plus one (I) space for each company truck or motor vehicle. E. Design Dimensions. The off-street parking area design criteria, as set forth as follows, exemplify minimum dimensions necessary for traffic circulation, ingress and egress, and public safety to and through parking areas, while setting aside ample open space to integrate landscaping, lighting and pedestrian design features into the plan to create an off-street parking area aesthetically complementary to the urban environment. In order to allow for innovative designs to be explored, alternate designs may be considered and approved by the planning commission_ While this provision is not intended to allow deviation from the minimums as set forth herein, it is to provide flexibility in the application and structuring of landscaping and related environmental elements. The following parking lot dimensions shall apply to all parking lots constructed in accordance with this Zoning Code. In event practical difficulties and hardships result from the strict enforcement of the following standards due to existing permanent buildings, or an irregular shaped parcel,administrative relief may be granted by the director of planning and building according to Section 93.06.00(B)(10) and Section 94.06.01 (Minor modifications). Parking Dimensions—Ninety(90) Degree Angle(See Exhibit F-1 found at the end of this section). 1, Parking spaces shall be seventeen (17) feet deep (standard) and fifteen (15) feet deep(compact), except where nose-to-nose deep (see subsection E8 of this section). 2. Parking spaces shall be nine(9) feet wide (standard) and eight (8) feet wide(compact). 3. A driveway adjoining a double row of parking spaces shall be twenty-six(26) feet wide. Driveways adjoining a single row of spaces shall be twenty-four(24) feet wide. 4. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls, fences, buildings or other structures.This requirement excepts driveways that are not a part of the maneuvering area for parking. 5. Peripheral planting areas are required every ten (10) spaces. The planters shall have a minimum exterior width of nine (9) feet and provide at least six (6) foot minimum planting width. 6. Curbs shall be placed at a minimum of two feet from the face of walls, fences or buildings adjoining driveways which are not part of a maneuvering area. (See subsection E4 of this section where drive adjoins a maneuvering area). 7. Tree wells/median islands shall have a planting area of six (6) feet in diameter/width. 8. Nose-to-nose parking spaces shall be nineteen (19) feet long(standard) and seventeen (17) feet long (compact), 9. Cumulative dimensions. (Deleted by Ord. 1300) 10. Driveway widths shall be twenty-four(24) feet minimum and constructed to city standards. The director of planning and building may require a wider driveway to accommodate needs. 11. First parking space shall be ten (10) feet minimum distance from property line adjacent to the street..74 The director of planning and building may require a greater distance. httpJN . ,gcode.us/codes/paimsprings/ 12117 1011612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs.California) 12. Six(6) inch PCC curb and gutters shall be installed, except that six (6) inch PCC vertical curbs may be installed in lieu of curb and gutters if no drainage is carried along curb line. Where a six(6) inch PCC vertical curb is used, a two(2)foot wide concrete gutter section shall be installed along drainage lines. Individual wheelstops shall be prohibited unless approved by the director of planning and building. 13. Concrete walks with a minimum width of two (2) feet shall be installed adjacent to end parking spaces or end spaces may be increased to eleven(11) feet wide. 14. Curb radii shall be three(3) feet minimum. 15. One-way drives shall be fourteen(14) feet minimum wide. Two-way drives shall be twenty-four(24) feet minimum wide. 16. Cumulative dimension. (Deleted by Ord. 1300) 17. Parallel parking spaces shall be eight(8) feet wide by twenty-four(24) feet long.The length may be reduced to eighteen(18) feet, if a six(6) foot separation(no parking area) is provided between every two(2) spaces. 18. Single-family covered parking spaces shall be ten(10) feet wide by twenty (20) feet long. 19. Handicapped Parking Spaces. See subsection (C)(10) of Section 93.06.00. Other dimensions as accepted by the Institute of Traffic Engineers may be approved by the director of planning and building or planning commission. Parking Parking Parking Parking Aisle Angle(In Angle(in Angle(In Angle(In Width Degrees)30 Degrees)45 Degrees)60 Degrees)75 One-wa traffic 12' 14' 18, 20' T1vO-way 20' 21' 22' 22' traffic i • These dimensions are face-of-curb to face-of-curb for curb and gutter aisles,or edge of pavement to edge of pavement for strip paved aisles. • Nose-to-nose parking spaces shall bean additional nvo(2) feet in length. Exhibit A "5 hltp:IAn .gcode.us/codes/palmspdngs/ 13117 M1612014 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs.California) r ti 81 3NING RAMP B. B. Exhibit B WALLIRERM T i PARKING AOJACENT STREETS Exhibit C a' WALL PARKING ABUTTINO 11111111O61111T1AL Exhibit D. Parking Abutting Non-Residential 76 htlp/A�.gcode.us/codes/palmspnngs/ 14117 10(IGM14 Palm Springs Municipal Code(Palm Springs.California) 'e• I Exhibit E. Bay Parking hill:11 w gcode uslcodeslpalmspnngsi 15/17 t -+ e E s ,. I R �ti Y �I i +0 • O •�r --rj'±:.:i-i5e ; , — air O � r,.,•�•�Rtji 7'.a n r•'��L���i .•• 1. e nki II r ` ,,7K• N%X 1 t f • r q .c� i •yl • 1• ^!< X M^ Appendix B Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Methodology $(1 I} SECOND EDITION Urban Introduction The Concept of Shared Parking projects in many different settings have benefited from Shared packing is the use of a parking space to serve two shared parking- or more individual land uses without conflict or encroach- Parking is a key element of any site development plan. ment.The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two Parking can consume 50 percent or more of the building and conditions: land area of a development. An oversupply of parking can ■ variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, result inexcessstorm drainage impacts and unnecessarily high by day,or by season at the individual land uses,and expenses(surface stalls can cost$2,000 to$3,000 per space i ■ relationships among the land uses that result in visiting and structured spaces $15,000 to $25,000 or more). multiple land uses on the same auto trip. Insufficient parking can result in the intrusion of parking into Although the ULI methodology for shared parking :neighborhoods or adjoining proper ties,excessivevehiclecircu- analysis was developed in the early 1980s,'the concept of lation,and unhappy users Ultimately,great parking alone won't shared parking was already well established:a furndamen- make a mixed-use project successful:however, inadequate or tal principle of downtown planning from the earliest days of poorly designed parking can Emit its potential success. i the automobile has always been to share parking resources 'line key goal of shared parking analysis,then,is to find the I rather than to allocate parking for each use or building.The balance between prov°ding adequate parking to support a resurgence of many central cities resulting from the addi- development from a commercial viewpoint and minimizing tion of vibrant residential,retail,restaurant,and entertain- the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources ment developments continues to rely heavily on shared devoted to parking. Mixed-use developments that share parking for economic viability. In addition, mixed-use parking result in greater density, better pedestrian connec- 82 [ions, and, in turn, reduced reliance on driving, typically whether shared parking is'still appropriate,given changes in because multiple destinations can be accessed by walking, society, transportation, and mixed-use development trends. H.gher-density development,especially on infill sites,is also The consensus was that the underlying concept and method- more likely to support alternative modes of travel,including ology are still viable,but that an update of the default factors transit and carpools. would be appropriate.The following three examples illustrate Concem for the negative impacts of growth has stimu• how changing trends have affected parking needs laced a search for better ways to develop land. "Smart ■ When Shared Parking was first published, a multiscreen growth" is a collection of planning principles and strategies cinema complex had two or Three screens.By the late 1990s, designed to facilitate development without sprawl. Smart new cinema developments had as many as 30 screens. It is growth projects typically are designed to create transporta- far less likely that every seat in a 30-screen Cineplex is filled tion options and reduce driving, especially for short trips. than in a two- a three-screen cinema. The proliferation of Walkable live/work/play environments, located near estab- these complexes has had a profound impact on the movie Ilshedtransportationand infrastructure resources,arecentral industry, and the parking needs of cineplexes will be dig to the concept,Some communities are questioning the eco- cussed later in this report. nomic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city only to ■Changing lifestyles have led to a significant increase in the rebuild it further out.' Ironically, a critical element of such proportion of family meals eaten outside the home, which pedestrian-oriented districts is adequate parking. has caused a marked increase in the proportion of newly One of the hottest real estate trends is known as"place developed space that is occupied by restaurants.In 1955,25 making:the development of town centers and urhan villages percent of expenditures for food in the United States was with mixed uses in pedestrian-friendly settings.Anothersig- spent in restaurants(both limited and full service); in 2003. niflcant trend today is transit-oriented development, which restaurants'share of the food dollar was 46.4 percent-' seeks to cluster development near transit stations. With ■As more women have ioinedthe workforce,there has been housing located within walking distance of rail transit,some an increase in the proportion of shopping trips that occur in jtrips and,in turn, some parking spaces can be eliminated. evenings and a significant increase in "trip-chaining;'owing Shared parking is a critical factor in the success of all to commuters making multiple stops to drop off or pick up these development approaches,and thus the importance of children at daycare and to take care of household errands. shared parking will continue to grow in future years. This A committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers report aims to provide planners, engineers,developers,and (ITE)also agreed that the methodology recommended in the agencies with tools to better quantify and understand how first edition of Shored Parking is still the correct approach to shared parking can be successful. shared parking analysis, but it called for updating some default values' It found that almost half of all local govern- Objective of the Second Edition merits had incorporated shared parking into local codes, The widely accepted methodology for shared parking analysis either directly or as an option,and marry of those codes cited was established in 1983 with the publication of the first edition the ULI shared parking methadology. of Shored Parking.Two decades later,ULI and ICSC convened a The development of updated references on the parking working group of parking experts to examine the question of needs of individual land uses also made an update of Shared Z Shared Parking 83 Parking timely. In 1998, ULI and ICSC commissioned an parking ratio is the number of parking spaces that should update of Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers,the most be provided per unit of land use, if parking serves only widely recognized reference regarding that land use. That that land use. The ratios recommended herein are based on relerence's second edition recommended a 10 percent the expected peak accurnuialion of vehicles at the peak reduction in the parking ratio for centers over 600,000 hour on a design day(see below),assuming nearly 100 per- square feet and modified its recommendations for centers cent modal split to auto use and minimal ridesharing. The with more than 10 percent of GLA in restaurant, entertain- recommended ratios also include consideration of effective ment, or cineplex uses' In particular, when more than 20 supply issues. percent of the space in centers is allocated to those uses, Parking accumulation is the number of parked vehicles shared parking analysis should be employed to determine observed at a site. the appropriate number of parking spaces. Parking supply is the total number of spaces available to ITE also has updated its Trip Generation` and Parking serve a destination.it may include spaces that are on site,off Generation' publications. The third edition of Parking site,on street,or shared with other uses. 1 Generation includes four times as much data as the second Effective parking supply is the number of occupied spaces edition,with over 100 land uses now incorporated.This doc- at optimum operating efficiency. A parking facility will be ument provides much-needed information on the parking perceived as full at somewSat less than its actual capacity, needs of individual land uses,but it simply provides statisti- generally in the range of 85-95 percent occupancy. (The cal analysis of the data. It makes ae recommendations range is because regular users learn where spaces are likely regarding appropriate parking ratios to be used in parking to be available at a particular time of day and thus require studies,including shared parking analysis.In fact,the limited less of an extra cushion than unfamillar users.)It is appropri- data in many land use classifications are not statistically reli- ate to have a small cushion of spaces over the expected able, and professional experience and judgment must be peak-hour accumulation of vehicles.The cushion reduces the employed in their use.One of the purposes of this report is need to search the entire system for the last few parking to formulate recommendations regarding the parking ratios spaces, thus reducing patron frustration. It further provides to be used in shared parking analysis, using to the extent for operating fluctuations, misparked vehicles, snow cover, appropriate,the data found in Parking Generation.Both docu- vehicle maneuvers, and vacancies created by reserving ments are complementary. spaces for specific users,such as disabled parking.The effec- ULI and ICSC concluded that the timely coordination of Live supply cushion in a system also provides for unusual an updated Shared Parking publication with these other don peaks in activities. uments would result in a vastly improved set of tools for A design day or design hour is one that recurs frequently r transportation planners to determine the appropriate num- enou h to justify providing spaces for that level o[ parking PH 1 YP B P p H her of parking spaces for mixed-use developments. activity, One does not build for an average day and have insufficient supply for the peak(if not multiple)hours on 50 Definition of Terms percent of the days in a year.Conversely,it is not appropriate A key to understanding the shared parking methodology is to design for the peak accumulation of vehicles ever the definition of terms and assumptions inherent in the use observed at any site with that land use.That peak accumuta- of those terms. Introduction 3 f-s["'. 'F�§ � 1 % , f rj 'rl - [ -;' <x G r ✓y Zi ill e' Y '«:: ,y •�lr� {%f�SL�AbJ V*r�a�S.�. t 6 l�Y'"�'k$R. 7r 44�'� ��r �_ �F� yJ N 'Y .'R3 A —fri�'��"Y�yi-w��'L' a rF��F`r� �fr,• 't' _ �t..� �X}`��r�„��a.wrW Gt �� ,,. �� E4 iu4$z. :i=.t"A+w 7.fA�..a '�rs+r�..-,s.�3. a;3'a� E... 1:.�.i.._-,.k'�Yas -.'�„ �1a6•'�;..-+L.f..-3E��.'.Y..�b.�,�:!' �. �� ,%.J 6 c, :y tion might last only For an hour or so.while there are 8.760 Noncaptive ratio is an esCimate of the percentage of park- hours in a year. A traffic engineer does not cesign a street ers at a land use in a mixed-use development or district who system to handle the peak volume that would ever occur: are not already counted as being parked at another of the instead,the level of activity that represents tie 85`n or 90t land uses.For example,when employees of one lard use visit percentile of observed traffic volumes in peak hours on aver. a nea,by rood court or coffee store, there usually is not any age days is used for design. This second edition of Shared additional parking demand generated.See chapter 3 for fur- Parking uses the 85th percentile of peat-hour observations ther discussion. for recommended parking ratios, unless otherwise noted. See chapter 3 for Further discussion of design hour issues. Units Of Land Uses Mode adjustment is employed to ad;ust the base parking Parking ratios are generally stated as a ratio of x spaces per y ratios for Iota transportation characteristics. Two factors units, with the unit being the most statistically valid inde- must be considered in such adjustments,modal split for pri- pendent variable for that land use. In the vast majority of vate auto and auto occupancy,both of which are terms com uses,the unit is square Fee'of building area.Other units that monly used in transportation planning. The parking ratios may be used are employees,dwelling units,[Inlet rooms,or herein assume that nearly all users arrive by privaleauto with seats.This publication uses;he most ,videly accepted inde- typical auto occupancy for the spec;fic use It should be pendent variable, generally in accordance with Parking reled that even in locations wi`.hovt transit, some walkicg Generation. The following terms descrbe specific formulas and ciropoffs occur, as well as some ridesharing. The base for park,ng ratios. ratios are appropriate for conditions of free parking are neg Gross Floor Area (GFA); Total gross floor area, including ligible use of public transit. The mode adjustment then exterior Duild:ng walls of all f:oors of a building or structure. reflects local transit availability, parking fees, ride sharing Also referrer)to as gross square feet or GSF. programs,and so on. See chapter 3 for further disa+ssioo of Gross leasable Area (GLA): The portion of CFA that is mode adjustments, available for leasing to a tenant. Generally, GLA is equal to Modal split is the percentage of persons arrving at a deso- GFA less "common" areas that are not leased to tenants. nation in different modes of transportation, Among the includicg spaces 'or circulation to and from tena^t spaces modes that may be available are commuter rai,light laii,bus, (lobbies,elevator cores,stairs.corridors,atriums,and so or), private automobile (including trucks. vans, and SUVs used utility/mechanical spaces,and parking areas. for personal transportation),carpools and vanpoois,walking. Net Floor Area (NFA):Total hoer area, excluding exterior and bicycling The percentage of persons who arrive at the building walls. destnation by private automobi;e is generally cal-,ed "auto Net Rental Area (NRA): The portion of NFA that is mode split"and includes both driver and passengers. rentwie to a tenant.Also called net leasable area. Auto occupancy is the average number of persons per pri- Thus,GFA and GLA are calculated out-to-out of exterior vale automobile arriving a`, the destination. Vehicle occu- walls,while NFA and NRA are calculated between Interior panty(as employed in transportatior.plarning)refers to the faces of exler or walls. GLA is commonly used for shopping average number of persons per veh%tle including all vehicle centers, hi.t GFA or NFA 's more commonly used for office types,such as public ane chartered buses. uses. No matter what calculat or, method is employed, the 4 Shared Parking .. 8 5 i ( vehicular parking and loading areas and the floor area occu- Notes ! pied by mechanical,electrical,communications,and security equipment are deducted from the floor area for the purpose 1.ULI-Lhe Lkban Land Institute,Shwed Pwkf g(WashingM D.C.:Ull-the U.ban p P Land InstitutiL 1983). t of calculating parking needs. 2."AbwL Smart Growth!ww sniartgowth.org/aboul(October 2003). 3.2004 Restawant lndustry Fwerast,Nalioral Restaurant Assadat.on. 4, :TE Tec W:al G.wncil Committee 6F.52 Slaved Parking Nnning Gia,(PMes Organization of This Report (Washington DC. InslituteofTranportato Engtcars.199s). ! 5.ULI-Ihs Uds.Land Imfitute and the lnternabural Cnunrkr of Shopping Centers, Chapter 2 of this report presents key findings, including the PwHny geq oanx.fits to,shopp i Crnms, 2nd ed.(Wasbinglm. Dc: uu-the recommended default values for shared parking analysis. urban Lana Imlitota,1999). 6.0E Teahnkal C"mil Conenattt, Trip Gro motion,]th ed.(Washington.DO Chapter 3 discusses the methodology, with an example Institute nl Transportation E4neers,2004). analysis,and chapter 4 discusses the parking needs of indi• 7.RE Technical eowdleommiffmPorkVj Generphw.3rd ed.(Washingtpn,D.G.: I Institute Of Trarsp sriaticn Engineers,2004). { vidual land uses and the derivation of the default values. 4 Chapter 5 presents case studies,while chapter 6 discusses ! t the design,operation,and management of shared parking. r + _ 1 � I a 5 1 4 p I r r f a s Introduction 5 j ' Summary of Recommended Base Parking Ratios (Spaces per Unit Land Use) LWA Um Wee" Wardowtd U,* SMI MK E=6m Vhbf 1111111111101M e. Con Tunity Showing Center(4400,000 sq,FO 29 phi 0.7 3.2 0.8 A$FGLA 1 V VV Super Regional shopping ing Center 0600.0G0 sq Na 3.2 0.8 3.6 09 Ail GLA I Fw*Restaurmt 9.0 1.5 12.75 225 Ad GLA 3 Nightclub 1515 125 ITS 15 M GLA 3 ;4A CK"Iex 019 0.01 026 0.01 /seat 12 4'.M 'ter cM:CrW t=W MAMM, �PMWA fr M . 1111 , M Aits A �, -,- Arena 017 0.03 03 0.03 /seat 3 MfR-41*11 WQV.,-a Pro Baseball Staidurri 0.31 0.01 034 001 Am 3 �,A IMPINUMM CWM"CWW 55 05 5,5 0-5 NGLA 3 -4t 'Nrd., 0.4 provided t rtml!e, ResideriA Pa" Ols 1.9 Ols 19 Arnit 2 OffiLe W5,000 sq.ft.) 03 35 003 0.35 /Icsf GFA 2 uslow 1,O100 v3le between in car2S 000 q,it f '.03' 3S 003 RM.,Mi, tOO900 0.23 315 003 Office 000,000 to 500.000 5q h)Shd-Rg stye between /ksf GFA 2 100,000 SQ It 025 115 003 032 -W=54 IL 01 16 0,02 OA I r ANk�— A'"f W L '�' i t 2FA 0a' W1 A9 pklXa �X-W OWL Branch with Orive-in 10 1.6 3.0 1.6 Asf GFA 2 Not" Rk.bated on peak parking spetes rtQukrd vnRh WrUaft,100%.1.rsa 1�1m.2i rrdeshxrg kin subvbrn corvl2. 'As[ r 10 spaces r<senec b resMen[s sdT usS 2a ho-n a daY:rernair:Jer sr wTvl with Wsilws acid piaYr uses reurrla (WaOi gm.f)( tA NIN) ,,D 2 Fa,4*q Cenoo6o..3,J ed.(W.4.W�DC !,,litAe of Transportation Engineers,W04) Pwkbq I Data cokad by le",nasnLas 4 JN,.W Don n.Tivki,R.*Aertvrts�,14c,4h r6kA% The Pwring Pw{r.uond Apr 17004 Cw Ad SA , Wei Parking Ib..Mh is FroMhr Uiw I onj la xy 1988 Key Findings 11 Recommended IV.onthly Adj.tst ent Factors for Cus:o 1e:Ni�iYor Parking Late Lard Use __. JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC DEC Source kopping Center 56% 570A 64% 63% 66% 67% 64% 69% 64% 66% 72% )00% 80% I,3 Restaurant 85% 86% 95% 92% 96% 9S9'a 98% 99% 91% 96% 93% 100% 95% 1 fast Food 85% 86% 95% 92% 96% 95% 98% 99% 91% 96% 93% 100% 95% 1 Nightclub B4.% 86% 98% 90% 90% 91% 94% 96% 92% 98% 96% 100%. 95% 1 Cineplex Weekdays 27% 21% 20% '9% 27% 41% 55% 40% 1i% 15% 25% 23% 100% 3 Cineplex Weekends 7I% 59% 67% 58% 71% 82% 92% 75% 51% 62% 78% 67% 1.00% 3 Performing Arts Thnater 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 100% 100% 2 Arena 90% 100% '00% 100% 100% 75% — — 60% 65% 90% 95%'' 9S96 2 No Football Sladmrni - - - - - - - 61% - - - M% 100% 2 Pro Baseball Stadium - - - 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I00% 700% - - - 2 Health Club 100% 95% 85% 70% 65% 55% 65% !D% 80% 85% 85% 90% 95% 44 Convention Center? 75% 100% 90% 55% 60% 50% 45% 75% 80% 85% 100% 60% — 2 Hotel--Buvness 71% 85% M 90% 92% 100% 98% 92% 93% 93% 81% 67% SC% 5 Hotel—leisure 90% 100% 100% W% 90% 90% 100% 100% 75% 75% 75% 50% 100% 5 Reslaurant/lounge 85% 86% 95% 92% 9696 9S% 98% 99% 91% %% 93% '100% 95% 1 MeeBng/Bacluet t00% =-A 100% 100% I00% M% 100% 100% t00% 100% t00% 100% 100% 2 (20 to 50 sq Vguest room) Conventm 751% 100% 90% 55% 60% 50% 45% 75% 8Ceb 85% 100% 00% -- 2 (>50 sq Riguest roam) Residential 100% IOG% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 Office,Rank 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 95% ICO% 100% 100% 100% 80% 2,6 Notes Decemoer_Irocen�p¢�1-2a,:ale De:eTmer=necember 2i-?'. 'gecausd here s c"v ova"eknlgM game and na Sdtedd baron Per NFL teams WV'a.An:I(wah Na. thtur arq ac:-41Y Patems erg—ndi:ieC at ada v a uses dae to Ine<lawds exxcetl.this utegmv snot consdered a'r<s�gn day'b paA-.nN alar-ang ,M,,y LOrcieplim(enter%j,,COmp,etN}oark i]CtW[eh UHstmas and Me-,Yee?S fey I— I U 5 Corr-.B-,s,tu,wudius:ed estarv'e.N service sales.1999-2.Xt2 2.Da!a coNec:to ty team nerrons 3 FO tg Gemmror,.1d rJ i'A'ashiri1w,O C sny,I lW d lransoor'~Elg`Verx 2%4) d ;ohn W Doran.-Pa,k ng Repwhimergs f.1leahr Chins'Tne P Avp Prd vw.; AWL 2004 5.Srarr Travel Rescarctk www wws:u coin 5 Pant,ng study conducted by'ani,,.Hams Rust 5 AssMlates ra;he Pele•wn Con:oanles 2M 14 Shared Parking V Recommended Monthly Adjustment Factors for Employee Parking Late Smru land Use JU FES NAR APR MAY LUN AlL AUO SEP OCT NOW DEC DEC Sowes l 3 Stooping Cerger 80% 00% 80% 80% BO% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 90% 100% 90% 1,2 fr� ? w iw M�b%a 4o° ��A6 :loQ�l a�(1d9 alb l00% aoa�4 ,lan°j �4 �1 b Fast Food 95% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% )OD% 100% 1000A 100% 1" L 2 sl. � .`.4rA..xar..�:Y 3 Cneplex Weekdays 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 3,2 2 PerlamingktsTheatef 10D% 100% 100% 100% WO% 100% 100% 100% WO% 100% W0% WO% 100% 2 '2 FP L'F�rw"4eb 2 No Football Stadiuml ID% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% WD% 10% 10% 10% 100% W% 2 z._rq. 4P;3wLs;'' v.•.., r+ i' F' Y „a w z� ram;0 1V 2,4 Health Club .a� 100% 100% 95% 80% 75% 75% 75% 80% 90% 95% 95% 100% 0% 4.2 WEN WRRI 5 .Hot a.Fri WO% 100% WO% I100% 100%5 100% y100%�100% 100% IOC% 100% 2 3,1: *V - .w--.s l•awy -., - r-r 'K .. -c..Sa y� �{ x Rk �.: t ti. 4 %J t.:r ti �ps'`ti�` WDft:G95.7 a91 ;�CUKTIEY4�* I -011lce.Bank 100% 100%Y100% M%ra100% 100% 95% %% 100% 100%� 100%� WD% 80%, 6-• 2 Notes k (),,,.be, December 1-24,late Le ember-December 25-31 18ecause tl,e,e n mly one weeknighl game aid w 54,xday games Dex NFL team SeDtembei through Novena ,,aryl activity patterns are modified at adjacent uses due to the vosvds expected,txs ceteii y rs not comiden d a'dmign dw tow parking naareaing. I { .Soon": 2,6 'I�1,US Census B&reaa,unadP.sted mtkrwtes d monlhiy retain and Food service sales,1999-2002 2.Data ad'pWed by team members. 3 PakMg Geieration,3,d ed(Wading:..,DC_Instdute at lfwportetioe Engirevs.2004). 4.Ww W Daseli,'Parkkg Requkements M Health Clubs: the Pm}irg Proke kiooi,Agll 2004 5 Smith Navel Reseamtk www.wwetar.e.m adlacmt 6.Paftig study condxted by Patton W rns Rust&Associates for the Peterson Companies,2001. r iY• n 1,. y. 'N Key Findings 15 xkv �, ti MEN ;- •' i 1 IBC. : 4 %' .' .R , �t �• , I 1, ''... /fit 90 p t . - - w rv « ry N N ry .. r. rv'rw N ... �� .n ry •n ry .v .� ti ry n ry � 1C k{ V � � � c � Fl � 3[ � � Y. ' � ' � E �. ' � � � `� 9i ' � � L � ' I'. I 1 •. •i� ��e � a� o ' Xr y�t 1�� �S[ �l� I �,I I I r.E � E ��l E g� ��[ .�p � p ��E � s�' � � ��t �£ � [� �(r � /� �( �p�! d G x r psi y. car ", '� uld be modified for resort hotels, which have distinct The lime-of-day factors developed in the 1988 study have h *,purist seasons Suggested factors for hotels in climates beer,used for each component,w'th an additional set of fac- sl wa ' y at attract winter tourists are provided for resort hotels, tors for guest rooms at resort hotels to reflect the greater r t these may not be suitable for resorts in northern climes presence of vehicles there during the daytime.The time-of- t only have summer seasons. Monthly factors for day figures in Parking Generation reflect overall parking occu- Y !�1 cap' ;?'restaurants are the same as those for non-hotel-based panty.To check the reasonableness of these factors,projec- use ` estauranls, because the parking need is based on eons of parking accumulation for the average size of each ti•; wee uanguest patronage. the monthly factors for hotel conven• component in each ITE subtype are shown in Table 4-17 si .town centers are the same as those for freestanding conven- Meeting and conventior, space where reported by seats A, . ion centers. rather that spuare feet were converted using 40 seats/ksf- late f 7 .zy ons alte{� stay Hotel Parking Needs F r.),ections Using Recommended Default Values is like ' Office Park Full-Service Airport Business Resort ,n the;_..,:) WD WE WD WE WD WE 49D WE WD WE d Park Salzman Salzman ITE Ayg._ITE AY;. Salzman Salzman Suburban Suburban Resort Resort 4es/ksl :poop — 9 300 3SO 350 300 300 130 130 450 450 {fed to, ,i Guest Roan Mode Adjustment 66X 77% 66% 77% 54% 59% 66% 77% 66% 77% t data. t tautard ksf 7,350 7,350 _8375 8575 1350 7,350 1,050 1,050 : 13.325 ' U325 d ten „Percent Noncaptive 96% 30% '-90% 30% 90% 3O% ' ...:.90% - 30% 30% , 30% - facili i;JfgdeAdjustme„t . . 7D% _... 60% .. 70% - 609E1" 70% .'60% _ 70% 600A : . 6096 ...60%,. . Mees"vig Roam ksf 7,000 1A00 — — 7.000 7,000 1,310 1310 - �.Percrnt Norcaptne 60% 70% 60% 70% 60% 70% 60'% 70% 60% 70% Made Adjustment 75% 75% 75% 15% 75% 754 75% 750A 75% 15% A 21 onvenbo,ksf.. - 20.400 20,400 - — ti 31175, 31.II5 . . 0.25 3 Percent Nofxaptive. 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% is% 25% 25% .25% 25% .. These {y4&s de.Adlustment . . r. ;75%. .75% .75% 7S% -r. 75% 7504 75% 75% '.7516, 75% Estimated Peak-Hour Demand 304 252 322 289 264 tb {DS 97 470 393 other r 1 Peak Hour 9 p.m 9 pn Noon 9 am 5 P.M. 9 P.M. 8 an B a.m. Noon 8 a.m. " $Overall Ratio Spaces per Roan 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.9 a 100 ffE BSIh Peroemile U -0.9 11 — — — OJ 0.7186 — er car .. z Nobel .P WD-WeeLlays wr vv'"h which xtors j 4 Analysis of Single Land Uses 87 02 4 Appendix C Shared Parking Termination ° 3 W DOC#2014-0460611 11/25/2014 08:00 AM Fees: $27,00 Page 1 of 5 Recorded In Official Records County of Riverside RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND Larry VV.Ward WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Assessor,County Clerk&Recorder Elkins Kall Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP -'This document was electronically summed 2049 Century Park East,Suite 2700 to the County of Riverside for recording" Los Angeles,California 90067 Recaipted by:LJONES Attention: Scott M. Kalt,Esq. (Space above this line is for recorder's use) TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED AMENDMENT TO PARKING LEASE This TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED AMENDMENT TO PARKING LEASE dated -7^-- z-1. , 20 "'—(this "Termination Memorandum") will acknowledge that the Memorandum of Amended and Restated Amendment to Parking Lease dated January 26, 2012 by and between PACIFICA COLONY PALMS LOFTS, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Land ") and PACIFICA COLONY PALMS, LLC, a California limited liability company, ("Tenant"), recorded on Feb. /_ 2012 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Instrument No, tyw- 00,/&999 and pertaining to the real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Memorandum") has been terminated and is of no further force or effect (and that the parking lease agreement described in such Memorandum has expired or been terminated). I [Signature Page Foliowsj ACCOMMODATION ONLY 7 rf916v1 t /�jby0lrGC. a� RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO; Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP 2049 Century Park East,Suite 2700 Los Angeles,California 90067 Attention: Scott M.Kalt,Esq. (Space above this line is for recorder's use) TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED AMENDMENT TO PARKING LEASE This TERMINATION OF MEMORANDUM OF AMENDED AND RESTATED AMENDMENT TO PARKING LEASE dated -V7�r 7-1. , 20 f 7(this "Termination Memorandum") will acknowledge that the Memorandum of Amended and Restated Amendment to Parking Lease dated January 26, 2012 by and between PACIFICA COLONY PALMS LOFTS, LLC, a Califomia limited liability company ("Landlord") and PACIFICA COLONY PALMS, LLC, a California limited liability company, ("Tenant"), recorded on eeb. 1 2012 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Instrument No. .Pau- go017V? and pertaining to the real property described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto (the "Memorandum") has been terminated and is of no further force or effect (and that the parking lease agreement described in such Memorandum has expired or been terminated). [Signature Page Follows] ACCOMMODATION ONLY 17MW1 t 7 J YO&C nr0 W WITNESS WHEREOF,Landlord and Tenant have executed and delivered this Termination Memorandum as of the day and year first above written. TENANT: PACIFICA COLONY PALMS,LLC, a CaHfomia limited liability company By: —- Name: 4 0 Q-F i Title: M LANDLORD: PACIFICA COLONY PALMS LOFTS,LLC, a California limited liability company By: PALM CANYON DESIGNS LLC, a California limited liability company, its Member By: Carol Blum, its ✓( By. Cliffor d Jr., its ' Sgmtme Page b rerefmdatnofMemotnndutn ofAmgrakd ad Rmlod Amendment to Parking Lease 2 n � LANDLORD'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF .. ) !o3 AArcieces ) COUNTY OF ) beforeme, Ak7-HCJF- allotary Public,personally appeared CAo�,Su RNo 1?uFra6v 4alw,,7k,Who proved tome on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)Ware subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that he AOtthey executed the same in his/fierhheir authorized capacity(ics), and that by.$i31hWtheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument, I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. AR7MUR ONO NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA p4 A 909400 011 ANGELE9OUKTY My Comm.Exp.0OW 10, pS SOM Notary Public naevtn 5 ` 97 l€{ STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) S.S. On January 31, 2012 before me, Je on C. Javier, a Notary� jb(l�iQ.in and for said County and State, personally appeared, �� /ArICGIXf GCP1 fiw w[ILf- who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to he the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/herAheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. JEFFERSON C-JAVIER _ Cvmmlaston#1T97lltla Y d Notary Pub➢a•Calk(nla Signature; Los AnpelBs County M Comm.E%plfes May f 0,2012 (Notary Seal) qg V EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Pmoal 1 of Pmoa1 Map No.17049,in the CRY of Palm SP&P,Covety'of Rivetetdo,State of Califomia,ea Mown byMap ou Pile in Book 94 of Penal Maps,Pago 17,Raomcda ofRivemido Gbpnq,Califpmie, r i nmc.r Exhibit"A" n „ 9 Q� KuNZMANASSOCIATES, 750 LOFTS PROJECT PARKfNG STUDY February 12, 2015 100 LIVER 3.i YEARS OF ExCELLENT SERVICE February 12,2015 Ms.Nicole Sauvlat Criste,Principal TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. 42635 Melanie Place,Suite 101 Palm Desert,CA 92211 Dear Ms.Criste: UMOOUCTION The firm of Kunnman Associates, Inc.is pleased to submit this parking study for the 750 Lofts Project In the City of Palm Springs. Kunzman Associates,Inc has been asked to conduct an analysis of the parking for the 750 Lofts Project in order to ascertain if adequate parking spaces are currently provided at the project site under the Clty's parking regulations. This parking study supplements the 750 Lofts erolect parking Analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group,Inc(December 19,2014), This report summarizes our methodology, analysis, and findings. Although this Js a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report dearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering,a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site Is located immediately north and adjacent to the existing Alcazar Hotel,and is bounded by North Palm Canyon Drive on the west and North Indian Canyon Drive on the east In the City of Palm Springs. The mixed-use project will consist of a 46 room hotel with 2,190 square feet of spa,a rooftop bar area with 47 seats,a 3,025 square foot quality restaurant with a maximum of 50 seats provided,and 2,595 square feet of retail use. The project site plan will provide a total of 62 off-street parking spates, and will provide valet parking services. PARKING CODE The City of Palm Springs parking code requirements are Included in Appendix 5. Based upon the city parking code requirements,93 parking spaces are required per Table 1. This demand(31 parking space deficiency)Is required If all land uses simultaneously generated their maximum parking code demands. CAPTIVE/NON-CAPTIVE ADJUSTMENTS The Urban Land Institute, Shared Parking (20051 provides a discussion of captive/non-captive adjustments. Both formal studies and general experience have proven that some reduction of customer parking needs occurs In a mixed-use project due to patronage of multiple land uses. This interplay of Rq Twwr Re Coumry Rwa R=34 o "Cwanuan a?aec t7W973-a1a3 www.T „rnc-rNwt ULco" 1 Ms. Nlcole Sauviat Cdste,Principal TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH, INC. February 12,2015 land uses In a mixed-use environment often produces a reduction In the overall parking demand. This is commonly seen in an environment where some percentage of patrons at one business (such as a restaurant)may be guests of another business(such as a hotel). Under this assumption,the guests have already parked at the hotel (their primary reason for being on-site) and are already present In the Immediate vicinity and visiting the restaurant/bar as a secondary visit. Although the Interplay of land uses can reduce the overall demand,It should be noted that there are limits imposed by the proximity of land uses to each other and to parking facilities. Human behavior often restricts shared parking opportunities by limiting the distance users are willing to walk from a parking facility to their final destinations. The restaurant and bar that are on-site and wen within the appropriate walking distance for visitors to the hotel, The restaurant and bar may have much greater patronage from the hotel than it would otherwise due to its captive market effects than a freestanding everyone-must-drive restaurant/bar. Kunzman Associates,Inc.utilized Industry knowledge and expertise,developed through work on previous similar projects and internal research, to adjust the non-captive factor to an appropriate level for the project. No two projects are alike, and therefore engineering judgment was used to allocate a So%parking demand adjustment For the on-site restaurant/bar. Captive ratios are an estimate of the percentage of parked vehicles at a land use in a mixed-use development or district that are already counted as being parkedat another of the land uses. Captive parking comes Into play when you have hotel workers and hotel guests. All of these users occupy a parking space all day but they will utilize the spa, restaurant, and bar facilities without occupying an additl anal parking space. Captive adjustments should not be confused with the mode of walking,as those who walk from other uses within the project(hotel)would be considered captive while those who walked from uses outside the project would be considered to affect the mode adjustment. The walkers are those who do not drive and park on-site. The proposed restaurant/bar are within a five-minute walking distance of four other hotels: Aleazar Palms Springs to the south,Colony Palms Hotel to the southeast,Los Arboles Hotel to the north, and Moyle Colony Hotel to the east. It Is anticipated that these patrons sometimes will walk to this hotels restaurant/bar as opposed to patronizing only their own hotels restaurant,just for a variety of dining experiences. SHARED PARKING , Because the peak parking demands for the various land uses are non-coincidental, there Is substantial opportunity for shared parking to occur. Kuntman Associates, Inc. has used the procedures developed by the Urban land Institute, hared, parldrat(2005). The Urban Land Institute shared parking analysis evaluates the types of uses, parking rates, monthly variations of parking demand by land use, differences between weekday and weekend parking demand for customer/visitor and employees, and the hourly distribution of peak parking demand for each type of land use. The Urban Land Institute procedures were utilized In this study to evaluate peak parking demand that would occur for the project at any point in time when monthly,day of week,and hourly factors are utilized. wwwrwwtc-rriw�swmu 2 � n2 Ms.Nicole Sauviat Criste,Principal TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. February 12,2DI5 A computer program was used to analyze the shared parking for the proposed development. The program Is consistent with the procedures provided by the Urban Land Institute. The following Inputs were included wlthkt the shared parking computer program for each land use: ■ Peak parking demand by land use per parking code. in Weekend vs.weekday adjustment factors. ■ Customer/visitor/guest and employee/residentfactors. ■ Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations in parking demand over the year. It should be noted that a late December month is defined as the period between Christmas and New Year's Day, reflecting high attendance at active entertainment venues, lower demand at office and other employment-centered destinations,and moderate demand for retail. ■ Hourly distribution of parking demand based upon the Urban land Institute data. The Idea of a shared parking analysis is that if the various land uses have peak parking demands at different points in time,or an different days of the week,then the number of spaces required is not the sum of The parking requirements for each land use,but rather less. If the peak demands for the various land uses are non-coinddental, then there is an opportunity for sharing of parking. To determine the degree to which shared parking can occur, the cumulative hourly parking demand of the land uses is calculated at all points in time throughout the day for both weekdays and weekends. With the parking demand known by hour and day,then the maximum peak parking demand during a seven day week can be determined. The maximum expected parking demand during the seven day week Is then used as a basis for determining the number of parking spaces needed. To determine the degree to which sharing of parking can occur,each month of the year was evaluated and the peak parking demand for both weekdays and weekends was determined utilizing data provide by the Urban Land Institute. To conduct a shared parking analysis,It is necessary to disaggregate the parking code Into weekday and weekend as well as customer/Asitor/guest and employee/resident parking space demands. Based on the City of Palm Springs Parking Code and the Urban Land Institute recommended parking ratios for weekdays and weekends,the disaggregated parking spaces required are shown In Table I. A total of 69 parking spaces are required for weekdays and 72 parking spaces are required for weekends. These calculations are based upon a 50% parking demand adjustment of the restaurant/bar land dues associated with non-captive and modal reduction. Due to the mixed-use nature of the proposed project, it is expected that 50% of the visitors to the restaurant/bar will be either internally raptured from the hotel and therefore will not be needing an additional parking space or will be using other modes of transportation such as walking or biking. The spa will be restricted to hotel guests only; therefore,no additional parking spaces are required for the spa use. Www.TKAPnC-1EMM11 l=M 3 IC3 Ms.Nicole Sauviat Criste,Principal TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. February12,2015 As will be shown below,when monthly,day ofweek,and hourly parking factors are utilized,less than 72 parking spares will be needed for the project site. Table: 2 shows the expected hourly peak parking demand of the land uses for both weekdays and weekends. Table 3 shows the cumulative parking demand peaks for all land uses combined. Based on the calculations In this report, a March/July/August maximum parking demand of 55 parking spaces will occur on weekdays at 9!00 PM - 10:00 PM, and an August maximum parking demand of 61 parking spaces will occur on weekends from 9:00 PM-10:00 PM. The detailed computer calculations for each month are included in Appendix C. Sufficient on-site parking will be provided based on the maximum likely parking demand of 61 parking spaces and the proposed 62 parking spaces provided. It should be noted that the valet service will allow double-stacking of vehicles,increasing the parking supply. CONCLUSIONS 1. The project site Is located Immediately north and adjacent to the existing Alcazar Hotel, and is bounded by North Palm Canyon Drive on the west and North Indian Canyon Orive on the east in the City of Palm Springs. 'The mixed-use project will consist of a 46 room hotel with 2,190 square feet of spa, a roof-top bar area with 47 seats, a 3,025 square foot quality restaurant with a maximum of 50 seats provided, and 2,595 square feet of retail use. The project site plan will provide a total of 62 off-street parking spaces,and will provide valet parking services. 2. Based upon the City parking code requirements,93 parking spaces are required per Table 1. This demand (31 parking space deficiency) is required if all land uses simultaneously generated their maximum parking codedemands. 3. Because the peak parking demands for the various land uses are non-coincidental, there Is substantial opportunity for shared parking to occur. 4. Based on the City of Palm Springs Parking Code and the Urban Land Institute recommended parking ratios for weekdays and weekends,the dlsaggregated parking spaces required are shown in Table 1. A total of 69 parking spaces are required for weekdays and 72 parking spaces are required for weekends. These calculations are based upon a 50%parking demand adjustment of the restaurant/bar land uses associated with non-captive and modal reduction. Due to the mixed- use nature of the proposed project, it is expected that 50% of the visitors to the restaurant/bar wiR be either internally captured from the hotel and therefore will not be needing an additional parking space or will be using other modes of transportation such as walking or biking. The spa vdlTl be restricted to hotel guests only;therefore,no additional parking spaces are required for the spa use. www.Txnrrso-EMIKI w OM 4 1�� Ms.Nicole Sauviat Criste,Principal TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. February 12,2015 5. Once shared parking radars are utilized, a March/July/August maximum parking demand of 55 parking spaces will occur on weekdays at 9..00 PM - 10:00 PM, and an August maximurn parking demand of 61 parking spaces will occur on weekends from 9:OD PM-10:00 PM. 6. Sufficient on-site parking is provided based on the parking study. It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on the 7SO Lofts Project. Should you have any questions or If we an be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to call at(714)973.8393. Sincerely, KUN2MAN ASSOCIATES,INC. KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. Cad Ballard,LEEO GA 3�'TRD056 b William Kurtzman,P.E. principal n}* � Princl 1 TA a600s OF WwW.1suunc4vw1Ntl kWM 5 t11) s City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way - Palm Springs, California 92262 /FORN�P Tel: 760.323.8204 " Fax:760.322.8332 "Too 760.864.9527 "www.palmspringsca.gov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting held on June 7, 2017, the City Council continued Public Hearing Item No. 2.C. to June 21, 2017: 750 LOFTS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 374, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION 3.3795, CASE 5.1350, LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE: ACTION: 1) Open the public hearing, and take no public testimony at this time. 2) Continue the public hearing to June 21, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. 3) Direct the City Clerk to post a notice of continuance. I, Kathleen D. Hart, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 2017, as required by established policies and procedures. KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC Interim City Clerk Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 �pPLM S,6 A. iy fd v m Rbuno C4<fFOAN�p City Council Staff Report DATE: JUNE 21, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT RE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD- 374, THE 750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCATED AT 750 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374 FROM: David Ready, City Manager BY: Edward Kotkin, City Attorney SUMMARY: The staff report delivered to the City Council in this matter recommended adoption of the proposed Resolution. The Writ of Mandate issued in relation to this project's consideration by the Superior Court required that the City adequately address all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. In harmony with the writ, the Court's judgment in this matter granted the writ only as to the issue of parking, noting the City's failure to consider the event space in calculating required parking, and denying the writ on all other grounds. The effect of the Resolution as drafted was implementation of the Court's direction, per the writ and in accord with the judgment, in the context of an affirmation of the original approval of the project in September 2015. As the original staff report noted, the Council has other options. The original staff report indicated that the Council has discretion in this case, and noted that the Council has the authority to reject staff's recommendation in this matter to approve a Resolution consistent with the project's parking issue being resolved via removal of the event space from the project. Rather than simply state that the Council may direct staff to comply with the Court's writ in any manner it sees fit, this staff report delineates some of the specific alternative actions that the Council may wish to consider at this time. City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017- Page 2 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ, Supplemental Report RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-374, THE "750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCATED AT 750 N. PALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374," as well as various alternatives to compliance with the Writ of Mandate issued in this case by the Court. DISCUSSION. As is noted in the prior staff report, on May 3, 2017, the Council took affirmative action rescinding Ordinance No. 1886 (the past approval of the planned development district, PD- 374, hereinafter the "PDD"), and Resolution No. 23899 (the past approval of the major architectural application ("MAX) and the conditional use permits ("CUPs") related to this project). Council took this action without making factual findings based upon the direction of the Court and recommendation of the city attorney. The background of this matter is addressed in the previous staff report. In lieu of adopting the Resolution recommended by staff, the Council may consider one of the following options: 1. Reject the project as follows. Affirm the May 3 rescission of the PDD (Ordinance 1886), and the MAJ and CUPs (Resolution 23899). Rescind Resolution 23898 adopting the mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for this project, and Resolution 23900 approving the general plan amendment ("GPA") for this project. This alternative completes a rescission of all land use entitlements originally approved by the City Council, and should be based upon factual findings in denial of the entitlements as now reconsidered and rejected by the Council. In the event that the Council wishes to pursue this alternative, staff requests time to prepare a Resolution stating the Council's determinations, upon reconsideration, in support of the new denial of the project. With the Council's assistance, these findings will be as specific as possible, and include, without limitation, a Council determination of whether the event space is a part of the project, and whether the project as denied provides adequate parking in relation to the project's full scope as considered by the Council. 2. Determine that the Council lacks sufficient information to decide whether to approve or deny the project at this time, and send the project, or a portion thereof, to the Historic Site Preservation Board and/or Planning Commission for further consideration with direction determined warranted by the Council. 3. Express an intent to approve the project including the event space, but resolving all parking issues under the Palm Springs Municipal Code via a modification as to the scope and nature of the project as newly approved, e.g., a decision to approve the City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017 - Page 3 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ, Supplemental Report project with fewer hotel rooms, fewer seats in the restaurant and lounges, etc. In the event that the Council wishes to pursue this alternative, staff requests time to prepare a staff report, and as necessary and appropriate, an Ordinance, and Resolution(s) consistent with the Council's direction, and illustrating to the Court that the project approval, as revised, adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. 4. Express an intent to approve the project inclusive of the event space as per alternative #3, but with the addition or removal of specific conditions of approval. Again, in the event that the Council wishes to pursue this alternative, staff requests time to prepare a staff report, and as necessary and appropriate, an Ordinance, and Resolution(s) consistent with the Council's direction, and illustrating to the Court that the project approval, as revised, adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. 5. Express an intent to approve the project excluding the event space, but with the addition or removal of specific conditions of approval. Once again, in the event that the Council wishes to pursue this alternative, staff requests time to prepare a staff report, and as necessary and appropriate, an Ordinance, and Resolution(s) consistent with the Council's direction, and illustrating to the Court that the project approval, excluding the event space and as otherwise revised, adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as required by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. This list of alternatives is illustrative, not exhaustive. The Council has authority to handle this matter in accord with its preferences. Regardless of whether the Council approves the Resolution per staff's recommendation, pursues an alternative stated in this report, or takes another action, the City must file a return to the Court's writ. During the time since publication of this agenda, an additional legal issue has arisen, and likely been resolved. It appears that the 750 Lofts, LLC entity has been suspended since May 8, 2017. Per the developer's attorney, the Secretary of State's office provided the suspension initiation date directly. The developer took corrective action to file a statement of information yesterday, verified by staff. Per the developer's attorney, the lack of a current statement was the only defect impacting the company's status. In addition, given the existence of issues as to the LLC, staff has learned from the developer's attorney that the only member, and only manager of 750 Lofts, LLC is David Jankilevitsch. Also per the developer's lawyer, Mr. Jankilevitsch is also the only investor in the company. Finally, upon inquiry, the developer's attorney has indicated that neither John Wessman nor Richard Meaney has ever invested in this project. ALTERNATIVES: Stated above. City Council Staff Report June 21, 2017- Page 4 750 Lofts Project, Compliance with Writ, Supplemental Report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Unless the Council revisits it, the environmental assessment prepared and approved in conjunction with the 750 Lofts Project is the controlling environmental assessment for purposes of this matter. The only defect in this assessment, per the Court's ruling issued in relation to the Writ, was analysis of parking related to the event area. If it wishes to do so regardless of the Court's conclusions, the Council can rescind the City's entire prior approval of that assessment. FISCAL IMPACT: No significant change to City revenue or expenditures is expected as a result of adopting the proposed Resolution. Edward Z. Kotkin, Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S., City Attorney Assistant City Manager David H. Ready, Esq., P Flinn Fagg, AICP City Manager Director of Planning Services PECEI d r.D or PtnL.rl SPP, i 201T JUN ZU pm 3. 53 Law Offices ofBabak Noficy June 20, 2017 Via Email and US Mail Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs, c/o City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 c it yc lcrk(cup a I msp rings-ca.(*ov Robert.Moonk)palmspringsca.gov Chris.Mills(cypalmspfin s ca.gov Ginny.Foat(��palmspringsca.gov 1540 Marsh Street, Gco ff.Kors(aipaImspringsca.gov Suite 110 JR.Roberts(ct)palmspringsca.gov San Luis Obispo California 93401 ph:805-593-0926 Re: 750 Lofts Project fax:805-593-0945 Advocates for Better Community Development("ABCD") submits this letter in babaknalicy,]sbcglobal.ret opposition to the proposed Resolution to comply with the Writ issued in connection with the 750 Lofts Project ("Project") on the June 21, 2017 City Council Agenda(Item 2C). As more fully explained below, the Staff Report does not accurately represent the facts of this case, including the contents and implications of the Writ of Mandate issued in Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 1512884. It is deeply concerning and frustrating that Staff Reports continue to distort, sometimes in subtle fashion,both the history of this Project as well as the content of the Court's ruling. The Staff Report claims the developer discussed the issue of removal of the event center with the City prior to Project approval in 2015. The Staff Report, however, does not mention any discussion with staff as to whether this actually took place. It appears that in preparing the Staff Report, staff made no effort to talk to any of the planning staff who actually worked on this case and instead, only discussed the case with the developer. Nor does the Staff Report offer any written evidence in this regard. No documents supporting this contention exist in the administrative record in this case, which the City certified as accurate and complete. If documents supporting the City Staff s contentions in this record, ABCD respectfully requests the City produce any such documents immediately. One of the most important issues related to this Project is its height as it relates to the impact on the Las Palmas historic district. The Staff Report admits that when the Historic Site Preservation Board ("HSPB") considered this project in January 2015, it imposed strict height limits on the Project in order to make it compatible with the historic district. The Staff Report fails to mention, however, that the height reductions proposed by the applicant and approved by the City Council came nowhere close to those imposed by the HSPB. The Project as approved is between 29'-3" to 34'-0' high along Indian Canyon Drive, well in excess of the 20 foot limit set by the HSPB. Likewise, at a maximum height of 48 feet, the Project is well in excess of the 34 foot limit set by the HSPB. The Staff Report's vague reference to alterations to the height of the building in response to HSPB is misleading, at best. The Staff Report states that the Planning Commission recommended approval "subject to the conditions of approval." These conditions included the height limits imposed by the HSBP. The Planning Commission was led to believe by staff that the Project would be subject to those height limits. Accordingly, the Planning Commission never considered the project the City approved, which did not include the height limits that HSPB concluded were necessary to maintain the integrity of the historic district. Likewise, the City Council never asked the HSPB to consider whether minimal changes to the Project adequately addressed the concerns that necessitated the height restrictions. As such, the City Council should refer the Project back to both the HSPB and the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. The Staff Report attempts to re-litigate certain issues of the case, including whether the City had actually approved an event center. The Staff Report claims: While the elimination of the event area may have been intended, Project plans inadvertently continued to show the event area as part of the Project. At hearing on the Writ, the court noted that the administrative record in this case was "messy." The inclusion of the event area in the Project plans when that use is not reflected in condition of approval PLN 16 that enumerates permitted uses and development standards is at best ambiguity regarding the parking requirement in the administrative record. This statement implies that the only place the event center was mentioned in the final approvals was in the Project Plans, supporting the claim that the issue of the event space is at best "ambiguous" and that the inclusion of the event space was"inadvertent." These contentions are at odds with the Court's ruling and the record. We have attached a page from the transcript of the Court hearing where this issue was discussed. In this regard, the Court stated: "I'm uncomfortable with the state of the record as it relates to this parking issue because of a multitude of references that there is an intent to hold events there on the roof other than just come up and have a drink." Transcripts,p. 33:7-10. The Court's ruling is consistent with the administrative record, for example, the City's Resolution No. 23899 (approval of a Major Architectural Application and Conditional Use 2 Permits for the Project), which explains that "the fourth floor event space, which is approximately 4,000 square feet, has been moved towards the center of the building and is now located approximately 68 feet from Indian Canyon Property line." Page 6, segment C. Accordingly, the Staff Report's revisionist history that the status of the event center is simply ambiguous is not accurate. The City Council's Re-Consideration of the Project The Staff Report's discussion of the "alternatives" courses of action before the City Council is vague and not informative. The only alternative suggested by the Staff Report is to "Reject staffs recommendation in this matter, and direct staff as to how to comply with the Court's Writ." The Staff Report does not clearly indicate that the Council may elect to refer the Project back to the HSPB or the Planning Commission for consideration, or to ask staff for a discussion of the issues presented. Nor does the Staff Report explain, as we do more fully below, that the City Council is required to reconsider the entire Project if it is inclined to consider its reapproval, or that the Writ does not dictate the manner in which the City may proceed. As all Project approvals have already or will need to be set aside as required by the Writ, the Project would need entirely new approvals. Even if the City Council still wishes to go forward with the Project without input from the HSPB or the Planning Commission, the City Council must adopt new resolutions, supported by appropriate findings. Of the current four members of the Council, four are essentially new to the Project. Mayor Moon and supervisor Kors were not on the Council when this Project came up. Councilmember JR Roberts considered the Project when he was on the Planning Commission, but Mr. Roberts has never considered the height issue or whether the Project, as modified, is compatible with the Las Palmas Historic Business District. Finally, Councilmember Foats had recused herself from considering the Project when it came before the City in 2015. As such, 3 of the 5 members of the City Council are completely new to the Project, and a fourth member has never considered the whole of the Project. The current proposed resolution contains the following finding: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby orders that (i) an additional condition shall be placed on the Project which expressly requires that the "event area," also referenced in the Writ and from time to time in relation to the Project as "event space," is eliminated from PDD-374, and that (ii) subject to that change, the approval of PDD-374 and all related approvals and resolutions, including without limitation Ordinance No. 1886 and Resolution No. 23899, adopted arising from and related to the Project are hereby reinstated and affirmed in their entirety. 3 As the City Council includes members who did not participate in the administrative review of the project,without full discussion and input from Planning Commission, these Councilmembers are not in a position simply to"reinstate and affirm"all previous approvals in their entirety including Resolutions No. 1886 and No. 23899, Councilmembers, particularly those new to the Project, must conduct a robust discussion of the issues posed by the Project before they are able to consider the merits of the project and make appropriate findings. Conclusion: As former City Attorney, Doug Holland, explained on May 3,2017, following the rescission of all project approvals, the City Council has the option of fully re-examining the Project. The Court's Writ, which directed the City to reconsider the parking issues before considering reapproval of the Project, sets the floor for what the City Council must do, it does not set the ceiling. The City Council may choose to reconsider some or all aspects of the Project, including but not limited to the Project's height and compatibility with the historic nature of the district. The Staff Report's implicit claim that all the Council must do is simply to eliminate the "event center"and otherwise rubber stamp the Project is simply untrue. Sincerely, BABAK NAFICY Attorney for Advocates for Better Community Development cc: Edward Kotkin Edward.Kotkin/5)palmsnrings-ca,gov 4 1 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA; JANUARY 9, 2017 2 BEFORE THE HONORABLE SHARON J. WATERS 3 THE COURT : Come on up, Counsel . This is Advocates for 4 Better Community Development versus City of Palms Springs . 5 Appearances . 6 MS. HEMPHILL: Good morning, Your Honor. Emily 7 Hemphill representing the City and the real parties in interest . 8 MR. NAFICY: Good morning, Your Honor. Babak Naficy 9 for petitioner Advocates for Better Community Development . 10 THE COURT : So here are my tentative thoughts, and that 11 is to grant the petition on the grounds that City has not 12 complied with its own ordinance. I apologize. I didn't write 13 the ordinance number, but the one that requires a certificate of 14 approval from the Historic Preservation Board. 15 Two, the parking is inadequate under the City' s 16 ordinances because there appears to be an event space, although 17 I 'm not sure where its located or how big it is, somewhere on 18 the site that was not addressed in the parking analysis, plus 19 there does not appear to be provision -- adequate provision for 20 onsite employee parking. 21 But to deny the petition to the extent petitioners 22 contend there is an illegal spot zoning; although even on that, 23 I think I 'm going to need some more information from the City. 24 So who wants to start? 25 MS . HEMPHILL: May I, Your Honor? 26 THE COURT: Do you care? 27 MR. NAFICY: No, Your Honor. Given the tentative, I 28 would be happy to defer to counsel . KAREN L. BURKS, GSR 1 1 There is, obviously -- or there ' s an indication that 2 there' s space that can be made available for some event . And 3 that because if there is no seating, we are talking about 4 measuring the parking needs by square footage. we can' t get a 5 clear idea of what the square footage is which makes it even 6 more difficult to determine what the parking needs are . 7 So I 'm uncomfortable with the state of the record as it 8 relates to this parking issue because of a multitude of 9 references that there is an intent to hold events there on the 10 roof other than just come up and have a drink at the bar. 11 MS . HEMPHILL: Your Honor, if one wanted to have a 12 wedding reception and you had a small wedding of 20 people, 13 would that be able to happen up there? Yes . If you had a 14 wedding reception with 50 people, would that be able to happen 15 up there? No, because you don' t have enough seating for it and 16 you can have only have 20 seats . 17 THE COURT: Move on to the onsite employee parking 18 issue. I think you' re losing this issue. I think it ' s going to 19 be appropriate to grant some sort of writ, if nothing else, to 20 require that this issue or any conditions that -- appropriate 21 conditions be imposed to prevent the use of the rooftop for any 22 sort of events, period, beyond people drinking at the bar or 23 swimming at the pool . I guess there is a pool up there. 24 MS. HEMPHILL: Yes, there is a pool . 25 THE COURT: 34 seats, or whatever, for the pool. I 26 don' t remember what the number was . 27 So what about employee parking? 28 MS. HEMPHILL: Under the city' s code, the employee KAREN L. BURKS, CSR 33 PALM SPRINGS ? CEIY D PRESERVATION FOUNDATION June 18, 2017 2017 JUd 19 AM 8' 54 Honorable Robert Moon U' ' " Mayor, City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: 750 Lofts Development(Item 2.C. on June 21, 2017, City Council Agenda) Dear Mayor Moon, The Las Palmas Business Historic District was the city's first historic district and remains the city's only business historic district. At the August 11, 2009 Historic Site Preservation Board meeting, city staff announced that while cleaning out files they discovered paperwork regarding this forgotten historic district which was created by Palm Springs City Council Resolution No. 15858 on May 7, 1986. At the time, the City staff indicated that a legal review revealed that the historic district remains valid. The district is notable because it not only contains one of our best Mission Revival buildings (the 1936 Pacific Building)but also the city's first modernist building(the 1934 Kocher-Samson Building). We are very fortunate that few unsympathetic modifications have been made in the historic district, despite the lack of city protections during the "lost"decades. Unfortunately,this is not the case with the 750 Lofts project. Rather, that project would have a devastating effect on the character of the historic district. Like many Planned Development Districts (PDDs) initiated under the Pougnet-era,this development is out of scale and too dense. We previously expressed these concerns to the Planning Commission in a June 23, 2015 letter. We are encouraged that this city council has shown an impressive resolve to be sensitive to the character and history of the city. Additionally,we see positive signs that city staff, and the Planning Commission, are taking note of council's leadership in this regard. We strongly recommend that this ill-advised project be denied by city council and that the developer, if desired, start it as a new application. This will send a clear message to future developers that"too tall and too dense"is no longer accepted in Palm Springs. If you require any additional information,please contact PSPF board member Rick Hobbs- Seeley at(760) 837-7117 or by email at info@pspreservationfoundation.org. Sincerely, Erik Rosenow President Copy to: Palm Springs City Council members(Foat,Roberts,Kors and Mills) 1775 East Palm Canyon Drive,Suite 110-195,Palm Springs,CA 92264 (760)837-7117 • info@pspms ationfomdation.org 0 w .pspreservationfmmdation.org Terri Milton From: Roxann Ploss <riploss@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 20, 2017 4:43 PM To: CityClerk; Citymanager- Mail Login; Robert & Bob Moon & Hammack; Ginny Foat; J.R. Roberts; Geoff Kors; Chris Mills Subject: 750 Lofts Good evening all, I was the vice-chair of the HSPB when 750 Lofts came up before us, more than once. The majority of the Board was not particularly interested in saving the old B of A, so we were open to any reasonable proposal INCLUDING one that necessitated demolition. (The reason it was brought before us, of course, is because the site is in the center of the Las Palmas Historic Business District.) More than once, the architect, Mr. Cioffi, was questioned about the height and massing being out of line with the character of the district. The idea of a four-story building overwhelming any building nearby was not appealing. The proposal was sent back to the developer, requesting some sort of story pole so that we could judge for ourselves whether this would impact view corridors, etc. Mr. Cioffi brought a scissor-lift to the site. Many board members commented that the placement of said lift did not help because it sat in the middle of the parking lot away from any other structure for comparison. However, I did visit Mr. Castaneda's property that day and could easily see the lift! Of great concern was parking. What was planned was totally inadequate given the number of rooms, the intention of inclusions of both businesses and a restaurant/bar open to the public. (At the time, the proposal also included plans for a roof-top event space for over 100 people. I understand that this has been withdrawn????) Regardless, even without the event space, the parking would not have been sufficient. From the first time any proposal came to the HSPB (initially as the Alcazar Lofts), the former Spanish Inn (whose unused lot was "borrowed" by surrounding hotels) had opened as The Triada. The Colony Inn and Los Arboles had been upgraded and Alcazar had also been finished. The Palm Canyon Theatre was doing sold out business, as was Cheeky's. There simply was no room for street parking. "We're planning on using valet parking." All well and good......if the valets intent was to circle the block for two hours! The HSPB ultimately approved the proposal (6-1) but with very well-defined conditions having to do with height, bulk, set-backs, noise and parking. These conditions, in my opinion, have not yet been met. This development will rob PS of 1 more than it will give back; character and quality of life cannot be restored once lost. The plan, again in my opinion as and as a resident of a neighborhood abutting the Old Movie Colony, is ill-advised. Addendum: BTW, the HSPB subcommittee studying the LPHBD took three years to photograph, research and do (in some cases) individual histories on every building in the district. It was presented to the full board and approved over two years ago. There was, apparently, never a convenient time or staff availability to add it to the City Council agenda. There was quite a lot of effort to define the value of contributing buildings in the district and, it is hoped, this work might be taken into consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Roxann Ploss Resident of PS Former member of the HSPB Roxann Ploss Palm Springs, Co. "You cannot maintain a soul of a community if you detach it from history." Dani Dayan i z SARA FRITH AND PATRICK HARBINSON sarafrith(a)gmail.com 310-305-8011 292 East Via Altamira 440 Unnie Canal Palm Springs,CA 92262 Venice,CA 90291 June 21,2017 c: Palm Springs Planning Commission and City Council r o 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 5' Z M Palm Springs,CA 92262 • — rrn Re: 750 Lofts,LLC planned development at 750 North Palm Canyon Drive rn Co Dear Sirs, - W I understand that either the City Council is considering the matter of 750 Lofts at tomorrow's Council Meeting. Sadly, I only received news of this hearing today and I am out of the country and unable to attend. I live at 292 East Via Altamira in the Movie Colony,within 500 feet of this proposed development, and will be directly affected by it. I wonder if the proper notification procedures have been followed to allow people like me to be made aware of this hearing. Although I am currently overseas, my husband has been regularly at our house and,to our knowledge,we have not received written notification of this hearing as I believe we should have. I also signed up to receive email alerts of any hearings involving 750 Lofts and have not received any such alerts from the City. I and my neighbors have long had concerns about this project,which we have voiced over a number of years in many letters to,and in person at hearings before,the Historic Site Preservation Board,the City Planning Commission and the City Council. I am not sure if it is necessary to reiterate all our many objections here, but they are on the record and ought to be reviewed by you as you look again at this project. In short,the building does not conform to any of the building guidelines, ordinances or codes applicable to this lot,and required a slew of inappropriate exceptions which at least one of the Planning Commissioners acknowledged at the time effectively tore up the rules governing building in this district. It is too high,too densely built, has insufficient open space,has insufficient setbacks,does not conform to the neighborhood in size, mass or style; and does not warrant a grant of a PDD -there are no public benefits—only private gain for the developer and blocks views of the mountains from the East. We felt at the time of the last application hearings,and continue to feel,that the proposed building is out of keeping with the character of the area,both in style and in height and density,and that it will have a profound and negative visual impact on the area as a result. This is true both on Palm Canyon and on Indian Canyon. It is an egregious example of a developer being granted every exemption possible from the planning rules which were supposed to protect this historic area from inappropriate new building. And it created a terrible precedent for future developers. 11Page From a personal point of view,the excessive height of the building will deprive many,myself included,of much valued mountain views. It will spoil the low rise, predominantly Spanish revival, character of the neighborhood,overwhelming all the historic buildings surrounding it. The proposed rooftop pool and event space(only necessary because the developers have been unwilling to give up ground space to pools and garden- unlike all the other boutique hotels in this area),will create a noise issue for everyone around and is also out of keeping with the neighborhood. Obviously the lack of adequate parking is also a significant issue in an area where parking is already posing a significant problem for local residents. It also gives the developer an unfair economic advantage over neighboring boutique hotels which have been developed more sympathetically and less densely within the applicable building rules—without the grant of all the exceptions being requested by this developer. It became depressingly evident during the process of public hearings and staff reports that the City and its staff were bent on flouting the City's own General Plan, building guidelines,zoning and building ordinances,and the Historic Site Preservation Board recommendations,to approve this project,without regard to the interests of the public or the historic character of this neighborhood. Conclusions were reached in Staff Reports regarding conformity to applicable rules that were simply unsupported by the facts. There has been a lot of press in recent months about the misuse of the PDD process,and this project was one of the most egregious examples of that. For many of us it was a truly dispiriting experience and has led us to question whether to remain here and continue to invest in this town,or to encourage others to join us here. The jury is still out on that. As I have said before but will repeat here: when people like us and so many others invest in this community we have a right to expect that the General Plan and the rules designed to protect the history,character, beauty and atmosphere of the neighborhood we are investing in,(rules which existed at the time of those investments and were key factors in making decisions to purchase property here), will be applied equally and fairly to all who purchase property here—including developers. Should the City decide it is going to change its General Plan,this should be done with full public involvement and not piecemeal -application by application. It is an exhausting and costly process to force private citizens to keep fighting each application, including through the courts,in order to have rules respected. Since the time this application was granted by the City Council,there have been significant and welcome changes to the City administration; changes which perhaps did not come from within,but were forced upon the administration by the courageous efforts of a growing number of residents who are concerned about how this town is governed. But however they came about, I am hoping that those changes have resulted in a tangible and meaningful change in culture and attitude in the planning process. It is my understanding that the PDD approval for this project has been revoked by the City Attorney and that the City therefore now has the opportunity to reconsider this project afresh(not merely on the narrow basis of the parking issue.) I very much hope,and would respectfully request,that this City Council take this opportunity to fully review and reconsider the many egregious planning issues raised by this project and,this time round, apply the existing building codes and follow the recommendations of the Historic Site Preservation 2 ) Page Board(preferably giving that body an opportunity to review and comment on the latest plans, something they were not given the chance to do last time). SARA FRITH PATRICK HARBINSON Attorney Writer/Producer 3 1 P a g e RECEIVED LM 2017 JON 21 AM 8-- 53 GORDOND. ZLOT 301 E. Tamarisk Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262 Voice: 707-536-9447 FAX.- 707-284-9114 Email:gz2kzct cnm June 21, 2017 City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: 750 Lofts, LLC proposed mixed use hotel development at 750 North Palm Canyon Drive Dear Sirs, I understand there is a hearing scheduled for 6pm today on the 750 Lofts, LLC. Project at 750 North Palm Canyon. I have a had a house for over 15 years at 301 E.Tamarisk Road,which is within the 500 feet impact zone of this proposed development. I have not received any notice of this hearing. I understand that the approval for this project has been rescinded and that the Council has the opportunity either to rubber stamp its re-approval in its current form or to exercise its right to relook at the project. I heartily implore you to take another look because this project fails to comply with the General Plan,with any of the applicable building guidelines for this historic area of Palm Springs and would set a terrible precedent for future development in Palm Springs: it is too tall, it is built over too much of the lot it does not provide the required open space, it is does not meet the setback requirements, it does not meet the density requirements, it does not meet the parking requirements, it is not in keeping with its neighbors in terms of scale or style, it blocks the mountain views across the whole lot for those businesses and residences located to the east and to pedestrians on Indian Canyon, it does not provide the required public benefit for a grant of Planned Development District status. • Page 2 June 21, 2017 1 am very concerned about the possible loss of views, noise, parking,and traffic issues that this project would be creating in its current form. The potential impact on the surrounding businesses and residents has not been adequately and independently reviewed. This building application if approved would create a damaging precedent for the city and its historic areas. It is vital to the future of Palm Springs that historic neighborhoods are preserved for the future. Development within those areas needs to be sensitive to the surroundings and this project is not. For the foregoing reasons I respectfully request that you send it back to the Planning Committee and to the Historic Site Preservation Board with a view to bringing in closer into conformity with the General Plan,the building regulations and the Old Las Palmas Historic Business Building Guidelines. Si rely, rdon D.Act Patrick Harbinson 292 Via Altamira Palm Springs, California 92262 sicelle(cDaol.com Kathleen D. Hart City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 June 20, 2017 Re: 750 Lofts Development- North Palm Canyon Drive Dear Ms. Hart, I own the above property in the Movie Colony,within 500 feet of 750 Lofts. I am writing to express once more my strongest objections to the project. The project's height is grotesquely out of keeping with Uptown Palm Springs and its beautiful historic buildings and charming ambience. Its design is a travesty of'shopping mall chic': vast walls of glass and concrete - so unsuited to desert heat - which stretch along Indian Canyon, blocking all mountain views to visitors and residents, damaging the outlook and business of the beautiful little motels and restaurants on the east side of Indian Canyon. The parking scheme - which the Council is now re-considering- is grossly inadequate. It is already clear that since the opening of Triada the surrounding streets are clogged, especially at weekends. I am often unable to access my garage and forecourt because they are blocked by cars belonging to guests or workers at Triada. Another large hotel with its disingenuous claims about car and traffic numbers will simply cause chaos and increase the chances of a serious accident to the many pedestrians trying to enjoy the Movie Colony's quiet streets. This project was forced through by the previous Mayor's administration, often by bending or arbitrarily rewriting the City's own zoning laws. I would beg that the Council reconsiders the whole project. The City is building enough modern glass towers in Downtown Palm Springs, please let Uptown remain unique. Thank you. Yours truly, Patrick Harbinson RECEIVED )i7 'r OF P;;LM SPkIt 2011 JUN 21 PM 12: 54 Claire Best Hawley jFFICE ul ` L 1162 E. San Jacinto Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Claire@clairebest.net Kathleen D. Hart City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 June 20, 2017 Re: 750 Lofts Development—North Palm Canyon Drive Dear Ms. Hart, I gather that there is a hearing today for the above mentioned project to apply for new permits. I am strongly against the proposed development which does not fit the General Plan for the district it is in. In an area which has been carefully renovated and is now the cherished and chic design district, it would be completely inappropriate and an eye saw to allow a building whose height is not in keeping with those around it and whose height violates the General Plan. Furthermore, as we have already noticed with the height of the yet to be completed complex on the corner of Taquitz and Palm Canyon, the construction of a high building will immediately and negatively impact the view for residents and businesses around it. Why should special concessions be made for one development which will cause the devaluation of hotels, businesses and residences whose view is suddenly obstructed while they have all abided by the guidelines of the city plan? The development's design in general is an eye sore and will severely detract tourists and visitors who enjoy coming to the low impact boutique hotels that currently occupy the area and have added greatly to the overall attractiveness of the City. Parking is already at a prime in the area so the parking scheme for this property is completely inadequate to deal with the additional traffic that the property will create. This project is among those that went through under the previous Mayor's administration which often rewrote the City's own zoning laws in favor of developers. The project needs to be completely replanned so that it complies and does not create a precedent for other developers to come and do the same and create several blocks of high rises and ultimately ruining the view of the mountains and the charm of the district irreparably. The highrise development further downtown is a travesty and looks monstrous alongside its neighbors. We cannot have the same in the uptown district. It will ruin it. Thank you. Yours truly, Claire Best Hawley Judy Deertrack 1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Wednesday, June 21 2017 To the City Council Palm Springs, California RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, COMPLYING WITH WRIT OF MANDATE, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD-374, THE "750 LOFTS" PROJECT LOCA TED A T 750 N. P ALM CANYON DRIVE, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PD-374 To the City Council: The 750 Lofts approval in September 2015 was litigated and challenged it as an illegal spot zone. The court disagreed that illegal spot zoning had occurred, but remanded to the City with instructions to cure the deficiency in allocating for adequate parking. That is because the parking study DID NOT assess parking for the fourth floor event center, pool, open bar, lounge, conference rooms, and spa. The court directed the city and the developer to comply with its local ordinance parking requirements. The City is now attempting to follow that court order. On May 3, 2017, City Attorney Doug Holland actually RESCINDED (VACATED) the PDD Permit (land use permit), the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and the Architectural Permit (AAC) for this project. The rescission appears in the Action Summary prepared after the hearing. From a transcription of the videotaped May 3, 2017, hearing, the following was stated: "CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GEOFF KORS: I have a question for the City Attorney. So, are we limited at our public hearing to either making a decision on the parking to conform to the request of the court or do we have other opportunities regarding this project? CITY ATTORNEY DOUG HOLLAND: The court had instructed us to re-visit this issue in regard to the parking with the council having rescinded the action, and in considering this for public hearing the council would have the discretion to look beyond just simply the parking issue if it wishes, but at this point we are only obligated to review the parking considerations." The City now says one option is to simply remove the fourth floor event center and no particular findings are required. But, there are four new city council members voting on this tonight that have NEVER before inspected the evidence, heard the testimony, or considered the impacts of whether this project conforms to the Las Palmas Business District Historic Guidelines, or whether its building height and mass, and its parking actually serve the character of the area. The local ordinances of Palm Springs and California State law requires the city council to make FINDINGS that this project, as designed, conforms to the Historic District and to the General Plan, especially because these prior approvals have been vacated. The City Council either needs to deny this project outright as non-conforming or send it back for a complete re-design, with comments and review by the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) and Planning Commission -- because this is a NEW CITY COUNCIL and the present city council can't just rubber-stamp what the old council did. Other Concerns are as follows: 1/. The PDD, CUP, AND MajAA for 750 Lofts were rescinded. The General Plan Amendment was not. If the project is denied on June 21", this will leave a spot zone of Central Business District high-intensity use without an underlying project. 2/ EVEN if the City Council restricts its modifications to elimination of the Event Center, the rescission has VACATED any previous findings on compliance of the PDD, CUP, ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT with the City's General Plan and Historic District. 3/ The GPA has created a SPOT ZONE of high intensity use on a lot that is specifically designed to accommodate only Neighborhood Commercial. Neighborhood Commercial prohibits hotels, and this project competes DIRECTLY with the boutique hotels that have been PROPERLY zoned along the eastern edge of Indian Canyon. Those hotels had every reason to count on the historic district protections, because they have restricted activity on their own projects. Those FINDINGS MUST BE MADE by a new City Council with no less than FOUR MEMBERS who were never part of the original city council approval. I recommend that this project be denied as non-conforming. Judy Deertrack _ � Jgi4'Io► 111a1 vials i-ren� ofC oCp- al - ao17 44 w 4 -Cho Palm SO#�495 i© Jz �tal' s _ S , g:> sj a. �� Iz i . ! t ; " � . tIr in � 1' ,a r } ""�� .all M ,Google, E Amada Rd Y * . #+�....(. t eM {�, 17 ., r a •7'•r7616 HWQfW- ,USDA Fwmn$OvKla Pre-App 12-001 750 North Palm Canyon Drive Page 2 of 12 P. McGrew: • The proposed design ignores nearly all of the historic district design guidelines. • It dwarfs the adjacent buildings. • It is not proportionate to adjacent buildings. • Relationship of upper floors and ground level is not integrated • Ignores the rhythm and pattern of solid and void found on adjacent historic buildings. • Overhang at Palm Canyon facade does not relate to adjacent buildings. • Long windowless facade on Indian Canyon kills pedestrian street life along that street frontage. • Proportions and ornamentation do not relate to adjacent buildngs. S. Gratten: • Concurrence with Mr. McGrew's comments on lack of adherence to any of the historic district guidelines, • Concerned with the excessive height. • Lacks"fit"into the context of the neighborhood. • Blocks views of the mountains from properties to the east. J. Gilmer: • Concern with north side zero lot lines and conflict with future development on that lot blocking views from the proposed building's balconies. i • Future submission should more clearly show the relative height and fenestration of adjacent buildings. i R. Ploss: • Square footages don't seem to add up. Treats Indian Canyon as "the bastard child". • Concern with blocking of views from adjacent one and two story hotels to the east,. • The intimacy and scale in the neighborhood created by the older smaller hotels is destroyed by the proposed massive building. • Lack of parking is a concern. T. DeLeeuw: • Lacks cohesive relationship with the neighborhood. • Presents an unattractive solid blank wall along Indian Canyon. • Doesn't allow adjacent smaller buildings to maintain their identity; looms over adjacent buildings and smothers them. Public Comment: R. Marshall: • Historic guidelines should be followed. • Appears"hulking, looming, overbuilt" • Out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. • It is not the City's job to make a project have "financial sense". • A lot is wrong with this building. • The Pre-app has proven to be a useful process in this case. S. Frith: • Very grave concerns about negative impact of this project on the neighborhood. • Over density and height. • Hyatt Hotel downtown was a mistake and would be tragic to repeat that mistake here. PDD 104 1 750 LOFTS I APPROVED: 2015 APPLICATION FOR: 39 ROOM HOTEL ON 1.3 ACRES, FOUR STORIES, HEIGHT= 50 FT, FLOOR AREA RATIO = 1.3 LAS PALMAS HISTORIC DISTRICT (GENERALLY 1-2 STORY BUILDINGS) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM NCC (NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING .35 FAR) TO CBD (CENTRAL BUS. DISTR 3.5 FAR) CBD CHANGE OF FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FROM 0.35 TO 3.5 (APPROVED AT 1.3 FAR) CONCEPT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND DENSITY INCREASE: THIS LOT IS WITHIN A TRANSITION ZONE s > „ea P µ> $i•!' 4 rr �. I� nV Las Palmas Historic Business District Guidelines are as follows: 1-2 story buildings/ Low Mass/Height Conformity/View Shed Retention /Align Facades & Rooftops/Setbacks & Design Conformity ISSUES OF CONCERN: GPA(amendment) to CBD in a Built-Out NCC District violates Historic Character for Lot Coverage, Open Space, Intensity of Use, View Shed and incorporates an inappropriate zoning scheme (CBD Zone) as a Precedent for future decisions in the District PDD used to Waive: Historic Guidelines, District Compatibility, Building Height, High-Rise Protections, Setbacks, Parking (From 96 to 74 spaces) tAS PAL MAS BUSINESS HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES AT PAGE 2 (APPLIED TO PDD 374 750 LOFTS t -. 1� baba tkec.heisht a# otaer struptpras in m6 stirrauad• ng. �k irgt+�x di a�+ taAStryatipa aeou7d be heaetaity sSwi1ar to atiNl`- r All.01 "s _sn'the sRrrio u km srea, va*tatlf i1t erctmuy uasgMx k� 94R4 b; zwatinq sat6ieks in,tAe Edades:'AY cteDRiu9;back tiaper - ; . ^��`fisSk _�bptSd9rt� sacks ano;blltQIISKs cuss;*�.;aiyb(ayri�l6> - +, ft, 'r`x•k 3h3plq`ae di4ssgdae ad tbi` ilu eat;:atock txeiy sriear> { . ,F the M"rk ns ri.00 aeiAus to 14d to :tnE etst tlalt i PS! Oic�Winbs 3P►: Ymu abic� ebnt art:sxi3tin4 sGfdentiai �p snautd: : ' � I E Y + ` i�� #�RrWti'i11MidQrsQR ilpt�Mirldpk ib'£vtt4o. Meit¢ao,.�xl.ykrds � wy " is TakYs at4a. - 00i }fYn'iei bigA.s OP"-iE�C:'blli'Wi11{ Via: r i �2L, -..i Mfldfin't4K9 cII1 ili?iMdC If'df w sR - I Tms prdYi* spal�..:Ta�t'aroi3ee7pla0fi 4 AirE . t ,Tirm'iFYait 'st 8.• i�ia�it aF=_ba�tii 9{ispatd b!aaaiata�lnM. +lTti!94ab saes: i! sayr by eaidstad {t lhex i4ti itsatunweli +ofs 41 -,� 'Iw� draigy� actat. The►.tt+&b"�S'J&t•ntliia M 4 R;d�i'ik.lWie�maatd bed;"�iT�eiii0!'t�:`k�1o[fay� 5t�-fiurRblr ,..ro SCOA '^ fka stdtit# aa�ttbt.'tp S6t tihai".#.awn3e ,. .. B�Fi isR . sorcuk�r taps ss a;si it"ook oaiRtan 9E:t5e i9aaQe ME\0 I - � ' f L— Estate Residential (up to 2.0 du/ac) [�Very Low Density Residential (up to 4.0 du/ac) Low Density Residential (up to 6.0 du/ac) FW Medium Density Residential (up to 15.0 du/ac) High Density Residential (up to 30.0 dulac) :— Small Hotel s,.� ._ ate � Tourist Resort Commercial Tac evii Neighborhood/Community Commercial Central Business District y� � Regional Commercial Mixed Use/Multi-Use Office 'sk Taman 0 Vol CO _. M 11-1-- 1 1" A. lejo Ro� IM Mw I* M* ONG a* Val E low" OL mado R