HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.N. iy
c
V N
4
♦ �O♦round` •
Cg41FORN,P City Council Staff Regort
DATE: May 3, 2017 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT
AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PDD-374, THE 750
LOFTS" PROJECT, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S
MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE
AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PDD-374.
FROM: David Ready, City Manager
BY: Douglas Holland, City Attorney
SUMMARY
This Resolution will conform to the direction of the Superior Court to the City Council
regarding the parking requirements for the 750 Lofts Project and confirm that the "event
space" was not an approved component of the project and the project is otherwise in
compliance with the City's parking requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT
AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PDD-374, THE "750 LOFTS"
PROJECT, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH
REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PDD-374."
DISCUSSION.
In 2014, 750 Lofts, LLC applied for approval of Planned Development District PDD-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"). The Property, while itself is
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
ITEM NO. 1•Al-
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2017-- Page 2
750 Lofts Project
46 rooms, 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 Minor Architectural Application ("MAA") come back to the
HSPB for review.
The Project, including the MAA, 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 39 rooms, thereby reducing room
count by 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 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.
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, including the GPA, PDD, CUP, MAA and Mitigated
Negative Declaration and deleted certain HSPB conditions.
On October 23, 2015, Advocates for Better Community Development filed a Petition for
Writ of Mandate (the "Petition"), seeking a writ to compel the City to rescind its approval of
the Entitlements. In adjudicating the Petition, the Court heard three basic arguments: (1)
that the City Council abused its discretion when it deleted the HSPB conditions without
sending the Project back to the HSPB, (2) that the City violated its municipal code for
approving the Project without considering the parking requirements for the "event space",
and (3) 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 has issued a writ
to the City requiring that the City set aside its approvals of the Entitlements until such time
1058537.1
D2
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2017— Page 3
750 Lofts Project
as the City adequately addresses all parking issues, including event space parking, as
required by the City's Municipal Code. It should be noted the Project underwent several
changes during the processing of the entitlements. Prior to the approval of the Project,
the City and the Applicant agreed that the "event area" originally shown on the Project
plans was to be eliminated and the City Council in approving the Project did not approve
the "event area." While elimination of the event area was intended by all parties, Project
drawings inadvertently continued to show the event area as part of the Project, thereby
creating an ambiguity regarding the parking requirement.
By eliminating the event area, the Project consists of a 39 room hotel, a 113 seat
restaurant on Palm Canyon, a 39 seat lounge on Indian Canyon, and a 20 seat roof top
lounge. Palm Springs Municipal Code requires one (1) parking space for each hotel room
in any hotels having less than 50 rooms and one (1) parking space for three (3) seats for
restaurants and lounges. Given the PSMC requirements, the parking requirement for the
Project includes 39 spaces for the hotel and 57 spaces for the restaurant and lounges, for
a total parking requirement 96 spaces under the PSMC. The Project as approved will
provide for a total of 108 spaces, 34 of which are valet spaces, and the Project is
conditioned to provide valet service at all times.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental assessment prepared and approved in conjunction with the 750 Lofts
Project is the controlling environmental assessment for this Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No significant change to City revenue or expenditures is expected as a result of
adopting the proposed resolution.
Owa-lis-
Douglas olland, City Attorney David Ready, City Manager
Attachment:
Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate, RIC1512884
Resolution
1058537.1 03
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TITLE: DATE&DEPT: NUMBER:
ADVOCATES FOR BETTER COMMUNITY 01/31/17 D10 RIC1512884
DEVELOPMENT vs. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, et al. pp pp�� p�
COUNSEL: REPORTER: SUPERCOVMY OF RIVERSIDERNIA
None present None
PROCEEDING: }
NOTICE OF RULING o \
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE M
-n
This matter involves a Project known as the 750 Lofts Project—a 39-room,four story hotel rA
including a ground floor restaurant, rooftop bar and swimming pool, a cocktail lounge, and event "
N
O_
space on a 1.13-acre site in the "Uptown" area of Palm Springs. The Project site is in the Las
Palmas Business Historic District (LPBHD), a historically significant area that is subject to the
City's Design Guidelines that were adopted when this historic district was established more than
23 years ago by Resolution No. 15858.
Petitioner argues that the City violated its municipal code by eliminating the Historic Site
Preservation Board (HSPB)conditions of approval, or failing to referthe Project backto HSPB for
further review. It also argues that the City violated its municipal code for approving the Project
without adequately considering parking requirements for the event space. Last, petitioner argues
that approval of the GPA changing the land use designation from NCC to CBD constitutes illegal
"spot-zoning' by creating an "island"of less restrictive zoning in the middle of the historic district.
The Petition is GRANTED, in part in that appears the City did not comply with its the
parking ordinance. Otherwise, the petition is DENIED.
Sharon Waters Judge
L. Hall (cmgl, Clerk
Page 1 of 5 Page(s)
NOTICE OF RULING
OH
GPA re Compliance with HSPB Conditions of Approval
On 10/12/14,the HSPB considered the impact of the proposed Project on the LPBHD, and
recommended a certificate of approval, subject to conditions including: 1) a significant height
reduction (maximum of 34 feet); 2) increased set back elevations (maximum of 20 feet); 3) no
additional roof-top structures that were not In the plans(limiting additional shade structure on the
4th floor roof deck); and, 4) the requirement of a parking study. (AR 8:2225.) 750 Lofts, LLC
appealed the HSPB's conditions. On February 4, 2015, the City adopted Resolution No. 23757,
which upheld the appeal by 750 Lofts, LLC and eliminated Conditions 1, 2, and 3 of the HSPB's
Certificate of Approval. Then, on May 6, 2015, the City voted to repeal Resolution 23575, and
refer the matter to the City's Planning Commission (PC) for further review. Ultimately, and after
further revisions by the real party,the City, on September 16,2015, considered and approved the
Project and zoning changes by adopting Resolution Nos. 23898, and 23900, which included
adopting the MND for a proposed GPA, PDD in lieu of a change of zone, CUP, and an MAA and
eliminating Conditions 1, 2, and 3 attached to the certificate of approval.
Petitioner claims that by repealing the resolution by which the City granted real party's
appeal and eliminated conditions attached to HSPB's certificate of approval, the City in essence
denied the appeal, making those conditions final and impervious from further review. From there,
petitioner then argues the City later abused its discretion when it again eliminated the conditions
attached to the certificate of approval.
Petitioner presents no authority or reasoned analysis to support its assumption that the act
of repealing the resolution actually operated as a de factor reinstatement of the conditions. The
Court is unaware of any authority to support petitioner's assumption. Further, the record
establishes that the City Council's intent in repealing the resolution was not to uphold the
Sharon Waters,Judge
L. Hall (cmo), Clerk
Page 2 of 5 Page(s)
NOTICE OF RULING 05
conditions but rather to reconsider the propriety of the conditions after further review and
recommendation by the PC. Petitioner has failed to establish the City abused its discretion.
Petitioner also argues that when the project was revised, the City Council abused its
discretion by not referring the project, as revised, back to the HSPB. Again, petitioner presents no
authority for the proposition that the City was required to or should have referred the revised
project back to the HSPB. Nothing in the City's municipal code supports petitioner's claim of
abuse of discretion. Moreover, real party made changes to the project, at least in part,to address
the HSPB's concerns as reflected in its conditions. Whether those changes adequately
addressed those concerns or not, there would not appear to be any practical reason to have the
project reviewed by that board again.
Off-Site Event Parking
The parties dispute whether the project provides for adequate off-site parking. Resolution
of this issue appears to turn on which statute is applicable to the off-site parking for the event
space portion of the Project. Petitioner relies on PSMC§93.06.00(28),which applies to"Places of
Public Assembly"including"churches, auditoriums,exhibition halls,theatres, convention facilities,
meeting rooms and other places of public assembly." (PSMC §93.06.00(28).) The City argues
that the applicable statute is PSMC §93.06.00(16) because the Project is a hotel, not a church,
theater or auditorium. The City asserts that the revised plan has 108 parking spaces,which is 12
more than required. The City asserts that the applicant provided a parking study from an
independent engineering company,which concluded that the 108 parking spaces were sufficient.
The problem with the City's position and the parking analysis is that it considers only the
hotel, restaurant and lounge areas but not the event space. The City provides no explanation for
why the event space would not be considered separately from the hotel in calculating parking
Sharon Waters. Judge
L. Hall (cmg), Clerk
Page 3 of 5 Page(s)
NOTICE OF RULING O�
I
needs. While it is true the event space is not a church, theater, or auditorium as the City claims,
the statute is not that limited. Instead, it includes"exhibition halls ... convention facilities, meeting
rooms and other places of public assembly." (PSMC §93.06.00(28).) Therefore, the court finds
that the City's approval of the parking portion of the Project,without considering off-site parking for
the event center was an abuse of discretion.
Spot Zoning
The Project site had a land use designation of Neighborhood Community Commercial
(NCC), and was zoned C-1 (retail business) and R-3 (multiple family residential and hotel.) (AR
3:646.) The NCC land use designation allows a"floor area ratio"(FAR)of up to 0.35. (AR 3:647.)
However, since the Project, at a FAR of 0,83, is almost three times denserthan allowed underthe
NCC designation, 750 Lofts, LLC(real party)had to request a General Plan Amendment(GPA)to
change the land use designation to Central Business District (CBD), which allows a maximum
"floor area ratio" (FAR) of 1.0. (AR 3:647.)
Petitioner challenges the City's action of.changing the land use designation of the Project
site from NCC to CBD on the ground that it constitutes illegal spot zoning. Petitioner
characterizes the City's treatment of the Project site as allowing less restrictive uses than the
surrounding properties, which creates an island within the middle of the surrounding NCC GPA
I
designation. One problem with petitioner's characterization is that the NCC GPA designation
I
applies to three sides, but the fourth side is designated as High Density Residential(HDR),which
is being used for "hotel uses." In addition, within the NCC GPA designation the zoning
designations vary from C-1 (retail business)to R-3 (multiple-family.and hotel). The City asserts
that the Project site lies within an "eclectic area", with numerous zones. And while not
immediately adjacent to the project site,the record reveals that there are other properties in close
Sharon Waters,Judge
L. Hall(cma), Clerk
Page 4 of 5 Page(s)
NOTICE OF RULING �7
proximity to the project site that are CBD. Petitioner has failed to establish that spot zoning
actually occurred.
Even if spot zoning has"actually occurred",the record shows that the"spot zoning"is in the
public interest. The City asserts that not only does the project provide tourist accommodations, it
will revitalize Indian Avenue. (AR 1:132-133; 3:652; 15:4210.)Thus, even if the designation of the
Project site as CBD is "spot zoning,"the court finds it is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
i
For all of the above reasons,the petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED as to the issue of
parking because the City did not consider the event space in calculating the required parking.
Otherwise the petition is denied.
i
Sharon Waters,Judge
L. Hall (cma), Clerk
Page 5 of 5 Page(s)
NOTICE OF RULING ®g
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE
EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(PDD) 374, THE "LOFTS" PROJECT, CONFIRMING
CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH
REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING
APPROVAL OF PDD-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 is not a historic structure, is located within the Las Palmas
Business Historic District, and therefore, 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 46 rooms, 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 Minor Architectural Application ("MAX)
come back to the HSPB for review.
C. The Project, including the MAA, 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 39 rooms, thereby reducing room count by 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 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.
F. On June 24, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
entitlement applications for the Project. After taking public testimony, the Planning
Commission voted to continue the Project to its July 22, 2015 meeting. The Project was later
continued again to the August 12, 2015 meeting to allow staff additional time for review of
comments.
09
Resolution No.
Page 2
G. 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, MAA 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 a writ to compel the City to rescind its approval of the
Entitlements.
J. In adjudicating the Petition, the Court heard three basic arguments: (1) that the City
Council abused its discretion when it deleted the HSPB conditions without sending the Project
back to the HSPB, (2) that the City violated its municipal code for approving the Project without
considering the parking requirements for the "event space", and (3) 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 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 provide tourist accommodations and
revitalizes Indian Avenue.
M. The Court granted the Petition as to the issue of parking, and has issued a writ to the
City requiring 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.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FURTHER FINDS AND RESOLVES:
Section 1: During the processing of the Entitlements, the Project underwent several
changes. Prior to its approval, the City and the Applicant agreed that the "event area"
originally shown on the Project plans was to be eliminated and the City Council in approving
the Project did not approve the "event area." While elimination of the event area was intended
by all parties, Project drawings inadvertently continued to show the event area as part of the
Project, thereby creating an ambiguity regarding the parking requirement.
Section 2: By eliminating the event area, the Project consists of a 39 room hotel, a 113 seat
restaurant on Palm Canyon, a 39 seat lounge on Indian Canyon, and a 20 seat roof top
lounge.
Section 3: Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 93.060.00(16) requires one parking space
for each hotel room in any hotels having less than 50 rooms.
/0
Resolution No. _
Page 3
Section 4: Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 93.060.00(30) requirements for
restaurants and lounges that there must be one parking space for each three seats.
Section 5: Given the PSMC requirements, the parking requirement for the Project includes
39 spaces for the hotel and 57 for the restaurant and lounges, making the total parking
requirement 96 spaces under the PSMC.
Section 6: The Project plans provide for a total of 108 spaces, 34 of which are valet spaces,
and the Project is conditioned to provide valet service at all times.
Section 7: Condition of Approval number ADM 15 provides 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 compliance with the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking.
Section 8: The Project's parking requirements, without the event area, were reviewed by an
independent traffic engineer who found that 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.
Section 9: Pending return of the writ issued in this matter, no permits have been processed
or issued by the City for this Project and therefore the City Council's approvals and resolutions
adopted for the Project have been effectively "set aside" pending the Council's adoption of this
Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby orders that an additional condition shall be placed on the Project which expressly
requires that the event area is eliminated from PDD 374, and subject to that change, the
approval of PDD 374 and all related approvals and resolutions adopted for the Project are
hereby reaffirmed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL
THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY, 2017.
ATTEST: DAVID H. READY, ESQ., PH.D.
CITY MANAGER
KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Terri Milton
From: Jamie Garretson <naficyjamie@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 1:40 PM
To: David Ready; Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors;JR Roberts; CityClerk
Cc: Douglas C. Holland; Flinn Fagg; Babak Naficy
Subject: Letter to City re 5/3/17 Agenda Item LN
Attachments: 5.2.17 Letter to City re 750 Lofts Project.pdf
Please see attached letter in regards to Agenda Item LN on tomorrow's agenda--a resolution regarding PDD
374. Please acknowledge receipt. A hard copy is being sent to the City only.
Best,
Jamie
Jamie Garretson, Esq.
Law Offices of Babak Naficy
1504 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
babaknaflcy@sbcglobal.net
805-593-0926 phone
805-593-0946 fax
This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, or any attachment hereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-
mail and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout hereof.
7-6 17
awOfficesofBabak Noficy
May 2, 2017
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Palm Springs City Council
City of Palm Springs, c/o City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
cityclerk(d palmsprings-ca.gov
RE: 750 Lofts Project
Advocates for Better Community Development("ABCD") submits this letter in
opposition to the proposed Resolution for the 750 Lofts Project ("Project"). As more fully
1504 Marsh Street explained below, the City Council cannot lawfully affirm the approvals simply by
San Luis Obispo eliminating the event area from PDD-374 in order to comply with the writ of mandate
California 93401 issued by the Riverside Superior Court in Case No. RIC]512884.
ph:805-593-0926
fax:805-593-0946 The peremptory writ of mandated entered against the City of Palm Springs and Palm
babaknaficy®sbcglobal.n of Springs City Council on April 16, 2017 explicitly states:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT upon receipt of this Writ, the Palm Springs
City Council shall set aside its approvals/resolutions adopted for the "750 Lofts"
Project(Case 5.1350 PDD374/GPA/CUP/3.3795 MAJ) until such time as the City
of Palm Springs has adequately addressed all parking issues, including event space
parking, as required by the City's Municipal Code.
The writ directs the City to rescind approvals upon receiving the writ and reconsider all
parking issues. Once all Project approvals have been rescinded, each approval will
necessarily have to be reapproved in order to be valid. As indicated in the City Council's
Staff Report, however,the City is not planning on following the court's order by
rescinding any of the Project approvals. Rather,the City intends to affirm all approvals in
direct violation of its unambiguous terms of the writ.
It is beyond comprehension that in the proposed resolution the City found and resolved
that because no permits have been processed or issued by the City since the writ was
issued, the Project has "effectively been set aside" pending the Council's adoption of the
Resolution. The writ does not order the City to "effectively" set aside approvals. The
court directly and unequivocally orders the City to actually set the approvals aside. As
such,passing the resolution would fly in the face of the court's direct order.
A/,
2,C)/ 7
In its ruling, the court held there was a"problem with the City's position [that adequate off-site parking
had been provided for] and the parking analysis." (Ruling at p.3). The City has to reconsider all parking
issues before reconsidering approval of the Project. This includes the defective parking analysis,to which
the Staff Report makes no mention at all. Further, not only did the parking analysis for the Project fail to
account for parking for the roof-top event center, at issue in the case was also the Project's failure to
adequately account for any employee parking or the loss of parking for adjacent properties. The City has
not addressed any of these issues as required by the writ before Project approvals may be reconsidered.
When a court determines in a writ of mandate case, such as here, that the administrative decision or
approval was an abuse of discretion,the court must order respondent to set aside the challenged action.
(See Ruling at p. 4 "Therefore the court finds that the City's approval of the parking portion of the
Project...was an abuse of discretion.") The court has no discretion to order respondent to modify a
resolution or take any other action that does not involve rescission of its previous approval:
The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or
decision, or denying the writ. Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set
aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in light of the court's opinion and judgment and
may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the
judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent. Cal
Cod. Civ. Proc. §1094.5(f) (emphasis added).
Here, the court found the City's approval of the Project was an abuse of discretion because it failed to
consider the event center in its parking analysis. Therefore the C.C.P. §1094.5(f) and the writ explicitly
orders the City to set aside all approvals of the Project.
Further, to comply with the writ,the City is required to do more than simply pass a resolution eliminating
the event center. During litigation the City admitted City documents including Resolutions, Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND") and Staff Reports do not include a stable and reliable description of the
Project. Resolution 23899, for example, states that"the 4`h floor event space (approximately 4,000 s.£)has
been moved forward to the center of the building, and is now located approximately 68' from the Indian
Canyon Drive Property line."AR 1:102. The Project's MND, however, describes the Project as including
an event space that is 1600 square feet. AR 1:177. It is not clear how the parcel map describes the event
center. Accordingly, merely adding a resolution will not cure the issues in each of these documents and
revisions must be made in order for the City to reconsider the Project for approval.
If the City Council approves the proposed resolution, ABCD will have no choice but to bring the City back
to court to enforce the terms of the writ.
Sincerely,
2
Babak Naflcy,
Counsel for ABCD
Cc by email only:
David Ready David.Ready(u,palmsprings_ca.gov
Mayor Robert Moon Robert.Moon(a�almspringsca.gov
Councilmember Chris Mills Chris.Mills(a ppalmspringsca.gov
Councilmember Ginny Foat Ginny.Foatgpalmspringsca.gov
Councilmember Geoff Kors Geoff.Kors(n,palmspringsca.gov
Councilmember J.R. Roberts JR.Roberts(a),palmspringsca.gov
Doug Holland Douglas.Ho lland(apalmsprings-ca.gov
Flinn Fagg flinn.faggApalmsprings-ca.gov
3
Terri Milton
From: Jamie Garretson <naficyjamie@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 3:59 PM
To: David Ready; Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Feat; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; CityClerk
Cc: Douglas C. Holland; Flinn Fagg; Babak Naficy
Subject: Supplemental Letter to City re 5/3/17 Agenda Item 1.N
Attachments: 5.2.17 Supplemental Letter to City re 750 Lofts Project.pdf
Please see attached supplemental letter in regards to Agenda Item LN on tomorrows agenda--a resolution
regarding PDD 374. Please acknowledge receipt. A hard copy is being sent to the City only.
Best,
Jamie
Jamie Garretson, Esq.
Law Offices of Babak Naficy
1504 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
babaknafiey asbcglobal.net
805-593-0926 phone
805-593-0946 fax
This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, or any attachment hereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-
mail and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout hereof.
1
aw Offices of B a b a k N a f I c y
May 2, 2017
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Palm Springs City Council
City of Palm Springs, c/o City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
citvclerk(&,yalmsyrinQs-ca gov
RE: 750 Lofts Project
Advocates for Better Community Development("ABCD") submits this supplemental
letter in opposition to the proposed Resolution for the 750 Lofts Project ("Project"). As
1504 Marsh Street fully explained in ABCD's previous letter,the City Council cannot lawfully affirm the
San Luis Obispo approvals simply by eliminating the event area from PDD-374 in order to comply with the
California 93401 writ of mandate issued by the Riverside Superior Court in Case No. RIC 1512884.
ph:805-593-0926
fax:805-593-0946 On February 15, 2017 Diane C. Blasdel, counsel for City Council, City of Palm Springs,
babaknaFlcy®sbeglobal.net
and 750 Lofts LLC filed "Objections to Petitioner's Proposed Judgment and Writ"with
the Court in this case. Included with Ms. Blasdel's objections was a proposed judgment
and proposed peremptory writ of mandate.
Included in her proposed peremptory writ of mandate was:
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT upon receipt of this Writ, the City of Palm
Springs and Palm Springs City Council (at its nexet regularly scheduled meeting)
must amend its resolution approving the "750 Lofts"Project to include a condition
of approval that the City of Palm Springs confirm the final square footage which
shall constitute"event space" at the Project, if any...YOU ARE FURTHER
ORDERED to refrain from considering any other applications, permits, or other
entitlements in furtherance of the 750 Lofts Project, until the Court has determined
that 750 Lofts, LLC's parking plan complies with the Palm Springs Municipal
Code..."
On March 19, 2017 the Court determined it would not issue Ms. Blasdel's proposed writ.
What the City reflects in the proposed resolution and its supporting Staff Report is exactly
the action proposed by Ms. Blasdel and subsequently rejected by the Court. This is further
evidence that approving the Resolution would be unlawful and against the terms of the
writ.
J. 4 ram...
C� - c3 2e'/ 7 .
If the City Council approves the proposed resolution, ABCD will have no choice but to bring the City back
to court to enforce the terms of the writ.
Sincerely,
W&AW 9
Babak Naficy,
Counsel for ABCD
Cc by email only:
David Ready David.Ready(gpalmsprings-ca.gov
Mayor Robert Moon Robert.Moongl2almspringsca.gov
Councilmember Chris Mills Chris.Mills(a.palmsprinesca.gov
Councilmember Ginny Foat Ginn,�(a),aalmsprinesca.¢ov
Councilmember Geoff Kors Geoff.Korsna nalmspringsca.gov
Councilmember J.R. Roberts JR.Roberts(a palmsprin¢sca. og_v
Doug Holland Douglas.Hollandna palmsprings-ca.gov
Flinn Fagg fl inn.fagg(a),palmsprings-ca.gov
2
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1.N.
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
1.N. A RESOLUTION REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PDD-374, THE "75:o LOFTS" PROJECT, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH
REGARD TO PARKING, AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PDD-374: RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution
No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING ELIMINATION OF
THE EVENT AREA FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PDD-374, THE "75o LOFTS" PROJECT, CONFIRMING CONFORMITY
WITH THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO PARKING,AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMING APPROVAL OF PDD-374."
To the City Council:
I understand Mr. Frank Tysen spoke to the City Attorney, Doug Holland, and Mr. Holland stated that the City has the discretion
to return this matter to the Planning Commission, HSPB, or Architectural Advisory Committee for further consideration. If that is
the case, I would like to recommend that the City continue its review of the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: According to court documents, this matter involves a Project known as the 750 Lofts Project- a 39-
room, four story hotel including a ground floor restaurant, rooftop bar and swimming pool, a cocktail lounge, and event space on
a 1.13-acre site in the "Uptown" area of Palm Springs. The Project site is in the Las Palmas Business Historic District (LPBHD),
a historically significant area that is subject to the City's Design Guidelines that were adopted when this historic district was
established more than 23 years ago. The court decision will remove the Event Center because of parking issues.
This challenged approval, which has been partially modified now by court order and may be subject to appeal, occurred in 2015
when the PDD approvals flourished without a lot of inspection. A lot has happened since, including a PDD Study that shows the
City has processed PDD commercial permit (which allows certain zoning waivers) about 85% of the time to override General
Plan Standards, Specific Plan Standards, Historic District Standards, or ordinance standards in entitlements that occurred from
2006-2016; or at least for those PDD's in which sufficient data still exists.
PDD ordinances DO NOT give a City that kind of reach! At last count, sixteen (16) commercial permits from 2012 to present
were contaminated by potential bribes and influence schemes, according to recent Indictments on file against ex-Mayor
Pougnet. So, of course, where there are deeply irregular approval patterns still existing, the public is asking a lot of questions, as
they should! At the least, the City should assure that all permits comply with what was intended in the General Plan and
Historic Guidelines, because that is the expressed will of the People.
What is the problem with 750 Lofts? The City got this permit through ONLY by filing a General Plan Amendment to change one
single lot designation within the District from Neighborhood-Serving Commercial (NCC) to Central Business District (CBD)
status. This District is largely built out. The effect of this was to allow three times the building coverage at this location than other
neighbors, and double the height, or 24-foot limitation up to 50 feet. And then the High-Rise Ordinance, which sets greater
requirements for open space and setbacks, was ignored and overruled. The public lost open space, setbacks, view shed,
parking, and historic conformity. This project can set a new precedent to allow CBD to reach into Las Palmas! This is wrong.
This was the same strategy that was attempted within the Orchid Tree Area and within the Historic Tennis District; this
overwhelming tendency to want to draw intense commercial floor area ratios, mass, density, and height from the Downtown Area
into the sensitive historic districts, and it is poor policy and bad law! The 750 Lofts decision ignored the recommendations of the
Historic Site Board, the Planning Commission without a lot of good reasons for ignoring recommendations. There is NO
offsetting design or public benefits!
The parking is another problem. Clearly, Palm Springs is beginning to stress on commercial parking shortages. We are all living
this out every time we go out for an evening or afternoon of fun. So,what is this "shared parking concept"that cuts back parking
spaces 50% because we assume the restaurant user is staying at the hotel, on the rooftop swimming, and using the Convention
Space. Is that working for us? Just look out across the City, and we can assume the answer.
What is the concept of"valet parking' when the receiving lot agreement next door lapsed several years ago? Then, one must
say, we have just approved parking on the curb in front of Mr. Smith's house in the Movie Colony District. Whether Mr. Smith is
poor or rich does not matter; but someone who paid $2 -$3 million for their home might particularly have a problem with this.
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
Judy Deertrack 1 nlQl �jJ yttr� CL tLCre�z✓ C�a _ 2- c^ l 7
iy ��
Cindy Berardi
From: Roxann Floss <riploss@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:44 PM
To: Robert & Bob Moon & Hammack; Ginny Foat; Ginny Foat;J.R. Roberts; Geoff Kors; Chris
Mills; Cindy Berardi
Subject: For tonight's meeting.
Could this be ready into the minutes tonight? Thank you.
To the Mayor and members of the City Council:
While sitting on the RSPB, we were faced with the 750 Lofts project on several occasions. As
the property is in the midst of the Las Palmas Historic Business District, it was incumbent
upon the board to study the plans in situ, somehow allowing for the new while preserving
the integrity of the district.
The majority of the board had no problem with the demolition of the B of A building,
currently sitting on the property. The questions were (then and now) about the height and
mass of the project as well as an almost overwhelming lack of available parking.
For over a decade, the hotels on the east side of Indian Canyon had usurped the unused
parking spots belonging to The Spanish Inn. El Mirasol, with its successful patio restaurant,
was beginning to enjoy increased patronage amongst the locals. The Colony Palms, now
renovated, was doing well too. And then Triada with its beautifully restored courtyard and
apartments was finally opened and doing business.
750 Lofts will have to compete for any available street parking spaces as they plan to add so
many rooms and lose some designated slots of their own. Not to mention a rooftop garden
which they propose to use as an "event space". The only parking left would be across the
street at Frances Stevens Park which may look empty during the working day but is most
assuredly crowed with cars when the theatre is open.....or when Alcazar has an
overflow! All the valet parkers in the world cannot make up for the fact that there are NO
available spaces!
More importantly, it was felt that the height and mass of the proposal would overshadow
the delicately balanced look of the district. With Mr. Rael's on-again, off-again building just
down the street, we would have the beginnings of the "metropolis look" which so many
people dread. The downtown "revitalization" was already too much and has drawn criticism
from tourists and residents alike who believe Palm Springs should continue to reflect good
health, beautiful environment and athletic tourism.
t d5, 0 3 — ZDl7
Aced r 4A
With all the problems we have faced with both the downtown and Mr. Rael's projects,
perhaps it is time to put a serious cap on overbuilding before we ruin what is left of the
charm for which we are known internationally. Let us concentrate on preservation and
adaptive re-use (of,just to name a few, The Center, The Cork 'n' Bottle, the Community
Church, etc.). Let us hold up the Serena Villas as a commendable model for our move
forward......the history retained, upgrades & modernity gained.
Thank you.
Roxann Ploss
Palm Springs, Ca.
"You cannot maintain a soul of a community if you detach it from history." Dani Dayan
z