Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Madam chair, it's 535. We are waiting for one more, Commissioner, but they're just running a little bit behind, so I would recommend that we call to order and they will join when they can. Okay. Good evening. I want to welcome you. Recording in progress. Okay. Good evening. I want to welcome you to the Tuesday, September 16th, 2025 regular meeting of the Palm Springs Planning Commission. Can I have a roll call, please? Chair Wernick, present. Vice chair. Leon. Present. Commissioner. Baker. Not here. Scott. Commissioner. Miller. Present. Commissioner. Murphy. Present. Commissioner Rottman and Morrell are excused and alternate. Hernandez present. Can I have a report on the posting of the agenda, please? Yes, Madam Chair. The agenda was made available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and online by 9:00 pm on Thursday, September 11th, in accordance with our policies and procedures. Thank you. This time is set aside for public comment, and it allows the members of the public to address the Commission on Consent, calendar and other agenda items and items within our subject matter jurisdiction. Please note we can't take action if something isn't agendized. The testimony. Each speaker will have three minutes. Testimony may be offered at this time. Or at the time of the hearing. And the. We have one item on the agenda tonight. It is a hearing item. So you can speak now, or you can speak at the time that this comes before the commission. And

public comment is open.o if there are members who wish to speak now before we call the item, you can. There. Do we need to wait for someone to call us? No. So we're going to hear a staff presentation and then a presentation by the applicant on the item. So it may be in everyone's interest to wait for those things to happen to speak. But if you have another commitment or you'd rather speak now, we can certainly do that. If you would wish to speak now, maybe just raise your hand. And that goes for those online as well. Listening. I think we can take all public comment following staff presentation. But if you wish to speak now for any reason, certainly you're right to do so. Seeing none, is there anyone online who wishes to speak now? We have several members online who have registered to speak. I see none of their hands raised now, so we'll come back to them. Following staff report. Public comment is closed. The consent calendar. We have nothing on the consent calendar. The next item is public hearings. And this is item two. 2AA request by Nexus Development Inc. for the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and approval of a tentative tract map. A major development permit and a conditional use permit for the development of a nine story high, 257 room hotel building and a 6040 square foot restaurant building located at 847 East Andreas Road. In the section 14 Specific Plan. Staff report please. Madam chair, I think we actually overlooked acceptance of the agenda. Oh, goodness. Can I have. So moved. Second. In favor? Everybody.

Hi. Okay, we'll go straight back to staff report on two a. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as you mentioned, this is Nexus Hotel, a request for a major development permit. Adoption of a mitigated negative declaration, a conditional use permit for a high rise development and associated hotel activities, and then a tentative track map for a one lot subdivision. So, looking at the history of the project. An initial study resulting in an MND was circulated for 20 day review period back in January. The Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reviewed the project and forwarded a set of conditions of approval to the city council, which is included in the conditions of approval before the Planning Commission today. The initial study response to comments was posted to our website in mid end of August. A public hearing notice was published in The Desert Sun on September 5th, and then notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500ft of the property. This included portions of the Plaza Villas condos, which are to the north of the property, and then an email was sent to all neighborhood organizations within one mile of the subject property. So notice was given in accordance with our zoning and municipal code. Looking at the site, that's what this red box is. It is in the section 14 specific plan, which is a specific plan that is on the tribal reservation. And this property is fee land, meaning that it is owned by the applicant, but it is still on the reservation and adheres to the section 14 specific plan development agreements and standards. So the zoning is RA for resort attraction, which allows for resort hotels. The general plan designation is Tourist

Resort Commercial, which allows for these types of uses. In the section 14 area around the casino and the convention center. Currently, the site is a parking lot. This is an aerial photograph of the current conditions. To the north is Plaza Villas. To the right is the &-re bottom or south is Capture Court and then to the left. Along El Segundo is the Hilton Hotel, and then diagonal to the northwest is the casino of the tribe. So the proposal is on a 5.64 acre parcel. The building proposed is two portions a hotel portion which is the west wing equaling 125 rooms, seven stories, a maximum height of 85ft. The residential portion is the east wing 130 unit condos, equaling a 24 unit per acre density. The applicant will be able to describe the sort of use of these condo units, but they are for sale. But they're also part of the hotel operation, which could be used as hotel units. With through their management process. And this is nine stories, 98 99.8ft height. There's also a freestanding restaurant 6040 square foot for a restaurant use that would be separate from the hotel, but be on the same lot. Setbacks for the building. They vary from 62ft to the north on Andreas, and then 35ft to the west on El Segundo. The hotel is 132ft from the nearest residential development, which is Plaza Villas. In the section 14 development

standards, which are in their staff report, it goes item by item, listing those development standards and for a high rise building in section 14, for each one foot of vertical setback for each one setback for each high rise in vertical rise in the building. Setbacks may be imposed through the setup process based on the relationship of the high rise building to its surroundings. And I have an exhibit here in just a second showing the setbacks. So looking at the overall site plan once again, El Segundo is on the left, Andreas is on the north, the top. The building itself is an L shaped building with the free standalone restaurant here. This is the hotel structure. The parking garages to the back pool activities are in the center. And then there is a flex space or ballroom in the center of the lot. There's an alleyway that provides back of house services and emergency access that runs between Captor Court and the proposed building, and then along the Renaissance, connecting to Andreas. This drawing, which is in your packet, is a little bit easier to understand and read. You'll see that in the setbacks off of East Andreas, there's wide landscape areas. There are two auto carport drop off spaces here and here, one for the residences and one for the hotel, and shows the amenities in the center of the lot. space or ballroom, and then the freestanding restaurant. Their drop off area, and then the alleyway that services the back of house. So in the section 14 specific plan, the

development standards say that a high rise shall have a minimum setback of one foot of horizontal rise, a setback distance from any residential district of one foot of vertical rise, or 100ft. The density that would be allowed in section 14 is 86 rooms per acre. They're proposing 45 rooms per acre. So it's under what would normally the section 14 plan allows open space 40% usable. And the they are proposing 63% open space usable open space parking. The parking garages need to be screened, and the ground floor facade treatment include be visually interesting along the wall, the ground floor walls, pedestrian access entrances, display windows and an all around pedestrian environmental friendly, friendly environment. And looking at the setbacks for the project, this exhibit shows a zoom in of that site plan showing that the building is set back 140ft from the nearest residential district, which is to the north, which is Plaza Villas. That's what this red line is showing. And then the setback along El Segundo is 34ft at the shortest, and that is to the proposed restaurant building. The next series of slides are illustrative drawings of the floor plans. So this shows the operations within the building itself, the shared lobby for both the hotel and the residences, the pool area, flex space restaurant, the parking garage and then the units on the first floor. There's a cross section that helps to show what the interior of the building will operate. The first ground floor shows the restaurant,

the lobby, lounges, fitness areas, the parking garage, and then the two buildings above it. Hotel on the left, on the left and then the residential on the right. And there's also was a social club on the top of the hotel and a roof terrace. There is an underground parking garage proposed for 100 parking spaces, and we'll show that shortly. So looking at the first floor, you'll notice that the hotel units are in the lighter blue and then the residential units are in the purple. You'll see that they are all sort of the same size. The applicant can describe how these units operate. There may be kitchenettes in them to make them usable as a living space, and this shows the first floor of the parking garage. This is the second floor. Similar the third and fourth floor. The parking garage ends at five levels and then this is the top level of the hotel, showing the rooftop terrace and social club over here. And once again there is a below subterranean level that is used for parking for the hotel. The applicant provided some shade studies showing how the height will relate to the adjacent properties, and this shows different times of the year, spring, summer and winter and different times of the day 9 a.m. 12 and three. And it shows how the sun will provide shading or cast shadows on the adjoining land. Uses such as the Plaza villas across the street. So in the winter there will be,

because of the nine stories, cast shadows on the adjacent properties. Also in your packet are some elevations of what the building could possibly look like. This is showing the maximum height at 99.8. Here on the tallest portion of the building, showing the parking garage. Other views of the building itself on all four sides, and the proposed restaurant, which is here. And also a series of photo simulations of what the hotel would look. This is a view looking over Capta Court towards the north, and I want to remind everyone that these are working drawings. They're not final drawings. So obviously there needs to be some work on this parking garage. These types of if they were actual green plants, they wouldn't survive in the desert heat. View. Looking from Plaza Villas towards the hotel itself, on the south side of Andreas. And then from the corner, looking from the casino to this corner of Andreas and El Segundo. This is a good view of the rooftop terrace here at the very top. And then a bird's eye view looking towards Captor Court, which is over here and showing the internal pool areas. The restaurant to the south bottom of the slide and then the flex

space ballroom here. And this is more of a street view of that same photo simulation. And this is the photo sim, but it doesn't show Captor court like that first photograph that we looked at. So part of the project, and one of the reasons for the public hearing is a tentative track map that is to combine three lots into one overall large lot, equaling the 5.46 acres. There is a preliminary landscape plan which is shown. This shows plantings along East Andreas, plantings in the center, around the event lawn and pool, and then along the perimeter of the property. They provided a tree legend, a preliminary legend of tree, shrubs and other plants that could be used when this project would move forward to the Architectural Review Committee, which would look at the landscape plan. So when talking about parking in the underground garage, there's 100 spaces, and in the parking structure there's four levels, 400 spaces. And the concept is that if you are at the hotel, you may be using the restaurant, you may be using the ballroom. So the calculations are done based upon number of spaces up to a certain number of rooms. And that's what these calculations are used. And the residential, depending on how many, what type of bedroom unit is at one, 2 or 3, the calculations are all done based upon the number of bedrooms in a

unit. And then there's one space per 60ft of restaurant, which and then additional 20% for employees. And then calculating in the ballroom where the flex space. So the total number provided is or required is 497. And they're providing 500 spaces. In determining the sequel documentation, there was an initial study that was prepared, and it resulted in a mitigated negative declaration and determining that less than significant mitigation measures can be found for biology, cultural geology and transportation. There was a response to comments that was included in your packet. Every comment letter. I think we had eight of them. Every comment letter was addressed and that was published and available for the public to read. In looking at each of these specific portions there in the tentative track map for the one lot subdivision, there are findings that the Planning Commission would need to make. There are seven of them. Is it consistent with the General plan and section 14 specific plan? Is it consistent with the RA zone and the resort hotel development? The number of density? Is it causing any harm and environmental damage? And will the subdivision likely cause public health problems and no conflict with easements and accesses? Staff believes that those findings can be made. The major development permit for the construction of a 257 room hotel. There were 11 findings which are included in the resolution. It's consistent with the general plan. It is consistent with the RA zone, the building height and

massing setbacks are consistent with the section 14 plan. There's adequate access to all public and adjacent streets. There are no additional road widenings or street lights or anything that would be. The grid system is completed in that part of the section 14 on site. Circulation is sufficient for pedestrians. There's sufficient public infrastructure, meaning that all public water, sewer and trash would be connected to existing lines that are there in the streets. And there was an environmental review resulting in the ND. For the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission would need to make five findings for a high rise building of 99.8ft and resort ancillary uses such as the pool, bar and spa if they have one. The location is intended. Use is physically suited for the development. It's a a rectangular site that is in an urban area. It's in harmony with the section 14 specific plan and not detrimental to future uses. So future development could occur around it. It's adequately sized. The uses relates to the streets properly. So staff recommendation is to adopt the ND, approve the tentative track map, approve the major development permit and approve the Cup for high rise development and ancillary uses. As the project conforms, the section 14 specific plan, General Plan and Zoning recommends approval with our conditions. So this is a public hearing, Madam Chair, and you will need to

open the public hearing for additional staff presentation. We have our consultant, Nicole Crist from Terra Nova here that may be able to answer any questions. And the applicant is here. And that concludes my report. Prior to opening the public hearing, I believe I think we will have questions of staff and then I'll then I'll call on Miss Chris to talk about the negative deck. But I'd like to entertain questions of questions of staff. First, Commissioner Murphy. Quick question on the this is the TM finding the will these because of the condos and the hotel are very similar, even though legally they're somewhat different. I guess my question is. The condos are secondary in use to the proposed hotel, but they're still at least it seems that way because there's 132 residential units and then 125 hotel rooms. So I guess I'm just looking for clarification that. On secondary use and what that actually means relative to this application. Sure. So the tentative track map will combine three existing lots into one lot, and then there'll be a condo map that will be placed, which is basically air rights placed over top of the land itself. And then each one of those units would be sold individually. So that's basically what the the tentative track map achieves when it goes to final map before the city council. That will all be

stipulated in corners and so forth. So that will be at a later stage. So right now the Planning Commission is just combining the three lots into one. Okay. I don't think that was the question. Oh sorry. The question was whether or not the the hotel use is primary and the the other use is secondary. And possibly director Hadwen can answer that question. I don't think for the purposes of these entitlements, we would differentiate between the hotel and the residential or condo hotel units as one being primary over the other. I think the reference to the hotel ancillary uses that are associated with the cup have to do with other uses that support both the hotel and the condo hotel uses. And I'm actually going to kick it back to Glenn to talk about what those uses are. Right. So the cup is required for the pool bar, any spas and any other ancillary uses. So the standalone restaurant will need a land use permit. And that is in the conditions of approval. That is a requirement in the section 14 plan that a restaurant has a land use permit, but the other associated social club on the top floor, those all need those are would be permitted with the cup and there are conditions addressing those uses in our conditions of approval in the cup section. I just thought I read this week that somewhere in the tentative track map that condos shall be secondary to hotel, and maybe I was mistaken, but and so I was. I guess I'm confused about. I just want to make sure that that's not a limitation here. The the use of a hotel versus a condo for this development.

The the proposal is for them to sort of commingle together. As I mentioned, they could be the condo units could be used as hotel units. Also, do you know it doesn't affect our finding our the commission's findings for the TTP. It shouldn't. What I can't find that language. But if there was any language to that effect, I believe what we were probably referring to is what Glenn had described earlier, which is that the condo units themselves will need to have a condominium map placed over them to be able to be sold individually, unlike the hotel units and this, the condo units have some of the ancillary services that are part of the air rights for the condos. Correct? I would ask the applicant what their intent is in terms of management of the facility, in terms of what access rights thinking mapping. Well, for the it sounded as I read it that it was divided up. But we can ask the applicant. Yeah, I think they should speak to the other question I had briefly of staff is just a clarification. So this and I missed this when I read through it. So the land is is not leased. It is owned by Nexus Development at this point. That's correct okay. The other question I had is will these 132 residential condos count towards the new housing units required by the state of California? So we have 25, 57 new units. Will we as a city get credit for these 132 units? As part of this development? I believe you ask an interesting question, but as I understand state housing law, any unit that is for sale would be count and these would be market rate units. So they would go towards our market rate allocation, which is around

half of our 2600. So 1300. But it's an interesting question I've not looked into specifically in terms of how we treat condo. I don't know why it wouldn't, but I agree housing. I just don't want to say for sure, but I suspect that that's the case. Okay, that's it for now. Thanks. Other questions? Yes, just a couple for Glenn. I just want to confirm on the slide that's up there. Now, I believe this is the case. All of the green that's shown on the site plan on the screen is ground level green space. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. Okay. And then confirming that on the rooftop social club area of the hotel, there was on that floor plan, there was a colored item in the middle. I just wanted to make sure that's not a pool, is it? No. So it it's Beau is back of house the purple. Alright. Okay. So that would be in maybe an elevator and. Okay. Yeah. Coolers and storage. Yeah. Okay. Then my other question is this site plan and design that we see today. Is this essentially what came in the door when they first applied. Or were there any massages that were done at staff level that you can indicate to us? The I came on to the project about a year ago, but it was submitted in 2023. And my understanding that there has not been any revisions to it from when it first was submitted. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Elaine. Thank you. Let me just start with some of the findings that we are

required to make deal with the need of the project and the benefits to the community. Was there. Did the applicant submit to the city any kind of market analysis demonstrating a need for this many hotel rooms? We have not received a marketing study or a feasibility study? No. So there's a bit of a complicated history to this project, and it may be a question that we can ask the applicant as well. So as a matter of land use entitlements, there's no requirement for them to submit a feasibility study. And there's no obligation or ability really for the city to require one, except that in this case, there's also an associated settlement agreement, given some of the sort of legal history here, which certainly predates my time at the city. And there were certain milestones associated with that settlement agreement, which is between the city council and the developer, which did include some level of financial analysis, as I understand it, that's not been provided to us because, again, it's not really relevant or requirement of the planning process. But I can say, as I understand it, they have complied with all of the requirements of the settlement agreement to date. And so we may want to ask the applicant what they might have submitted through the settlement agreement process, and if they want to shed any light on what was included in that work. Well, I would say that some of the findings that we need to make are of benefit or finding that necessity, and without us knowing if a new hotel, a new condos, is simply going to cannibalize the hotel occupancy in neighboring conference hotels or in downtown hotels, then it's then we can't make the argument that this is a financial

benefit to the community. In fact, it would have an adverse impact. That being said, I'll ask the same type of questions of the applicant when they come up. Was any do you know if any 3D modeling was done? I'm seeing that most of the drawings, if not all of them, kind of stop at our at the property lines and look back on the development. And if I'm looking for it in context, other than the. View from East Tahquitz, I'm not seeing anything. Was more modeling done? Computer simulated anything that you're aware of. Okay. So the the exhibits that were presented to you today were provided by the applicant. The photo simulations were done by our consultant because that is part of the esthetics review of the the initial study. And maybe Nicole can address that. But other than that, there were no other photo sims looking at a wider view of the context of the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. And I'm I'm going to ask you these questions. I exchanged email with you earlier in the week on this, so I kind of know the answers in advance, but I think it's important for the at least for my consideration. And that is we do have have to make findings relative to the proposed project's height and massing in comparison to the adjacent buildings. Can you tell me of this? Really, adjacency is pretty much the capture center and the Renaissance. Can you

tell me the height of the Renaissance? Right. Let me go back to this aerial. So the Renaissance Hotel is located here. It is about 63ft, five stories. Captor court obviously is two stories. It's one, but it's got some projections. So it may be 24ft. Plaza villas is two stories, 24ft. The Hilton is three stories 30ft. The casino is about 30ft. The parking structure there is five levels. So it's probably about the same approximate same height as the proposed hotel convention center is 30, 40ft. And then the Rowan Kimpton is seven stories and that's about 83ft. And I would just caution on that, that the finding that you're referencing is relative to the development permit. Right. So in isolation, when we look at that, that is a finding that needs to be made in order to process the development permit. What you have here is also a conditional use permit under the city's high rise ordinance, which is a higher order approval. And so there are separate findings that must be met in order to grant that which do not include looking at the adjacent heights or massing of buildings, but rather look at the appropriateness based on the location and the policy framework that's in place. So I think one of the arguments that we staff would make is that the ability for you to make the the finding under the development permit is based on the simultaneous granting of the higher order conditional use permit that allows the higher height. So that's just how the policy was envisioned when it was implemented by the city Council and the tribal council for section 14. Okay. Explain to me the concept of a higher order conditional use permit would be a higher order. It's not more restrictive, though. It's no it's a development permit is has

less discretion than a conditional use permit. So a conditional use permit has is higher order approval that the Planning Commission is being asked to grant. But they do follow up to that. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just a follow up to your response, Christopher. While the conditional use permit findings may be of a higher order than a development permit, both need to be made correct. I would agree, and I mean, it's your findings to make. I'm just giving some context on how staff is threading the needle of these honestly and conflict findings. Right. You're being asked to make a finding on the development permit that it's consistent with the adjacent heights, which you may not be able to do except through the grant of the Cup. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. That was exactly what my next question was going to be. Was there? I know that there was some limited underground parking. There's also an above ground. I will leave out adjectives. There's an above ground parking garage or parking structure. Was there any consideration given to having more underground parking and less of the mass accommodation above ground? We only can evaluate the project that's before us today. We can't. Staff can't make them do an underground parking garage. I just wondered if there was discussion about it between the city and the applicant. There was not. Okay, thanks. Would as far as sound, and perhaps this is the point at which I look over to our consultant. I have two different questions. Sound. I'm

concerned about sound transmission from the rooftop activities to the surrounding neighbors. Palm Springs is so tricky because of those darn mountains. They're beautiful. We love them. We don't want them to go away, but they bounce back, sound in really unexpected ways. Are you comfortable with mitigation measures and their protection of the neighbors? Let me answer. Let me just quickly before Nicole talks. So in the conditions of approval planning number for each of these uses need a land use permit. And they talk about noise limits, planning condition number six. And that's how we would regulate that specific event activity for noise. But I'll let Nicole answer your question okay. Thank you. Commissioner. In terms of the mountains, this this project is too far from the mountains. The sound is linear, as I think you know, and and it will fade before it hits the mountains. The rowing, for example, would be a different issue because it's so much closer. In this case, noise off the mountains would not be a consideration from a sequel perspective, and I am comfortable that that the the design of the project, the city's noise ordinances and the conditions that are applied will result in in less than significant noise impacts from a sequel perspective. Okay. Thank you. And then kind of the bigger picture, so much of the public input that we received on this in terms of written letters was all in the form of a single letter that was, I don't

know, 20 some pages long, really digging into the minutia of the initial study and the ND and we you analyzed each of those provided responses to each one, each one of those. And I'm just wondering in your judgment and your professional experience, is that level of detail typical for a project of this nature? And do you? Personally feel that the outcome, the document that we have is. For a project that is in keeping with the spirit of Ceqa, not just the. Each and every paragraph. Am I comfortable that the initial study mitigated? Negative declaration? Is the is the appropriate vehicle? No. With the details in it, with the if if we're trying to protect the environment in the categories of sequa, do you feel that this project will be adequately conditioned to do so? Big picture. Yes, ma'am. The the Sequa is pretty clear in terms of the level of impact, and we have thresholds that we follow that the analysis was thoroughly conducted. And and there are no potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. Okay. And this one of the question was is it typical for a project of this size, which is probably big for Palm Springs. But on the scale of things, not that big a project to have such a to generate such a heated response from. A. Are you referring to the letter

that we received at the end of last week? Yes, I think that's when it came in. It was from, it's from an attorney's firm. Yes. Yeah. It is typical of that firm for, for projects in which they. They pay attention. Care to characterize those projects, larger projects that generate a need for union labor. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. I think the rest of my questions are for the applicant. Thank you. I've got some. When I look at the project, it looks like they're entitled to 166.8 units based on 30 per acre. And they're also so a little bit less, but they're also entitled to they're a little less than the number of hotel units that they can put on this size parcel. How do you compute the two of those together so that you're you're looking at density of residential density. That is almost what the project can handle. And then a hotel density that is similarly close to full. Right. So the section 14 plan allows 86 rooms per

acre. And they're asking for 45. Right. But you're also in the the zoning allows for 3030 units per acre. And I'm just wondering I know they're asking for that, but you're putting the two together. So is it is it more dense than because you've got two different allocations which are. Yes. Because they are condo hotels and they will be in the hotel room in the hotel pool. The this goes back to the primary question, I suppose this is a hotel use. So all of the rooms are captured under hotel density. In total it's 45 rooms per acre for all. So you're capturing under the hotel density, all 257 rooms. Yes. Okay. And that some of them happen to be residential. That's right. Okay. One of the questions I have with parking is it's meeting its parking requirements. In the past this and it was I understand it was leased by the applicant to the city, but it was parking for the public. Will there be any parking for the public? Is there any spillover of parking if parking is available? Often people don't. Right. So the parking is as I mentioned, it's required to have 497 there. They have 500. If the parking that's there now is not specifically identified for the convention center, but it is used for the convention center parking. It's used primarily. Right. The lot on the east side of the convention center is the designated spot for convention center parking. It would be up to the applicant to decide if convention center parking. I mean, in theory, somebody

would stay at this hotel and attend a convention at the convention center. So they would capture that parking that way. What I would also add is, again, to the sort of legal complexity and history to this project. There was very clear requirements spelled out in the settlement agreement between the city Council and the developer, which envisioned that convention center parking as an interim use while this hotel project was being planned. And so there are clear milestones spelled out in the settlement agreement that essentially terminate the city's right to have public or convention center parking on the site at the point that they go forward with building permits. Thank you. That answers my question. Have they indicated to you that they've that this is I know that the there's been a study done that we need additional hotel rooms for convention for conventions. Do we know if this hotel is being designed for that use or do we not? I know that they're not obligated. I just want to understand how they're thinking about it. I think we can ask the applicant for more information about the management of the hotel. I can give a little bit of context that I got from our chief economic development officer on sort of hotels more broadly throughout the city. And so what he said, and there's a lot of information here, so I won't provide it all, but. The long and short of it is that the convention center themselves have identified a need for 500 additional hotel rooms in the immediate vicinity to serve the convention center. Now, there isn't yet market data that we have available to the city to support that number, but that's what they are saying from the data that we have. You know, we are seeing a seasonal seasonal occupancy of about

60%, which, as I understand it, is actually fairly decent for hotels. And in Wayne's words, our chief economic development officers. We have a robust and healthy hospitality portfolio. And in his opinion, there is capacity in the city's market to absorb more hotels. We're skewing certainly out of my area of expertise. And so I think we can certainly ask the applicant for their perspective on that. And then I'm assuming that the Cup is a discretionary permit and we still have site plan when we're both looking at the development permit and the cup. We're looking at site plan. And so if we have concerns and comments about site plan, which I will have, especially the location of the parking lot, that those are appropriate issues for us to look at. And for me, it I'm missing, I'm, I believe that most of the contextual photos or simulations were done by the environmental consultant, but I I'm concerned about the context and I'm especially concerned about Tahquitz but that that's probably comes later. So those are questions for the applicant. But the vision of the city and the vision of what Captor Plaza is with the bill, I'm concerned that the building needs to relate to that. So that will be something that will be a concern that I will have. Yeah. One question. And this is I looked at the underlying agreement with the city, which I believe

was fully executed in 2020, am I correct, or 2021 or 2021. And that looked it was a five year agreement. Is that agreement termed out or is that agreement still in effect? As I understand it, the agreement is in full effect. There is an interesting disclaimer associated with those timelines that say they are by design. I forget the exact terminology, but flexible. So as I understand it, the agreement is in effect. I understood it through the end of 2026, but I'll double check as we're talking. Okay. And then there is the there's a condition in this, I believe, and you'd have to help me. There's a condition related to the build out of a walkway. And potential applicants obligation to build it out in the city to repay. And I received something from the city attorney about that today. That that is a condition. It was a very clear condition in the agreement, but it's still it's still it's still a condition of the city agreement. Right. So in in the settlement agreement, it does reference that the developer will cause to be constructed a walkway generally extending from the hotel project ending in or near downtown Palm Springs at the city's expense. So that condition is reflected in your conditions of approval for some additional conversation. I think you all are aware that there are very active conversations going on around the convention center more broadly, including various different connectors to and from the convention center area. And so I think the idea is that at some point, these conversations need to fuze, and we need to roll this specific obligation and requirement into those

broader discussions. So the condition is in there because it is a requirement of the settlement agreement. But I imagine there'll be a lot more discussion between the city and the developer in terms of how that actually becomes Effectuated and the other the other thing with the city agreement was that there is no Tot agreement, Tot rebate agreement with this applicant. Am I correct that there there is no Tot agreement that we need to look at? As I understand it, there is not one currently. Certainly there isn't one. As part of the settlement agreement, we can ask the applicant whether they've had any separate conversations with the Economic Development Office regarding that. And did the two, two, 57 units come from the original agreement or is it so some some of the it doesn't come from the agreement, but it might have come from original discussions. The number of rooms. Yes. Oh yeah. There's nothing in the settlement agreement that obligates the number of rooms that I'm aware of. But we can certainly ask the applicant if there were previous conversations at that time around what the expectation was in terms of the scale of this development. But there's nothing in the settlement agreement about that. And I understood that there were discussions about how many condo units versus how many housing units at that time. But if I'm correct there, didn't the city and the applicant didn't agree on numbers back then? That's my understanding as well. So if there were conversations about it, and I believe there were as well, it's not reflected in the settlement agreement. That is that was effectuated in 2021. I think those are my questions of staff. Are there other questions that people have of staff, given that we've raised a number of them seeing none, I'd like to open the public hearing. I'm sorry. You

have some. Sorry. One more. That is kind of both for staff and applicant. But the shade study that was submitted. I'm not experienced enough at looking at these or knowing what else has been done in the city. But I look at this and I see, okay, there are residential units that are being impacted where at certain times of year they're going to have, and this mostly would be on the north side of the project where they're going to be in the dark come early afternoon. How do you determine how much shade is too much? How many existing buildings and residences being impacted is too many? A good question. And I mean, I think that there's locational context to that, right? In a lot of urban areas, a lot of shade, a lot more shade may be tolerated than in a city where we're not used to that experience or that condition in. A lot of people are here in Palm Springs because they haven't had to encounter that position. So I don't know that there's a perfect answer. I think it relates to the findings that are before you for the conditional use permit. And, you know, they speak to adverse impacts on surrounding land uses. And so I think it's sort of within the scope and purview of the Planning Commission to determine where that line lies and where that comfort level is. And do we know at the five, the five findings, you know, is it appropriate, is it necessarily necessary or desirable? Is the site the right size? You know? As it relates to the streets and highways properly? And are

the conditions appropriate? So it's not even necessarily explicit in those findings. But I think, well, the building massing is kind of what's defined right. Or defines the shade okay. All right. Thank you. With that the public hearing is open. The applicant has ten minutes. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and planning commissioners. My name is Rob Harris. I'm with the applicant. First off, I just want to thank you for taking the time this evening to review this very significant project. Also, thank you to all the staff, especially Glen. I know we put a lot of hard work in. You got assigned this not not too far long ago and put it did a very, very good job with the detailed staff report. If I can, I may try to address some of these initial questions to begin. So there's there's there's a lot of history. As Director Hadwin said on this project. We've been involved in this project for 20 years. So 20 years I've been there the whole time. So lots of discussion, lots of analysis, lots of back and forth. So kind of just going in order here a little bit. There was a question about the condo use and how it relates. So generally speaking this has become something that has become more prevalent probably over the past ten years. But you're seeing a lot of instead of condo hotels or condo hotels, you're seeing what is called branded residences. So this is a project which is a hotel with branded residences, meaning that the residences are associated with the hotel. They're they're integrated into the hotel. They have all the access to all the hotel amenities. So we have a standalone hotel building of I don't know if you can go to the site plan maybe, please. So the building to the to the left, that's the

hotel building that incorporates 125 rooms. Then there's kind of this lobby connector that's a a single story high elevation element. And then we get into what I'll call a second building, which is the T shape nine story building. And that's the branded residences. That's what we'll have a condo map over it. So the rooms in that building will be sold as individual condos, and those condo owners will have the choice to stay there, or they will have the choice to put those condos into the hotel inventory. And then the hotel will have access to them and can rent them out in their hotel reservation system. So the the goal here and again, getting back to the complexities and the whole history is that we're trying to solve a lot of different challenges with the hotel room desires of convention center and other drivers in the city, and then what is market reality? And so what this allows is when there's the off peak times and you're on the lower average of that 60% average that the director mentioned, you have 125 rooms of hotel that you're trying to fill up. The other 132 condos have already been sold. Right. And whether those get rented or not, those are more directly impacted by those owners. Right. However, on peak times, peak parts of the season, and when we want to flex up, the assumption is that majority of those condo owners are going to have their units into the hotel inventory. And now this becomes a 257 room hotel. Again. Anytime those rooms are put into the inventory, the city will be able to collect the Tot tax. If those rooms ♪are not put&-rn you would not collect Tot tax, obviously. So that's kind of how those two elements work together. I'm not sure if that answered the question, but that was

that's kind of how these projects work. So as far as the question about revisions, there were lots of revisions. So the initial project when it started 20 years ago was actually envisioned for a nine story, ten acre, 500 room hotel, and that was ultimately approved. And that was much more massive, larger land area, larger rooms. And ultimately, the reason why that project did not go forward is that it's not economically feasible. It obviously went through the Great Recession period. It could not get revived. We've met with countless consultants. 500 rooms just does not pencil here. So that is again why we've gotten back into this blend of a branded residence and a hotel operation. At the end of the day, the ultimate goal here is to get a project that not only can be something that everyone's proud of, that can be something that serves both community members, but also feed tourism into the city. Support the convention center, support surrounding restaurants and businesses. So we're trying to solve all these things. But ultimately, if we can't get it financed and built, then we're just kind of wasting everybody's time, right? So that's that's the ultimate goal. And we believe this is an economically feasible project the way it is designed, as is. When we came back to the city with a new application back in roughly 2021, 2022, we went through what was called a pre app application process. At that time, the buildings were moved closer to Andrea's Road. And so as a result of that, the buildings got pushed further back in order to create a greater setback from Andrea's. The goal there was to limit any shadowing on the adjacent condos at the Plaza Villas. What we couldn't get completely out of the of the entire shadow Line as

as Glen mentioned in the shade and shadow study, it is it is minimal in that winter solstice period, in the morning area and in the late afternoon area in the midday it it's only covering kind of that parking on the far eastern side of the the property doesn't actually cover any physical units. I also have with me our architect from HKS. So he can kind of dive into any other detailed questions as well on shade, shadow or any those sorts of questions. I think I mentioned the market feasibility. I touched on that. Again, part of that was design. The underground garage was studied. Obviously underground garages are much more expensive than above ground garages. So the most efficient way to do an underground garage is to try to fit it under a footprint of an existing structure. So that's why there's only one level underneath the hotel building footprint that kind of matches that footprint. The deeper you go, the more expensive. So again, that's why it was only a single level below. And then the vast majority of the parking is on the above grade structure, which actually mimics the exact location of what the previously larger project was approved at. And that garage was, was, was purposely kind of designed to hide in that southeast corner where we now have a hotel building or a residence building on both the north and the West. We have the Renaissance, which is already a large, tall building on the east, and their back of house is also on that same eastern side of of our property. So it seemed like a appropriate place for garage. We understand obviously there's an impact to Tahquitz Canyon. And so that's why there's screening that is being proposed. And as Glen mentioned, that can be further evolved into Architectural Committee and going into deeper details on the design, a couple other quick things here, obviously. Yes, we we fully are wanting to support the convention center. We want to feed customers to the convention center. That's

one of the drivers, obviously, of what this hotel will be. We did not request a Tot agreement. We wanted to be able to stand on our own without the tot. There's also obviously tot ripple effects when you go into construction and having to, you know, utilize certain types of labor when you have subsidies like that. So again, we had long discussions with the city of pros and cons to that. We've chosen at this time not to move forward with a request for a COC agreement that also kind of backed into their question of how do we get to these number of rooms again, through the market feasibility, through a lot of discussions with many, many different layers at the city, we kind of, you know, concluded on this being a sweet spot, sweet number to match all the different needs that we need. I think that was the majority of the questions. If I missed anything, I apologize. Obviously I'm here to answer additional questions, but let me just conclude with, you know, again, as everyone's aware, the city is going through an incredible amount of momentum with the recently completed hotel projects, the adjacent cultural museum and spa, the upcoming convention center modernization project, and of course, the airport improvements. We hope that this project will be the next new great addition to all the investment that's happening in and around the city. As a four star hotel and branded residence offering signature restaurants, event space, resort pools and any other fab outlets, we hope to support the convention center, attract new events, and serve both visitors and members of the community. Lastly, we're proud to bring forward a project working in partnership with the city that meets all of the existing zoning requirements. We appreciate again the amount of of work and effort that has gone into the many, many years. Again, we submitted the Pre-app in 2022. The formal application in 2023. So regardless of the 20 year process, this has been going on almost three and a half to four year process of just this current phase. The thing I want to mention on convention center support is there is that

flex space at the bottom of the screen. That's about a 5000 square foot meeting space. The idea there is it could be used for overflow meetings from the convention. It has indoor outdoor. So you could also have an outdoor event into the event lawn. It has its own catering kitchen. Everything's been methodically planned to be circulated kind of right. Turns only around the site. I can go into that in more detail if you guys have additional questions. So with that, I'm here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other members of the public who wish to speak. Yes, Madam Chair, I'm going to call on those members that are here in person and then I will go to online speakers. Our first speaker is Polly Vanderzanden, followed by Stephen Dixon. I pronounce that okay. Sorry. Good evening. The invitation came pretty late, I must say. And the people in Plaza Villas winter time is top season will not be happy to be deprived of some hours of sunshine. I am against a nine story high building downtown Plaza village. We have a beautiful town, beautiful architecture. People come from all over the world to see this and we don't need to be become a new Las Vegas or a Manhattan. I'm not happy that the mountain view will be blocked. It's already happening by the parking garage from the casino and it's a Kimpton hotel, I think. And how about the current height restrictions? Why do you ignore that? Basically, I understand there is already a building. The Renaissance can answer your questions. Well, it's you're just speaking. We can't answer your questions or don't when you speak. Okay, that was it then. Thank you very much. Stephen Dixon, followed

by Jane. Hello, my name is Stephen Dixon. I am a homeowner at Plaza Villas, and I'm also on the board of the HOA. My fellow board member, Mike louder, prepared some statements that he'd like me to read tonight. We also want to point out. Well, just read the whole thing. The cup would allow the developer to more than triple the existing height limit from 35ft to 100ft, nine stories. This is an extreme and unprecedented, unprecedented deviation that is entirely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Even the downtown Kimpton Hotel is only seven stories. The Nexus at nine stories, would become the tallest building in one of the tallest buildings in Palm Springs, and the Nexus Hotel is not even located in the downtown core, but instead is in Midtown, a less urban and quieter, more residential area. Approving the cup of this magnitude would set a dangerous precedent and dramatically alter the scale, character, and experience of this part of Palm Springs. Many homeowners of Plaza Villas purchased their homes with reasonable expectations that the city that the city's 35 foot height limit would be honored and enforced. The project would block southern mountain views that are defining feet that are a defining feature of our community, and Palm Springs at large. Palm Springs is celebrated for its mid-century modern buildings, known for its low slung views, sensitive view sensitive architecture allowing a nine story or nine story tower contradicts the very identity and planning legacy of our city. The Nexus Hotel would sit directly south of Plaza Villas. At nine stories, the building would cast long shadows. As someone already pointed out, to the north onto Plaza Villas, especially during the winter months when the sun is lower, the sky

and the sky, the residents seek warmth and sun by the pool. Days are much shorter due to the mountain orientation, and basically that's when our tourists arrive. Both of the pools and Plaza villas are located in what would likely be in a permanent shadow zone in the winter. This undermines one of the main reasons people live here, and what people have come to expect in our community. Based on the existing 35 foot height limit to enjoy the sun, the Dream Hotel, already approved and under construction nearby, will already bring 150 new hotel rooms and associated traffic. The Nexus Hotel proposes over 250 rooms, nearly double the dream, and located even closer to our homes. Plaza villas encompasses a full city block and contains just 102 units, placing 400 new high density units. On either side of Plaza Villas is disproportionate and incompatible with the area's scale, infrastructure and traffic flow. This project would introduce. I'll let you finish your I'll let you finish your comments. Are you done? Yeah, I think that's good. I think I want to those those points. Okay. Thank you very much for listening. Jane. Followed by Jeff okay. Thank you. Hello, commissioners. I live at Tierra Hermosa on the corner of Hermosa and Amado, and I am concerned about a nine story building in our neighborhood for the reasons that were just enumerated. We're going to have the Dream Hotel. I don't think we need yet

another hotel in our residential neighborhood. I'm not convinced that. The shadow, the shade is not going to be a problem. I think that's just not okay. In our neighborhood. I think we it's just not okay to build nine story buildings in Palm Springs. I moved here, as did a lot of people from either. I came from San Francisco, other people came from LA, and many of us chose to come here because we choose not to live in urban area, not to live in a city. We love Palm Springs because we don't have nine story buildings. One of the reasons we love Palm Springs. I'm also concerned about the noise. We live close enough that when there are festivals, there is noise and there will be more festival attendees at this hotel. And the noise will always be a problem. And it's a problem until somebody actually complains. But we do start out with there is always noise during these festivals, so please, we do not need another hotel in our neighborhood, and especially a nine foot hotel that isn't compatible with what many of us come to think of as the identity of Palm Springs. Thank you for your time. Jeff Kyle followed by Jann Arden. I'm a full time resident of Palm Springs. Excuse me and I highly support this development. I support it for the following reasons. It meets the zoning standards of the city. So it's not really up to us to debate whether or not it's appropriate size or it's appropriate number of rooms. If it meets the zoning plans, then we must approve it. It's a great and fantastic opportunity to support the convention

center expansion. The airport, along with all the retail up and down Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon. So for those reasons, I think we should abide by our government regulations of what is allowed and is not allowed and approve this project. And Jan Alden is the final speaker I have in the chambers. And then we'll go to online speakers. I am Doctor Jan Alden, and I'm also a permanent resident of Palm Springs. I don't live in the vicinity, but I enjoy everything about Palm Springs and what I'm concerned about may or may not be appropriate here, but I felt compelled to have a voice that I feel the charm of Palm Springs will be is has been getting whittled away on a regular basis. We're losing mountain views. We're losing sunlight. With every time that there's an increased building height. And I'm concerned about the trend of what's going to happen into Palm Springs. If a nine story, a seven story, nine story building is permitted to be built, because that is going to change the whole feel of this beautiful and very cherished community with mid-century modern and the movies and all of the things that not only visitors, but also residents here really come to enjoy, I think there will be an environmental impact because as we increase height and density within buildings, we're going to also have to improve, increase water supply to all of those places as well. And we're in a we're all we're in a place where it's a desert. We're having to take out lawns, we're having to

conserve water. It's a regular thing. And yet we're bringing in more and more residential usage and hotel usage. And where is that water going to come from into the future? We've also just done major road repair. We've been putting up with a lot of road construction and traffic delays. What is this project going to do to that? The city has a history of getting into arrangements with developers that has been not pleasant, and when the project stopped, then we're left with very unsightly major areas in our community that we have to put up with for years on a regular basis. The impact on the existing restaurants and hotels, many are struggling. I'm wondering, how do we keep expanding? Yes, we have the tourism, but then what happens during the winter when those of us are who are here on regular basis? How do these smaller businesses, which is what Palm Springs was built on, actually survive? Because everything is being pushed out and it's growing in a rate that can't sustain the essence of what Palm Springs was built on. And if the convention center needs additional. Light, I'm almost done. Why couldn't this be a hotel if it Palm Springs and not just the developer, why wouldn't it be a full use hotel if what the convention center needs is hotel space and not sell it off? Just as another

business opportunity for another person to come in, buy a condo and make more money off of it when we're already dealing with the housing issue of the people of Palm Springs. Thank you. We'll go to our online speakers. Omar Cobian, you will have three minutes. Good evening. Yes. Hear me? Yep. Okay. Hi, my name is Omar Cobian. I am a member and a representative for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. You know, I live in the area. I work in the area I recreate in the vicinity of the project. And I seriously believe that this will impact. I'll be impacted by the environmental impacts of this project. The City Council should require projects to be built with contractors that will hire locally, pay the prevailing wage, and utilize apprentices from a state certified apprenticeship training program. Far too often, contractors come into Palm Springs. They bring their out-of-state labor or their labor that's, you know, paying under the under the books, you know, cash pay because they're not using union labor. The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently found that local hire requirements can result in air pollution reductions. Recently, the state of California reiterated the commitment towards encouraging workforce development and housing affordability through the Affordable Housing and High Road Job Act of 2020, otherwise known as Assembly Bill 2011, which requires projects to pay workers a prevailing wage and hire from a state certified apprenticeship program for projects meeting certain siding's affordability and development standards. So I asked the Planning Commission to please ask the developer, Mr. Errors and Nexus Development, what their plan is to hire local hire, and to make sure that they're going to hire state

apprentice state certified apprentices with union labor. Thank you. Victoria, you have three minutes. Good evening commissioners. My name is Victoria Young from the environmental law firm Ojuri. I'm speaking on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility or Safer. Safer respectfully requests that the commission deny approval of the GND for the project and instead require preparation of an EIR. Ceqa requires an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may cause significant environmental impacts. The record. The record demonstrates exactly that, with substantial evidence of potential impacts to valley fever, air quality, biological resources, and traffic. First Valley Fever doctor James Clark determined that the that disturbing more than 38,000yd of soil during grading will create a substantial pathway for Valley fever exposure. Construction workers, future residents and nearby community members are all at risk, particularly given that the site's desert conditions and prevailing winds. The dust control measures identified in the GND are inadequate to address these risks. An EIR is needed to properly address these impacts. Second, air quality. Doctor Clark also concluded that construction emissions will exceed thresholds for particulate matter. Both PM ten and PM 2.5. This is clear evidence of a significant impact. Moreover, the GND emits any health risk assessment for toxic air contaminants generated by construction and operation. Without such an analysis, the city lacks support for its conclusion that the project's emissions would not have a significant health impact. Third, biological resources wildlife ecologist doctor Sean Smallwood concluded that the project will

significantly impact biological resources. Doctor Smallwood found that the project would harm at least 18 species of vertebrate wildlife, including three special status species, through interference with wildlife movement, bird window collisions, and traffic mortality. He also found that the proposed mitigation measures constituted prohibited deferred mitigation. Lastly, traffic traffic engineer Thomas Brohard concluded that the project may have significant traffic impacts, most notably as part of the first phase of the project construction, 700 parking spaces would be removed from a preexisting parking lot on the project site. Mr. Brohard found that the ND failed to account for the removal of these parking spaces in its traffic. Analysis of VMT. An EIR is needed to properly assess this impact for the reasons I have discussed here and in Safer's written comments, we again ask that you recommend preparation of EIR. Thank you so much for your time and consideration this evening. Charlie Cano, you have three minutes. Hello, this is Charlie Cano. I'm representing Unite Here local 11. Our business address is 461 South Lucas Avenue, unit 201, Los Angeles, California 900 017. And the phone number is (213) 481-8530. I'm here today because we're we're concerned about the project's greenhouse gas impacts here. The ND admits the project exceeds South Coast aqmd tier three thresholds, i.e. 4396, 300 and 396 tons, over 3000 metric tons of GHG emissions. The ND continues to state it is likely associated with the project's mobile and energy emissions. Here there are numerous GHG reduction

strategies urged by Capcoa that are specifically intended to reduce energy and mobile emissions. I urge the city to further consider these mitigation strategies, rather than primarily relying on consistency with the city's 2013 Climate Action Plan, which was based on AB 32 emissions goals. Thank you very much for for listening. I see no additional speakers at this time. We have one additional speaker in the audience. Very much. My name is Dan Donahue. I've been a resident of the Plaza Villa for 21 years. I have the unit that's closest to this project that I'm adamantly opposed to. This letter was scanned by this nice lady here at City Hall earlier today, and entered into the public comments. I don't have time to read it all, but I'd like to read what I think is the most important to points. The solar study or the shade study. My t is the very closest to Andrea's Road, and I will be in the shade of this building for four months of the year. So if this project gets approved, I. I really would like it downsized to something that would be more suitable for the neighborhood. There was a comment made earlier by someone and I don't know who, that the parking lot of the casino was going to be the same height as this hotel. That parking lot is

only five stories. This is a nine story hotel, so that's erroneous. I saw in the slide presentation earlier the setbacks from the proposed project to arenas and close to my side of Plaza Villas, one had one 132ft and one had 140. So I'd like some clarification on that. Also, I think there needs to be a wind analysis. We're in a natural wind tunnel on a dress. I've been frightened by these winds many times in the 21 years I've been here, and that wind tunnel has actually blown concrete shingles off my building at the Plaza Villa. And also the the shingles off the Renaissance Hotel. The Spanish tiles. Traffic study. I think this is really important. And I'm going to actually read this. A thorough traffic study should be a planning commission priority. In my opinion. The vacated street on the east side of the tower that's Calle Alvarado should be reopened, even if a downsized version of this project is approved. That is completely blocked off right now, and it prevents any type of traffic circulation around the building. I believe the current proposal includes a small alley. Calle Alvarado needs to widen up as far as it can so it doesn't impede traffic into the area. I know that on I'll be. I'll give me 20 more seconds on our big events at the

convention center. Andrea's road becomes one way. You're probably not aware of this for the Steve Chase Awards, and also the film festival and some of the big conventions. And I have spent a half hour getting a half block to my car gate on, on Andrea's. So know that we already have gridlock at times, and I have a hard time getting at home right now. I can only imagine if this project is built. I don't know how they're going to try to mitigate this, this problem, but it is a mess right now. I hope we have a good traffic engineer that can figure it out. Thank you. Questions of the applicant, Commissioner Murphy. Can you just confirm that the social club is open to the public and not a members only? Service? So, yeah, I hesitate to even define it as a social club. To be honest, I think the idea there was that we wanted to take the opportunity to utilize the ability to have a roof deck, and, you know, similar but a little dissimilar to the Rowan, where they have their pool on the on the rooftop deck. We wanted to still be able to get up and have views and have a nice public access area. So it really was kind of thought to be more of like a speakeasy. So there's kind of a hidden path. I don't know if you can pull the site plan up or not if you don't mind, but if you were to look at the walkway coming from the north entry of the hotel, there's almost like a hidden, you know, pedestrian path or that

kind of winding, meandering path right there above the ramp that goes down to the garage. Yep. There you go. Thank you so much, Glenn. So that's kind of supposed to be kind of a, you know, potentially behind a gate or something, but a hidden path that would go into a direct elevator and up to that roof deck. So it's just open to the public as of right now. That would be it'd be the public fab outlet. Okay. Is there any chance that the condos these sold units can find their way onto the short term or long term rental market, aside from being rented through the hotel? No. So they cannot be independently rented out. They would have to be put into the hotel inventory as a as a condition. Okay. Thank you. The parking structure, the way it's the site map indicates that it looks like it's quite a long walk for somebody parking to walk to the hotel and even really the residence. So my question is on the parking. What I guess intentions or and assumptions do you make for justifying 500 approximately parking spaces? So you could just talk a little bit more about what what what are your thoughts or expectations for parking and who's going to use them? I, independent of the table that we saw in the application. What how are people going to get from the parking garage to the structures? And what are your assumptions about who's parking? So great question. There's probably a lot of different layers to that response. I think the first and foremost is that the way this was designed, it was to meet the parking requirements and guidelines. And that was really the goal of this entire project was to meet every

requirement and guideline presented to us from from the staff of fitting within the box, if you will, the zoning. So that's why we have our three space surplus of what the minimum requirement was. That's kind of the threshold answer practically the way we hope this is operating is that again, it's an urban setting. It is in the section 14 specific plan. So the the goal and hope would be that this is designed that people are walking to the convention center. They're walking to the restaurants on Tahquitz Canyon, they're walking to the casino, they're walking to downtown. They're walking to the spaces within the campus of the FNB outlets that we have, and the pools and the event space that we have on site. So we're hoping that a lot of people are walking everywhere. From a parking standpoint right now, we've met with multiple valet consultants and parking consultants, and the idea would be that this is 100% valet operation and it's designed as such. Could it be Self-park in the future? It could, but but it's designed there's there's essentially three porticos shares. There's a portico shared by the the lower left corner in front of the signature restaurant building a pointer. Can somebody give him a pointer so we can see that. Perfect. So it's it's primarily valet which makes sense because of the way it's currently structured. And then the 500 spaces will be valet parked or they'll be servicing the convention center. Those are kind of the two use cases. I mean, practically, they're all for customers of the campus, whether it's restaurant or hotel or branded residence, whether they are conventioneers or not. You know, that that is is TBD. So, so if you're parking and you want to walk from the garage to the either, well, the restaurant, the hotel and the residence, how would you do it? How would what would be the

path we take? So again, the valet service, the lower left corner, valet parking. Well, right now it's designed to be 100% valet. Okay. So that's not an option then. Correct? Okay. And that's why everything is kind of designed for that right turn only. I think someone mentioned about the traffic and traffic study and analysis. I mean there was extensive study. So if you go to the southwest corner where the restaurant is that supported to share, that only serves the event space. So somebody would not have to go through the main hotel lobby and congest that main entry for hotel guests. They could in an event or a wedding, they could park there through that valet operation or for the restaurant when it's open. The second portico share is at the main entrance of the center. There, the building where the main hotel lobby is. Again. There the valet would be able to just go right turn, and then right turn again into the parking garage off Kelly Alvarado, which is planned to be the maximum ultimate width to 30ft. I think it was a question from a resident. Then there's a third portico in front of the residence building as well, also offering the valet also with a right turn only out again, navigating that that. Yeah. Okay, I see that. I just wanted to clarification. So the the use case is for the use of the parking garage. It's valet. Yes. And or convention center parking or open to the public if I wanted to if I as a member of the public know. So again it is really valet only. You have to be visiting the the hotel the fab outlets. So if I was driving to an event at the convention center that's not connected directly to this property, and I wanted to park in this garage, I, I wouldn't be able to correct. Okay. Unless unless you wanted to valet it at the hotel or or pay the valet charge. Okay, so

it's 100% valet. Thank you. That. I think that's it for now. Thank you. Hello. Have have you considered local labor and or union labor as part of your construction? So I guess I would say that it's a little bit kind of putting the cart before the horse. To be honest. I think this is a linear process. And right now what we need to understand is if if this project is approved on the entitlement side, we will then move into the design phase and diving deeper into the design phase and going through the building plan check and going through the financing aspect of the project. If at a time we select a general contractor, that's the appropriate time to really analyze what type of construction labor would be utilized by that, that third party general contractor. So I think it's premature for me to make a comment on that right now. And so I guess the part B of my question is, it doesn't sound like at this point in time, you'd be willing to commit to any, any one of those things. Or are you open to considering that we're in a position to commit to anything at this point without knowing that there's there's a project to move forward on? Okay. On the specifics of the operation of the hotel, the seventh floor social club, as well as the pools that are south of the the hotel tower. Do you envision any amplified music or other entertainment that would be occurring on those? So time to time we would anticipate there would be some music being played, but it would be within the confines of the conditions of approval for the project. And also, I think it's important to note that, again, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of thought going into each aspect of this project with the buildings kind of

acting as a as an L shape, you have buildings buffering the pool deck, open space and the residences to the north. And as I think the consultant mentioned earlier, I think the noise impacts have been studied and we feel confident that within the conditions we will satisfy any requirements. So there's currently no conditions that I saw that deal with amplified music or limitation on hours of operation, but it sounds like you would be expecting, at least as it relates to the seventh floor social deck, which doesn't have the benefit of a building blocking it from the Plaza Villas, for instance, you would be expecting there to be some sort of time limitations, perhaps on when that amplified music could happen. Is that fair to say? That's fair to say, yeah. And I would just add, you know, the city's noise ordinance certainly is applicable throughout the day and would restrict the use of amplified music at certain times of the day. Certainly. I think that's it for the applicant. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry, have you had you considered any sort of landscaping or other sort of shade structures on the top of the parking garage, as much for shade for those cars as as much as it is for the appearance of the residential units looking down on that otherwise sort of bleak concrete slab, whether you put. A certain number of trees in large planter pots or, you know, shade sails or something, that's I think you're going to want to have some sort of softening element to soften the appearance of

that, that concrete slab from the units that are facing it. So we have not contemplated or committed any, any planting on the the roof deck of the parking garage. But point of clarification, we have purposely designed the that portion of the T shaped building to be single loaded, and I don't know if you can go to maybe level seven on the on the plan there, but that works too. If you look at the the kind of leg of the T and then the right wing of the T, those are all single loaded, so no units would be looking directly onto the garage. But are there. That's a walkway, right. There's there's windows along that. Or is that corridor completely internal corridor. It's windowless. Correct. If there's windows it'd be clear story windows where there wouldn't be a direct view down to the garage below. Okay. Well, that brings up a good question then for Unit Glenn, if you could go to floors two, three and four. Levels two, three and four. So on levels two, three and four, your residential hotel unit number 32 is very limited in the amount of light it's getting because of the way it's clipped with unit 31, have you looked at exactly how wide that is, and is that going to be sufficient to make that unit 32 marketable on those three floors until you clear the parking garage and get more light? So what you're looking at on this diagram are just room bays, so I apologize for that. It might be confusing, but they're just room bays and so on. The branded residence tower, there's

multiple room bays that make up a unit. So what you'd be looking at as an example is say 32 and 33 make up a single unit. So that could be a bathroom, that could be an area that would not need necessarily a window in that, in that kind of elbow of the building. But do you agree that that limited frontage there, so to speak, frontage facing west for unit 32. That's the only opportunity they have for light. What I'm saying is unit 32 would not be a standalone. That's just a room bay. So that would not be a standalone unit itself. So as an example, there's many more room bays on this diagram than 132 units I see. So those are just 14 by 35 bays. Okay. In the diagram okay. Hence the reference on the parking to two and three unit. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Glenn alluded to the planting that appears to be shown on the walls of the parking garage and the side of the building facing south and east. Have you given thought to that? Because, as Glenn alluded to, facing south, I would be curious as to what you would be planting there in the desert that would survive the heat of the summer on a vertical plane. So do you have any idea what that might be, or is that just a representation that might turn into a artificial plant, or is that going to be an architectural detail as opposed to real live plants, because it shows real life plants in your elevations that we're looking at as part of our evaluation. So I guess two things I can defer to our architect, who might be able to elaborate a little bit about some experiences they have, but the short answer is we would not be going with live planting. It's conceptual just to illustrate that we know there needs to be screening

on the garage for obvious reasons, and the goal there would be to work with the Architectural Committee, if so approved tonight to to better evolve that design and screen, whether it's some sort of faux plant material, whether it's some sort of metal ornamental, probably a lot more better suggestions from our architect than I can come up with right now. You want to speak to that? Hello everyone. My name is Ansh. I'm representing HKS architects. So just echoing what Robert mentioned, essentially what you're seeing over here is just a conceptual basis of what we see as an approach to the facade of the garage. Garage, usually whenever there's exposed, is always challenging to how to soften that face and how to make it more pedestrian friendly. So what we're alluding to is some kind of a treatment that softens that face, whether that's louvers, whether that's metal screens, whether it is fake plants, all in the attempts to essentially bring down the scale of that facade to make it more human and more approachable. And I would recommend you could look to the Agua Caliente Casino garage just a block away that has some pretty nice elements. It's not perfect, but it as a five story garage. It's not bad looking, and it has some interesting architectural elements that you could pick up on. Thank you. If I can go back a minute to the. To market study and your financial. Calculations, what was the comp set that was used and when was this? When was your study done? Did it account what recently opened hotels? Did it or did it not account for? So we've done multiple market studies. I think the most recent third party study I'd have to go back and

look. It was sometime in that 2021, 2022 time period. We constantly update internally our own market research. We've been in the market for a very long time, so we're constantly talking with the multiple associations. So I think there was mentioned before, Palm Springs is a 60% on average occupancy annually market. So 80 years we've seen an uptick since the Thompson has opened. So I think the Rowan set kind of new standards when they opened Thompson, it seems to be beating them in a rate just specifically isolated comparison right now. I think it speaks more to another comment that was made earlier, which is, generally speaking, synergy is a positive when it comes to hotels and when it comes to entertainment venues. So new hotels kind of feed the other surrounding hotels and there's an overflow kind of effect. That's a very general comment that I'm making, but that would be kind of what what we see. Okay. Part of the reason I have questions is because in your justification letter, you referred to it in one place as a first class boutique hotel. And and then when you're talking about the meeting space and how you can take overflow from the convention center, it sounds like it's a conference hotel. And I'm not sure what market you're trying to hit. All of them. That's what we're trying to hit, to be honest. And that don't mean to be flippant with the comment, but so the the first settlement agreement, we had to go through an extensive branding exercise and we had to meet with over 100 different hotel brands and trying to evaluate what the most appropriate brand would be, not only for what we want to achieve, but then also it's a two way

street. They need to also want to be here as well. So this is designed to be a marriott Autograph Hotel four star as a marriott autograph. For those not familiar with it, the one of the unique benefits that that I think we really enjoy is that you get the the the benefits of being part of a massive chain of Marriott. Most Bonvoy redemption members in any hotel, your company. And so if you want to go to Marriott.com, you're going to get those folks that are coming for leisure and or business at the same time as an autograph. You're not confined to very strict design guidelines that are, say, Marriott Courtyard or a Residence Inn or many of their other brands. You have the freedom to self brand and self design and create your own unique experiences. We completed a marriott Autograph in Pismo Beach recently. It's called Vespera. You would never know it's Marriott if you didn't go to Marriott.com Cosmopolitan Las Vegas. Another example people would not know cosmopolitan is a marriott autograph unless you went to Marriott.com and booked it, or you're just a frequent Marriott member, right? And you just know that. So that's the goal here, is that we're trying to combine again to give us the best chance to succeed. Combined the the engine that we need to drive the revenue, but also create something very unique and special that is deserving of Palm Springs. Okay. And I want to go back a minute to kind of the massing of the building after you completed the shade study, which showed that there were some adverse impact for the neighbors to the north in particular, did you change anything about the design? I mean, did you look at reducing the height or stepping back or something so that that it

wasn't shadowing those residences? Or has it remained unchanged because you need the number of rooms that you need? So when it was initially designed and analyzed, it was further, it was closer to Andreas casting a even bigger shadow after the pre-application process in 2022, before the formal submittal, we pulled the buildings back away, further away from Andreas, to try to mitigate that shadowing effect. We did not obviously mitigate it completely, but we tried to mitigate it substantially. Okay, okay. And because I can't tell from your drawings and I'm just not seeing things from right perspective, what's the distance between the buildings to the south and your vertical structures on this project? You'll see easier than I can. Glenn I'm looking at a printout here. The drawings are limited to the site itself. I can't. So the driveway to the south is probably 26ft wide. And then there's the wall for Captor Plaza. And then their parking, which is 18, another 24, another 18. So. 60 70ft. Okay. Is the is the drive aisle back there 24ft, plus the parking structures plus the carport structures? Well, the drive out here is going to be 26 because it's emergency access. And then

there's a wall and then there's Captor Court or Captor Plaza's parking. Oh okay. So the the access is on the other side. Okay. All right. Thank you. And I think that's. All of my questions. Thank you. Yeah. I'm just wondering what you anticipate the cost of this building to be right now. So there's a lot of factors. And I think it's going to depend on when and if the project is bid out. Obviously that's going to depend on market conditions of the cost. I think overall total project cost is in excess of $200 million. And. How much of that is equity that's going in? How is it being financed? Are you anticipating? We just recently completed a $270 million financing for a ground up construction project in Dallas, Texas. It was roughly 40%, I'm sorry, it was roughly 32% equity, 68% construction financing. But again, it's market driven as far as what that ratio is going to look like. And what year was that that the financing you got the financing two months ago okay. Just looking at looking at this. And if you can put the slide of the view from Tahquitz back up. When you're driving down. And this is the way most of us will see this project is driving down Tahquitz.

It'll almost look like Captor Court is your front entry. And I don't see your building acknowledging or handling the disparity between Captor court and what you're putting in. And there's no homage to it. The parking lot is pretty. It's it's pretty rough against it. Have you what what have you have you thought you're the architect. What have you thought about doing about this? Because this is how we'll see this project. Every answer. Just real quick before you answer, I just wanted to point out, though, on this study, I think this was a study we did not do. This was a third party study. And I would point out that we're across the street on the eastbound lane, not on the westbound lane, as if you would see it when you're driving. So if you were truly driving westbound to look at this true view, the the Western Hotel building is really designed to try to get behind the highest point of Captor Plaza. I think if you're driving on the Western bound, to be fair, you would you would really not be able to see much if any of the hotel building itself. And then, of course, because of the setbacks, by the time you start to look at the the southern portion of this tee, you're going to start to be looking at the front of Captor Plaza. And that's where I would be going. So I just wanted to point out the this image is a little bit skewed, given that we're looking at it from the sidewalk on the southern end of Tahquitz Creek. Tahquitz Canyon. What what I would like to see is views. I mean, this this is coming to us. I want to see it contextually in its in its site and not if you think this is skewed. This is concerning to me,

but I would need to see something different to feel comfortable. And there are definitely views that we can generate as we further this design. But kind of just to touch on a couple of the questions you mentioned of how we're paying homage to the captive court, and in reality, what we're doing is from the massing standpoint, we're pushing the taller buildings back away from the court so that what you do have is a gradual breakdown of the mass, so that it's not these tall nine stories, the seven story structures up against something that's got landmark historic value to it now. And it's actually a gradual change in elevation so that it ties into just what we're trying to relate to. From the 60 foot of the Renaissance Hotel to our building height as well, but then tying into the natural landscapes of having these peaks and valleys that plays into the urban fabric of what the city has to offer. The the other the other questions I've been looking at is comfort with the 98ft, because we have we have some discretion on that, and we have to make some findings about fitting into context. And for me, I sat here when we did the Rowan and that was a very hard decision. And partially it was because it was up against the mountain that we could do that where it wasn't impacting as many as many other projects and as many other views. Have you looked at reducing this down to the. I think the Rowan is 73ft, not 83ft. But if you looked at trying to fit this into the into your context a little more, did you study it? Are you willing to look at that? So

yes, we studied it extensively. This is kind of the result of of all that analysis from this point. So a few things. One is that, as Onch mentioned, trying to take a step approach to this, overlooking everything and trying to to look at the different competing parts of this project. The highest point of this project is pushed to that eastern side, adjacent to the back of House of the Renaissance, also to their shortest elevation, with the minimal amount of rooms impacted from the Renaissance standpoint. And then, of course, you have the convention center adjacent. So so there really is no view impact from the nine story element. What we're talking about is this impact, which is mid-block on Andreas looking at the six and seven story hotel building lowering that is obviously going to reduce hotel rooms. We're already battling a desire that we've been told, hey, we want as many hotel rooms from different layers of the city and trying to find that right balance of how do you get, we know more hotel rooms than what we're proposing doesn't make economic sense. However, reducing those numbers also have equally negative impacts. I'm looking at reducing its the other tower, reducing the the height of the nine story tower. And again I would I would say that that is why that tower has been pushed to the eastern side to, to minimize and really negate any view impacts. So it's not visible from the western facing views of Villa Plaza Villas, its convention center and its back of House of

Renaissance Hotel. I don't know where the rest of my commission is on this. I have some discomfort with this. I would need to see this. I would need to see renderings in context to feel that I could do this. What if we're looking at that? We're looking at a continuance. Your feeling about a continuance or. Us? I mean, how will are you at all willing to work with us on this? I think we've been willing to work with the city every step of the way. And that's why it's it's taken us, you know, however long, three and a half plus years to get to this point. I think there's been a lot of thought and a lot of different layers of the city that have put input in on this. I think from a contextual standpoint, I think we would be hopeful that we could work through this with our architectural committee and architecturally treat this. I think from a we have we're not looking at, we're looking at footprint. So it that's our job. It's not it's not it's their job is to look at how it's skinned and what it looks like. Our job is really to look at the footprint and what we're entitling it to. So the answer my answer to that is that's a different a different step. I would like to see a possibility. I'd like to see it in such a way that we don't have the shadowing on the adjacent neighbors. I'm concerned about that. And I am concerned about the nine stories and and the look, which is very stark to me of the parking structure. So I'm I've got to make findings. I don't I'm perfectly happy with hotel

with the hotel. I like what you're doing. I want to be convinced you can do it. Of course, to as we've had, we've only built two hotels in, I think the last 40. Is it 40 years, Chris? It's. It was a very long time before the Rowan and the Thompson were built. Had a couple smaller hotels here and there as well. But two large hotels in the last memory, in the last memory and one the different stories on it as one that is sort of as an $80,000 hole, $80 million hole in it right now that's sitting there, not being built chair, if I could. It's chair. You've morphed from questions of the applicant into comments. So no. Do you want to go to comments? I don't want to go to comments yet. I wanted to just ask what his well, he's still with us. If there's any if there's any way we can work with you on this. Sure. So thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess with all due respect, I would say the answer to the question is we feel like we have worked extensively with all levels of the city at this point to get what we believe is a, a mutually beneficial, economically feasible project that would not result in maybe some of the other ways the projects in the past have resulted in. And we're confident with this mix and the way this is laid out. We've worked hard to fit all of the design standards and zoning guidelines as it's been communicated to us. And so at this time, continuing this even further, delaying this would seem unnecessary. And we would ask that we do not want to continuance this evening. We would ask for a

either a yes or a no vote on the project, as it was my question for you. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Are there any other questions of the applicant? Yes. While we're on the topic of the footprint, was there any consideration of building over the parking garage or would that completely diminish the objectives of the Renaissance Hotel? I mean, I'm kind of answering my own question, but. Correct. Yeah, we we have studied this from every which way and to try to align the best result that that's what we're confident presenting tonight in front of you. So we have studied it but but again for the reason we talked about the single loaded corridors, the all the things we've already rehashed. Those are all the results of where we're at today. Thank you. Okay. The matter is before the commission, you've heard a little bit of my concerns. I won't go into them further. I want to hear yours if there are any. Yes, Commissioner Murphy, I. I guess I, I think this is generally a a very good development for this site. I, I think like everybody uncomfortable with the scale, the, the height of the building, it would become the tallest structure in Palm Springs as far as I know. And so I do struggle a little bit with approving it based on just the math of the height of the building. However, I think it is. A welcome development for this site and for the area,

particularly bringing pedestrian traffic and vitality into this Midtown market, especially considering what's going on with the modernization of the convention center. So I like the project on that front. I like the amount of open space that goes above and beyond what is required in the zoning, and part of that open space. There's trade offs. We can take some of that open space away and then build a denser project on the interior. But I don't think that's going to create a great visiting environment. Or, you know, for the people that are buying and staying at the hotel. So overall, I think for me, the benefits of this for the community are outweighing the concern. And I share the concern of of what we've discussed so far, the height, the shade structure or the shade study. Is concerning it. It's it's actually not as bad as I thought it would be. When we finally looked at the study, I was expecting something worse. That doesn't help the people that are affected by it individually. However, I am relatively comfortable with the shade not affecting the condominium association's public areas. The pool areas. It is a relatively small portion of the development for a 2 or 3 month window of time in the early morning and in the late afternoon. That's not a comfort again to the people that live there, but

weighing again the pros and the cons. I think that's something I would probably be okay living with for a decision today to to support the project. Thank you. I just speaking, just as Commissioner Murphy did, to the shadow issue on Plaza Villas, because I have a lot of respect for your concerns for those from Plaza, especially this gentleman who said he has a unit right there off of Andreas. I think the impact is not going to be as great as you think. The shadow study shows that on the solstice in winter, which is December 21st or 22nd, whatever year, either in the morning or some parts of the units they're facing, Andreas will have some morning shadowing in the afternoon. A different set of units on the east side of Andreas at Plaza Villas will have some afternoon shading. None of the units on the worst case scenario December 21st have shading or shadowing at noon, and then from that point, backwards or forwards, that shadow impact gets lesser and lesser. So I really think while it can be a little daunting to look at a shadow study like this and try to understand it, other than some morning or afternoon shadowing on some of the units, not both morning and afternoon. The shadow impacts are really minimal, especially for a building of this size. And that speaks to the 130 some foot setback off of Andreas. So I appreciate that. But I just wanted to say I, I don't think the shadow impact is going to be great. And as Commissioner Murphy

said, there's zero shadowing at any time of the year on the plaza, pools, on the auto pools, pleasant villas overall. And I'm going to have a caveat at the end. I think this is a great project. I think this is exactly what was envisioned by section 14. Whether you like it or not, the fathers who created section 14 and went through an extensive approval process of the specific plan spelled out 100ft as the maximum height, and this is below that. That being said, I think some of the concerns that I'm hearing from Chair Wernick regarding the bulk and the impact of that bulk, I think that could be mitigated with some slight I'm going to call them clips to the south wing of the residential tower and to the east wing of the residential tower. And when I say clips, I think it's, you know, you know, it's maybe a 1 or 2 floors, one unit in to soften that stark nine story tower, albeit it's quite narrow. But to soften that nine story tower as it approaches from from the east, you know, past the convention center and then from the south on Tahquitz, that impact of that nine story could be significantly reduced or softened by having a small clip to the architecture. It means losing a couple of units that may not be acceptable, and that may not be enough to address your concerns, but I think that would go a long way to, I think, mitigate or ameliorate sort of that stark nine story portion. I don't have a problem with

the seven story. I don't have a problem where the nine story meets the seven story. I think that's a nice sort of step down. I like the architecture. I agree the garage needs to be fleshed out a little bit more, but to a great extent that garage isn't going to be visible to hardly anybody except perhaps convention users or those that are in the Renaissance facing westward, as was stated. I think the the impact to drivers on Tahquitz going westbound is going to be minimal. I think this is a well thought out project, and I certainly am willing to make a decision on it tonight. I would echo much of what, Commissioner, what's your last name? What Mr. Scott would what Mr. Miller said the couple of concerns that I would add to that or that I would echo is one there seemed to be some confusion by people who spoke tonight, and there was a gentleman who indicated that this meets the zoning standards. Therefore you have to approve it. Yes, I absolutely agree. Nine storeys is allowable up to 100ft. It does meet the zone standards. Nonetheless, you still have to go through the approval process because there are discretionary elements to it. And that's what that's where the magic lies and how to make those work. And I have great hopes, a great belief that this project

could meet. The criteria needed in the massing and the setbacks to work amicably in the context in which it is sitting. And much of those are just exactly what Commissioner Miller said. Nonetheless, I also understand that at some point you've worked on this long enough and you just want a decision, and if the decision is made, then you take it to the city council and they can hear it. And that's why the system is set up the way that it is for me to be able to vote in favor of this tonight, I would need to see more of the exhibits showing it in context, because I think that it does need tweaking in order to be acceptable in this context, but I just can't tell for certain by virtue of the. Limited exhibits showing it with the surrounding buildings. I do think it's important to recognize that cars drive both east and west on Tahquitz, so it's not adequate to just have it to require that all cars just drive west, because it looks fine that way, or east because whichever way, because it looks fine that way. So my comments are I think you've done a great job nonetheless. I think there are a couple of adjustments that we need to be made in order to meet. For me to feel comfortable making the findings that are required, both for the major development plan and

for the Conditional Use Use Permit. I'm in the same place. I don't I mean, I, I it is on. I just have to pull into the myself into the mic because I talk to too quietly. I need the context and I don't have it. I do think some of the tweaks, some of the setbacks that Commissioner Miller mentioned would be helpful, but I don't see them right now. And what I see is a harder mass on Tahquitz. I don't know if you guys have, and I didn't get to ask you if you've addressed the wind tunnel and some of the parking. I, I do go to the gala for the festival, and I can't imagine driving down the street with this going on and how that would happen, but I could leave that to our police to figure that out. But it's the context for me and I want to see more renderings. I want to understand it better and I want a little I want to see some some more step maybe step backs, tweaks or whatever we call it would work. The the tower that's hard for me is the nine story tower. And I just it's just not there yet. And, you know, this is a city this is a city council project. And a lot of ways we're working with their agreement. We want to honor that agreement. But we also have a role, our role to play in these are things I would ask of anyone. So yeah, I was wondering this is throwing it out there. I don't know that you'd be satisfied with this. Would you be willing to accept a

subcommittee of just the Planning Commission after an approval occurred, to work through, assuming we can get agreement from the applicant? At this point, we don't have agreement from the applicant. From what I've heard. But I mean, again, I think from our perspective, we would appreciate the ability to move forward to Architectural Committee and work with the Architectural Committee for Architectural Context. I think Commissioner Miller's, you know, comment on maybe some sort of step back. I think, as we mentioned, these are bays that you're looking at from the diagram. There may be a way to create that setback without even losing units. Maybe it's just you lose a bay, but it's a two bedroom unit versus a three bedroom unit. I think those are the kind of details we can work architecturally through with the Architectural Committee, and that's what we would be willing to to suggest as a as a compromise. That's not a compromise. I still want to see it. And, and the massing is, is our issue. So for me it's not it's not there. So. You may be getting a 2 to 2 which is a denial. So go ahead and make a motion. Well let me try this. I'm going to make a motion to approve the TM, the major development permit in the Cup for this Nexus development project

with the conditions as outlined in and accept the the MND for sequa with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, with additional conditions related to. Hours of operation of the outdoor amplified music that no outdoor amplified music be at the seven level social club past 10 p.m. And that the nine story residential tower on the east end and on the south end of the tower be clipped for a minimum of 20ft in height and 20ft in dimension linearly. Such that there is a softening of those nine story corners facing south and facing east. There a second. Do you want to can staff? Can you point out exactly or can one of the commissioners point out

exactly what would be clipped? It may. Come. A dark nine stories. I mean, that's a similar architectural solution, I think, that was applied at the Thompson Hotel, which is nicely rendered. The other thing that I would want to add to the noise ordinance well, is to specify that the noise levels couldn't exceed what the noise ordinance allows for vacation rentals, which I think is pretty strict. Right? The conditions of approval have the noise ordinance prescribes it by land use. So okay would be subject to the commercial or hotel standard. Okay. Well I'm comfortable with those additions. Comments. Do you want to call the roll? Commissioner Miller.

Yes. Commissioner. Murphy. Yes, Commissioner. Vice chair. Alien. No. And chair. No. I would make a substitute motion that they come back on a date certain before we turn this down, that they come back with the with some softening of the nine story tower, and that they come back with context and that they work on the work on some. Basically on fitting the coffee. The show us how the coffee captor building works into it, or change the facade so that it works with that. I know they don't want to do this, but do we want the garage address as well? That what garage? And to address the garage so that we could see the softening of the garage and that we understand the context? I would second that motion. Do you want to call the roll? Excuse me? What what is the. It would be a voting. Was there a date would be a continuance. I thought the applicant disagreed with the continuance. What did I miss? No, he didn't mind, but it doesn't mean he can't vote it. We have the room to. If they disagree with it, we can still we can still vote. It. Did. Did it have a date? Certain. Or was it? I'd like a date certain. If you're comfortable with that. We're not comfortable. Just to be clear, with any delay, we'd respect the expedited process, which I don't know if three and a half years

is respectfully expedited. So again, we would ask, with all due respect, that we get either a vote for or against tonight and be able to get clarity on the situation. And again, we again are willing to work with Architectural Committee. The first, the first. Recommended motion we fully would support and work with the Architectural Committee to do just that and help soften those two edges that were mentioned. Again, we want to work with the city and have work with the city, but we really need to need to get an answer on the the land use, the land use itself. Does this land use work? Thank you. We have a motion. So it's going to go out of her hands. Yes, but it is a city council. I mean speaking this really is this is much more of a city council issue than it is. There's a city council in agreement. Do I understand that what you would propose would be to work with the Architectural Review Committee before? Oh, it doesn't need to go to the City Council if it's. How I would interpret the initial motion. Is that what you're asking in terms of how it would work logistically, is because it would be a condition related to your cup. It would be not. It would be a required condition. So they we would not take it to AAC until they come back with plans that meet the condition that Commissioner Miller had outlined. Does that make sense versus other conversations we have where you pass along advisory comments to the AAC, this would function differently, and that it would be an affirmative requirement of the Planning Commission that they revise their

plans to reduce the height 20ft and inset it vertically 20ft before it goes to AAC for decision, and that they would provide context. Is that part of your motion that they would provide drawings that showed context to the other? Well, but but under my motion, it wouldn't be coming back to the full commission. You understand that, right? It wouldn't be coming. It wouldn't be coming back. I understand that. Well, the context would be simply for staff to look at, but. Or for the public record. But I know, and I don't mean to be insensitive, but I know what a 20 foot clip here and there is going to look like. I don't need the context, but I know the context. I know the context. I'm talking. Well, in some sense it doesn't matter, because if we say this, we don't look at how this relates to the other buildings that are around it. And that's still my concern, is that we haven't seen we've seen this, but we haven't seen how it relates to the the hotel next to it and the other buildings that are in what it what it does with the convention center. That a not seeing not having seen any contextual drawings, putting it in perspective makes it harder for me to say yes to this. And I know what the clip looks like because I've seen step backs and we had step backs with the Rowan, and that made it possible. Well, I think we have a motion in a second. We got to do the vote. Unless you're going to withdraw the motion and would try and my motion again. I can withdraw my motion. But I don't know that I've but I'm not sure if that's going to. Can we ask Vice Chair Allen if

she's going to be satisfied with the conditions as outlined, and add perhaps any that you see fit, because otherwise it's clearly a 2 to 2 vote. Whichever direction we go, unless Commissioner Land is convinced that this solution will address her concerns. I just don't know without seeing it in context that it's that's what has me flummoxed. It's a leap of faith, and I'm not altogether sure whether or not I should have that faith. I would certainly be comfortable if it was not just a notch, but if we were, you know, if it were seven story and seven story, I would be more comfortable with that. I do, I do 20ft is going to get us essentially to seven stories, a 20 foot notch, but just a 20 foot setback. Yeah, it's certainly not addressing if you've got a problem with part of the building, any part of the building being nine feet, then that is not going to address your concern. It's also not on the table as an option for us unless we just don't approve. Yes, I recognize that that's not on the table, but I can picture that option. I'm still trying to translate into three dimensions. The the option we're discussing something that is not what they've asked for and make some modifications. And that would be appealed to council. So those I mean we have several ways we can look at it. If, if we have a tie vote. What it's just a dead it's dead council. Will it does it go to or it has to be appealed to Council at that point.

Appealed or called up. And if it's appealed or called up, it would go up from here without these suggested modifications. Correct. So I think from my money, we're better off to approve with these recommendations to the AAC and then let the AAC. Well, they wouldn't be recommendations to the AAC. The 20 foot notch would be an absolute requirement, as is, Director Hedman said. Okay, yeah, but we can. We regularly send recommendations as part of our motion. We add recommendations that we want the AAC to look at, specifically the parking garage. And we could still do that. But the 20 foot notch from ice, from the rationale in my motion, was that I needed that notch in order to be able to make finding number four of the major development permit findings, which is the one that talks about bulk and compatibility and mass. And again, you may or may not agree that that's enough, but that's that's where I'm going for. And that's why I wanted to make it a motion to change the plans to reflect that, not just a recommendation to the AAC. And and I, my leap of faith might need to be. I have seen what happened at the Rowan, and I've seen what happened at the Thompson. And I think those look great with the setback. I mean, that's the amount of work that went into the Rowan and the Thompson to get them to what they are is very different than what we're doing here. There was, except the except from the applicant standpoint.

They've been in this process for more than two years. Well. And was part of your motion to also address the soften the parking structure as well? Yes. I mentioned something about and that is that may be a recommendation that goes to the AAC. But I did include that as a as a need. But I wasn't going to be quite so prescriptive in that regard unless you want to be. You don't want me prescribing things like that. I think with that, a part of your motion, I could take the leap of faith. If you make it prescriptive to soften it. Yes, I'll vote for it. Can you, can you then I just want to see. I want to see. That when it goes to the AAC, there is a substantial softening of the parking structure. That is something that comes with the with with what is presented to the AAC. So I'd make it prescriptive. And again, as per our discussion and we can add this in there. They can look to the Agua Caliente Garage as as ideas. You know, he's an architect. He's done garages. There's a number of representatives that are good. Yeah. Yeah. There are ways that they can do it without real plants or fake plants, of course. I mean, but it needs to be a spruced up garage. No fake plants. Yeah. And one more thing. Does the 20 foot setback, does that address step back? Yeah. Setback. Step back.

Oh. Excuse me. Step back. Does that address the concerns of the. Residents who live on the north side of the project? Yeah, that there's still going to have it makes a minuscule change. It actually it actually improves the shadow the minimal shadow impact on the front entry of the convention center by notching the eastern tower, but not much. It does not address anything really of in any regard to the Plaza Villas. But like I said, I don't think those impacts as represented by the shadow study are as great as they are. Fearing ripples down the line of condos over the course of the day. So no one condo has no one unit has a prolonged period of shadow I. I'm so sorry. The shade. The shade study shows that no unit would have more than 3 or 4 hours on December 21st. Sir, I'm sorry you can't address the Planning Commission fact. A new motion. So if I could ask for the chair. Have you withdrawn your motion? Yes. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve the major development permit. The TM and the conditional use permit, as well as approving the ND for sequa with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, as well as the additional condition regarding the outdoor entertainment on the seventh level to be no

amplified music beyond 10 p.m. and that more importantly, there will be a 20 foot by 20 foot minimum notch at the east end of the nine story tower and the south end of the nine story tower, 20 foot by 20 foot notch minimum, represented on the plans before they are presented to the AAC, and that in addition, the parking garage facade on the south and the east would be significantly dressed up and accurately indicate the architectural treatment as opposed to the green living wall, which is shown now. The only other thing is if you would take a friendly amendment to ask the AAC, not prescriptively, to look at the landscape requirements, because many of the to look hard at the trees, especially many of them, are not thriving in the valley so that they would look at what's being proposed to make sure it they are plants that will will last and that there. I'm fine with that amendment. Second. Call the roll. Commissioner Miller. Yes, Commissioner. Murphy. Yes, vice chair. Alan. Yes. Yes. Chair. Warmack. The motion passes four zero with three absences. Go get

em. The workshop. My final comment is to build it. Just don't get it approved. Build it quickly. Oh, is there anything else we have to do? Yes. We have no new business, no unfinished business. Planning Commission reports, requests and comments. Seeing none, we'll go straight to the planning directors report. I am still getting my bearings after being out. I hear our last Planning Commission meeting went very well in my absence. Thank you to Tony Riederer, our assistant Director, for handling that in my absence. And of course, Anita, who always keeps us running smoothly. The thing I wanted to highlight from the last city Council meeting two items quickly. One was an odd appeal of an approval that I granted actually on my first day of work here with the City of Palm Springs in 2022 to approve a project on South Palm Canyon, where there's an old gas canopy overhang. And that property owner was looking to do some work on that property. He appealed my approval of his own project for a series of reasons, with concerns over standard engineering conditions of approval regarding improvements to public right of way, sidewalks, etc. that are standard conditions of all development throughout the city of Palm Springs. That appeal three years later went to City Council at their last meeting, and they upheld staff decision and overturned the appeal. That was a decision that had initially, because of the complications of our

zoning code, had initially gone from my decision to RC as it was a minor architectural approval, and then, because of the code, bypassed you all and went to city council. That relates to the other item that went to City Council that same night, which were some changes to the municipal code, to close a bit of a loophole that was created once we gave Arc different decision making authority. And in the past, of course, Arc was advisory to planning Commission. And so they acted first and then acted on their advice. And when we change that process and had them go last, we inadvertently closed or created a loophole where there was no ability for council to have oversight over Arc's decision. So what they did through an urgency ordinance and through first reading, was allow a call up provision for the city council to call up decisions of the Arc so that urgency Ordinance is in effect now, and Second Reading will return next week to put it in full effect by the end of October. And I think some of the reasons that they were concerned about that were some of the decisions you all had recently made on the paint store on Palm Canyon, which went to arc following? Well, you all turned it down. It went to City Council, who overturned your decision but had some sort of very clear instructions on architectural details that went to Arc. And I think there was some concern about the Arcs discussion. And also, I think the same apprehension you all had and moving in and out forward, not from a site planning perspective or use perspective, but on some of the uncertainty around the final architectural details that were not in the package when you all approved it. And I think council wanted to ensure that there would be oversight of that project as well. So those were recent decisions. And the last update I have is that the chair has reminded me today that we already need to begin planning our holiday party. So we're going to start turning our

attention to that and not do it in March like we did this year. So that's it for me. Question for you. Has the subcommittee met on the in and out? No, we're still waiting for revised materials from them. So it's quite a while has been a while before I was out, they were making internal progress on sort of finalizing some options that they wanted to share with us. I don't think they had reached out while I've been out, so we're going to follow up with them this week and see where they're at. With that, I'm going to adjourn until 530. Tuesday, October 24th, 20, 2014. Sorry, 24th would be easier for me. I'm not going to be in attendance on the 14th, so. But we're adjourned until that date.