Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One.

Welcome you to the Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 regular meeting of the Palm Springs Planning Commissionn we have a roll call, please? Oh, before we do roll call, we have a new commission member, a new alternate member, Megan Hernandez. We're so thrilled to have her and Megan, do you want to take a moment and just introduce yourself?

Hi, everybody. Thank you for having me. My name is Megan Hernandez. Hernandez. Being my married last name, I come from a community background. I was on the board of one PS and on the board of the Desert Highland Gateway Estates Community Action Association. I'm also a disabled veteran and I work for myself as an entrepreneur, so I'm happy to be here with you all. This is really exciting and I'm just excited to learn some new things and I don't know, already know.

I met Megan on the General Plan Steering Committee, for which she was a member, along with myself, and I think everybody on that committee really enjoyed working with you for the time that we got to. So we're really thrilled to have you here. Thank you Cathy. Appreciate it. Okay. Now can we have a roll call, please?

Chair Wernick. Present vice chair. Elaine. Present. Commissioner Baker here. Commissioner Miller. Present. Commissioner. Murphy. Present. Commissioner Rottman here. Commissioner. Morale. Present and alternate. Megan Hernandez present. Can we have a report on the posting of the agenda, please? Yes, Madam Chair, the agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and online, in accordance with the city's policies and procedures, by 9 p.m. On Thursday, June 5th, 2025.

Thank you. Can I have a motion to accept the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. That motion carries. The next is the public comment period. And am I correct that we have one? One of these items is a public hearing item and the other is not. That's correct. We have a number of members online and I believe some in the audience as well. So item four A is not a public hearing item. So typically we would take comments at this time. But at your discretion Madam Chair you can choose to also take them during the item.

I would like to take because there may be public comment, I'd like to take it after the staff report and before the item is heard by the Or before it's before. It's before the committee. So this time is set aside for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on consent calendar and other agenda items and items that are within our subject matter jurisdiction. Note that we can't take any action on an item that is not on the agenda. Speakers will get three three minutes. Testimony may be offered at this time or at the time of the hearing, but if you are here on public hearing item A, A, which is the request for an extension of time or on the pickleball item, both of those items you can testify prior to or after staff report and prior to coming to the board. So. Are there any members of the public who wish to testify at this time?

So I have. Jim Gaison for a would you like to speak now or at the time that the item is heard, you would like to speak now? Okay. So, Jim Garzon, Garzon, apologies.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time and for the work that you do on behalf of the city. My name is Jim and I'm a Palm Springs resident, and I'm here to express my strong support for the proposed pickleball club project off of Ramone Road. This is a project that, in my view, checks all the right boxes. It's free of controversy, thoughtfully planned, and represents the kind of community minded development that Palm Springs can be proud of. Not only will it activate a long, vacant piece of property, but it will also enhance our recreational offerings here in the city. Promote health, wellness and social connection. I'd also like to highlight that the owners and operators are local residents. They're members of our community. They're investing their own money that matters. I encourage the city to do what it can to support this project and to move it forward efficiently, ideally so we can help fill the gap during the renovation period and the closure of Demuth Park courts. I thank you for your time. Also, I'd like to note I live in the neighborhood near where the storage facility is being proposed. I know that a lot of our neighbors were supportive of that. So if this is about just extending an extension for that planning, again, it's another vacant lot that's been vacant always, and we would love to see something there. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak at this time? Possibly on on zoom. We have no online speakers wishing to speak at this time. Thank you. With that, the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed. The first item we have is the consent calendar, and that's the approval of the minutes of April 22nd, 2025. Is there any discussion seeing none. Is there a motion. A motion to accept? Second. Can you call the roll, please? Commissioner Murphy?

Yes, Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Chair. Warmack. Yes. Vice chair. Leon. Yes, Commissioner. Miller. Yes, Commissioner. Brotman. Yes. Commissioner. Morrell. Yes. One more. Voting. She's not voting.

But all she should say is. Oh, she's not voting. Correct. Sorry. Okay. The second item, this passes unanimously. The second item on our agenda is a request by MSA consulting, Inc. On behalf of Feral Drive Palm Springs, LLC, for approval of a two year extension of time application for an approved major architectural review application and a major development permit application. Case 3.4313 MJ for the construction of a 64,092 square foot self-storage facility on a 4.2 acre undeveloped parcel located at 900 North Ferrell Drive. Staff report please.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. The project in front of you tonight is an extension of time request for the Farrow Drive self-storage facility. This project was originally entitled under case number 3.4313 major development permit and a major architectural review. Applications. The effective date of this entitlement approval is August 2nd, 2022, which was due to expire on August 2nd, 2024. The applicant timely filed an extension of application for this project, and application was deemed complete on April 23rd, 2025. The applicant is requesting a two year extension of time. Under this application. The project site is a 4.2 acre vacant site and the site proposed site design includes a full detached buildings, which range from 5500 to 41,000ft, along with a new landscaping and parking. The site is accessible from Research Drive, and here the renderings of Approved Project. The proposed construction is a single story at a maximum height of 21ft at the main building, and the proposed drive up storage units has a proposed height of 13ft and eight inches, and the similar architectural treatment was proposed for the entire site. The major development permit application for this project was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22nd, 2022. The Architectural Review Committee approved a major Architectural Review application on July 18th, 2022 and applicant file an extension of Time application on April 28th,

more than 60 days before the entitlement expiration date. The Extension of Time application was deemed complete on April 23rd of this year. So for the applicant has completed a pl merger for the for the proposed project. And after the entitlement was approved by the Architectural Review Committee, that we can apply for a building and safety plan check. And within six months, the plan was approved by all city departments except for engineering services. This permit was expired and in 2023, and should the applicant decide to continue this project, the applicant will be required to apply for a building permit. Under the zoning code and an extension of the time application. Up to 24 months may be granted by the Planning Commission and in reviewing an extension of Time application, the Planning Commission must make a specific findings that are specified. Excuse me, stating that zoning code, the one of which states that the financial inability and market conditions are not considered valid reasons to justify an extension of time in the. In the submitted justification letter, the applicant explains that the project was delayed due to unforeseen partnership issues and a difficulty finding a qualified buyer who is willing to move the project forward as entitled in. In reviewing this application, staff has determined that there are no changes proposed to the final approved plans and unforeseen partnership issues, and the difficulty finding a qualified buyer can be caused by multiple factors, and that the financial inability and or market conditions cannot be identified definitively as the sole cause of the project delay and applicant

previously demonstrated good faith efforts to exercise the entitlements, and for the reason the project meets the required findings. Stating the zoning code. In conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission to adopt the draft resolution and approve the extension of original entitlement approval by two years until August 2nd, 2026. This concludes the staff presentn and the applicant is available remotely to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Are there questions of staff? Yes. Commissioner Morrell and then Vice Chair Elaine.

Yeah, it's sort of a question for staff, but also for the developer. It would seem to me that the partnership issues and the financial feasibility issues are sort of tied together. I was wondering what the explanation is about the difficulty finding a partner. And, you know, what are the chances that they're going to be able to get a partner in two years, you know, within the two year period? I request the applicant answer the question as well as the details and update of this. The partnership and a prospective buyer for the project.

Just just an item clarification before we go on. The one year of the two year period already expired. So if we give them a two year extension, that extension might in my understanding, is only until August of 2026. So that we're looking at a what will effectively be one year, although it's a two year extension. Am I correct in that? Yes. Yes, vice chair Elaine, this.

Is along a similar line, and you might want the applicant to address it. But I'm curious, has the potential buyer done any due diligence with the staff? Have they met with you? The staff personally did not receive any the public records request or the information request for this project from the prospective buyer. Okay. Thank you. Out of curiosity, what wasn't the application deemed complete until April of this year? Was it something that the applicant hadn't done?

I will request applicant answer the questions. Okay. Will the staff? The staff is a party that deems it complete. Why wasn't it staff? I'm sorry. The some of the materials were insufficient or it was missing the information. So that's the reason why the application was deemed incomplete up to then.

Thanks. One of the other things I thought I saw it in the staff report, and by the time I got through everything and went back, I couldn't find it again. But has the applicant paid their. All of their fees for? Entitlements that they've received so far, or or have they paid all of their plan check fees? Not to my knowledge.

And they would have played their planning entitlement fees or we wouldn't be bringing this before you. But I think are you asking about because they had been into the plan check process previously, into the permitting process with building, whether they had paid all of those fees? Yes. I think typically those fees are collected at the time the building permit is issued, and I don't believe they got to that point in the process. They got through a couple of rounds of plan check fees, and so they would have paid those plan check fees. But the permit fees themselves are unlikely to have been paid given where the process kind of paused. But I think it's a question we can ask the applicant to clarify.

Okay. I just again, that speaks to its intent. And then the other thing that I'm curious about is. The applicant now is proposing to sell this. And part of the reason they say in their justification letter for needing more time is that it has taken longer to find somebody who would buy this. It hasn't been appealing to somebody who wanted it as entitled. Did the applicant represent to staff or to the city from the outset that they were only processing entitlements and that they had no intention of building the project themselves, or did they represent when they started that they were planning to build the project?

The staff did not receive any intent from the applicant for a project, which is different from what was approved, or any intent to make changes to the approved plans. I don't think it was expressed to us one way or. Another, what their. Intentions were in terms of this partnership or sort of that, that financial relationship. So I think we were processing it as though it was going to get built by somebody, typically the applicant. But, you know. Okay, that's those are my questions for staff. Thank you. Commissioner Murphy, you have your light on are you.

Well, I didn't intend to ask a question, but now that you're calling me, I will. Can you just clarify the role of the applicant? Is the applicant the owner and developer, and the one of the issues in the delay is that the applicant hasn't been able to find a buyer for the project. Is that is that where we are? Yes, that is my understanding. If there's any misunderstanding on the staff part, obviously the applicant can clarify, but that is our understanding. Okay. Thank you.

Are there other questions? I have maybe two. I was just looking at whether staff is convinced we have to make finding number five and number six that the applicant has demonstrated convincingly and clearly that the project will be substantially underway within the extension period. Have you gotten that kind of assurance?

I think, given how advanced they got into the building permitting process, from a technical perspective, we feel that they've demonstrated that they have made progress and that they are committed to the project. Now, in terms of some of the financial arguments that they've raised in here, I think that that's better suited for the applicant to speak to. It's not something that we typically are concerning ourselves with too much, because it's sort of out of the scope of what we feel staff's role in evaluating this is we're looking at sort of the technical aspects and so on that front. We're satisfied in terms of this business relationship. I think that the applicant should speak to that and how prepared they are to move forward.

Okay. This matter is now before the public comment period is open. If the applicant is here, you have ten minutes and you have some questions before you. So I have a mr. Higuchi and a mr. Chen online. I have given you both permission to speak so you can share your time however you wish.

Great. Good evening, Madam Chair. Fellow commissioners, my name is Eric Higuchi. I am the applicant along with John Chen for the project. First of all, I wanted to thank staff for their time as well as for your time tonight. Much appreciated for your consideration. With respect to the questions I heard tonight, I'll try to address them. What was our original intent? We did intend to build this, which is why we proceeded forward with building plans. The capital expense of building plans, and securing building permits. We. And secondly, with respect to unpaid fees, I do believe that refers to impact fees or various inspection fees to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. I don't believe we have an outstanding bill balance for any planned checks or plan check planned taxis. Currently, staff can correct me if I'm wrong on that with respect to the extenuating circumstances. Requesting for the extension. Not to get too too into it, but the we proceeded down the path of securing permit ready plans. We did have a partnership issue where some partners decided that they did not want to move forward with construction. Frankly, I would have loved to move forward with construction, but the partners opted to not to not move forward with construction. Accordingly, we did see attempt to seek a buyer for the for the for the project. Some of the difficulties with finding a buyer is that multiple buyers wanted to increase the density of the project. We didn't want to have to go through that with those buyers again. And so we did select a buyer that would build the project as as currently designed. I apologize, I don't recall all the other questions. Happy to field any

additional questions you may have or follow up on questions I may have missed. Before we do that, we would take comments from members of the public or other people who wish to speak. Are there any are you speaking? Please come up. And you have three minutes.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Lee Chandrasena. I reside, I'm a resident of Palm Springs. I've been here since 1980. I am here to support the extension of the permits. Thank you, thank you. Is there anyone else on zoom who wishes to speak? Not in addition to the applicant team. No other speakers, madam chair.

Okay, then. The matter is, I'm not closing the public hearing at this point. I will take questions of the applicant or applicants. Yes. Commissioner Morrell and then Commissioner Rotman. And then.

Yes, I had asked what the difficulties were with finding a partner, and maybe you could speak to that. And what's the likelihood that you're going to have a partner within the next year and be able to actually get the project moving? I also, if you have any information on the market for self storage and Palm Springs, what the current vacancy rate is, and is that contributing to the problems you're having finding a buyer?

So with respect to sourcing a partner that that that is in our that has not been an issue because that's not a problem we're trying to resolve right now. We're specifically selling the property to a to a new third party buyer, finding a third party buyer that would pursue a project that, you know, that the project that we entitled, that we felt was a good balance of an economically viable project and one that was impactful on the community, was was difficult. And that that is the reason for the delay with respect to the market for self-storage. Again, this is not a this extension isn't based upon market driven issues. But, you know, I think I think real estate's tough anywhere. But I think a lot of people with vision are are excited to have long term real estate holdings in almost anywhere in Southern California, especially a community like Palm Springs, which is core to the Coachella Valley.

Commissioner Brotman. Yeah. Thank you. So if I'm understanding correctly, you are currently in negotiation with a new partner, and that partner is going to proceed to build this project, and you will no longer be involved with the project. Is that right? Correct. The partner would be not the correct term would be a new buyer.

Okay. And then in your statement of justification, you mentioned that the inflationary environment also was part of the reason for your difficulty proceeding within the two original two year time. Do you anticipate that inflationary environment changing in the next year? Because I don't.

Yeah, well, certainly we're we're in interesting times. And I don't mean that in a good way. I wouldn't say the inflationary environment was a contributing factor, because that was something we had baked in. What has been a difficult moving target are the policies of the new administration, especially related to tariffs. Those are going to be the uncertainties moving forward, in my opinion.

Okay. And then just a question for staff. Just a clarification. So if we grant this extension for the for the development permit application, does that mean that they have to be permitted within that one year time, or is it just that they need to renew their permit? The permit will has to be issued okay. All right. Thank you. Do they have to break ground?

I think as long as the permit is issued and they are and it has not expired, then they're told if the permit is issued, they don't break ground and therefore they haven't. Brain isn't working. Vested the project and then the and there's no additional extension of time granted then they would lose the project. And how much do they have to put in to vest? I think any sort of foundational or groundwork. That's it. Okay. Other questions. Oh, Commissioner Baker, sorry. Hi.

Mr. Carl Baker speaking. Two quick questions. Number one, I'm not familiar with the storage world, but is it typical that a developer will purchase a property and then sell it to one of the major national retailers or a retailer or national warehouse company?

Yes it is. It is typical because of the perception of how difficult entitlements are and the cost of land is in Palm Springs or or not. Not in Palm Springs, in California in general. Excuse me. Certainly, there is often a exit strategy where a developer would entitle a project, even with the intention, like we did, to build it out and sell it to a, to an interested national party. Now, I'll to be to be frank here again, we wanted to build this and the return on our investment from a straight sale isn't isn't, isn't up as high as it. I think it would. We would have made more money selling it or moving forward with a with a build out of a of a of a full facility. But again, because of other extenuating circumstances, we are selling the property as is.

Okay. Thank you. And just a second question. Is the building material primarily steel? This is a combination of concrete tilt up, but the interior interior material has a lot of steel. In particular. The roll up doors are very costly. And those are those are steel. Yeah. I'm afraid the price of that is only going in one direction at this point. Oh, last question. Have you built any of these other facilities. What other what other experience have you had a in Palm Springs or other cities or states?

I we recently entitled and sold the property in San Pedro in Los Angeles. We're we're certainly more of a boutique firm. But for example I'm involved in multiple projects myself. We have commercial projects in Orange County and residential projects in Murrieta. Palm desert is one I'm working on as well. So all over the map, you're not just specifically building storage facilities, you have residential and commercial. Okay. Thank you. Correct. Other questions? I have one you oh I'm sorry Commissioner. Sorry.

One quick question. Mr. Gucci, is the buyer represented? Is he online with you or in the auditorium tonight? He or she. I believe they are. It's the name of their company is USAA. I'm. I'm not sure if they are or not. I'm not. I'm not present there with them. If you are and you would like to speak or answer questions from the commission, please raise your hand online and I can allow you to speak. I just see names so I can't. Okay, I was going to say I'm not wanting to ask questions. It just kind of speaks towards level of interest and seriousness of intent.

There are a number of people on here that I can't identify. But nobody's indicating they represent the plan. Not at this point. Thank you. My questions are and they really go toward the finding I have to make regarding that this will be built. You say you're in negotiations with a buyer. Why are you do you have a contract with them? Where? Where? Yes, we are in contract with the buyer.

So you are in contract? There is a there is a firm buyer. And when how long do you anticipate the sale to be. I may have to. I'll have to defer to my partner John Chen. I believe it's 90 days. John. Over here. We are in probably.

The third draft of our PSA with USAA. There we are having our attorneys. We're having attorneys finish the draft. And they do have a 90 day due diligence period. And then from there they can assess whether they want to move forward with this. But they I believe they're they do have they are a legacy self-storage operator. So they do have numerous projects around the around the southwest.

So you're in in discussions, you're in third draft of the contract. You haven't finalized it in the of a 90 day due diligence period to decide whether to go forward. And if they do go forward, how long when do you anticipate the sale to be and are they doing anything on renewing the permit while you're in the due diligence? Yes. I Eric sorry. I apologize, I misspoke. So in 90 days they would close I believe. Is that correct John.

Well yeah they they would they have to do the due diligence and then they and then they have to review the plans as, as it is right now. And then if they have no objections then, then, then they would. But usually with these due diligence, they're always going to be questions and extensions. And so we're not exactly too sure what questions they're going to have for us. But obviously it's part of it's part of the process.

Thank you. Are there any other members of I think at this point, there are no other members of the public that had wanted to speak. Are there other questions before we. Yes, Commissioner Murphy. My question is, if this deal goes through, is the deal to build out exactly what's been presented and applied for in this application, or does the potential buyer have the ability to make another pass at the city to make changes to what's been proposed?

Right. So this is John, by the way. Currently we don't we don't know how their underwriting will be. We are marketing the project as it's currently currently drawn here. They may or may not base a lot of it. From our experience. A lot of it will come down to construction budget as well. So seeing where those where that come back at, they may they may ask, they may make some modifications. And if they are making modifications then, you know, they will obviously have to go through the same process with city staff and also with the planning commission. But I can't, I can't I can't guarantee you can't say that they will not request any changes.

And just to clarify from the city's perspective. So if they were to, you know, plan substantive changes to what had been entitled, it would need to come back before you and the Architectural Review Committee. So, I mean, it would have to go through the full review. And they would have to get that and get approval within the one year period, or the applications did. Would constitute a new application. Essentially. It would be a new application. You know, looked at as a new project.

Okay. Well, this item is I'm closing the public hearing unless there are more questions. Commissioner Miller, you have your light on, are you? Okay there? I see no more questions. The public hearing is closed. The matter is before the commission. And let's just sort of start with comments before we do anything else. Yes. Commissioner Morrell, then Commissioner Rotman, then Commissioner Miller.

Well, I'm just curious. I'm I'm curious why we would continue this when it doesn't seem like the applicant's going to be able to meet the time frame of one year, and. What's, what's the urgency? What's the benefit to the city of giving them this one year extension? It doesn't seem like there is any benefit to the city. Commissioner Rotman.

Yeah, I would support the extension. I think, given where they have, how much they've done so far and where they are potentially with negotiating a new partner, I think it's behooves us to give them the opportunity to complete that deal. And then and then if the new owner wants to make changes or build it as is, then, you know, I think I think that gives them the opportunity to do that. Commissioner Murphy, I'm going down the line.

Okay. I agree with Commissioner Rotman on that point. In terms of enabling the current project to go forward with this potential new buyer. I have a, I guess, a technical question maybe for staff. We're not supposed to consider financial considerations or market conditions in this decision yet. That's really what's going on. So do we have that leeway to it?

It's ultimately your finding to make I mean, I think I think there is also reference to extenuating circumstances. And I think the way that we were viewing this was, you know, there's a lot going on in the world that are extenuating circumstances, certainly that well, certainly financial adjacent are legitimate reasons why this project is taking longer. And I think that in combination with the fact that they had were so advanced with the permitting process, gave us some comfort that they were meeting the findings. Now, ultimately, that's your call to make, but that's how we viewed it. Thank you. I'm comfortable with that. Commissioner Miller.

Yeah, I too would support the extension. I don't see any reason why we would. It would almost be punitive to say at this point, oh, sorry you didn't act. And, you know, they've shown good effort. They've put tens of thousands of dollars into the plans, and there's no reason to have someone else do that again in the future. There's not a line of people waiting to develop this site, so I see no reason why we would hold up an extension. They've got a lot to do in the next year. So it's really on their they got to be on the ball, but I see no reason why we would hold it up.

Commissioner Miller. Oh I'm sorry, Commissioner Baker I'm going to have Scott speak twice. As a matter of course. They are entitled. The developer is entitled to 24 months. And again, similar to Commissioner Miller, I don't see anything precluding that from going forward.

I would offer that I have a healthy skepticism about this developer's ability to perform within the two years, or backtracking. It's more like 14 months. I don't see evidence of a serious buyer if they haven't even done due diligence. That's kind of a minimum threshold. They're not under contract. There's no hard money in place. So I have healthy skepticism. That being said, this city has been very liberal with granting extensions to people who have done far less than this developer has, and the fact that they have submitted for a permit and submitted their drawings and made it through plan check is a good sign and a sign certainly that they intended to do the project. And I don't think that we stand that the city or the residents or the community stands to be harmed in any way. If they if we spend another 14 months without anything happening on the property. So I'm willing to suspend my skepticism and give them a chance and see if they can pull through.

Alternate Hernandez.

Although I don't have a voting ability, I also do think that due to their current progress in. The application and the permitting and all of that, I don't think it would hurt us to allow them to finish the extension. And whatever happens during that time, it's in their hands. But I think it would be as as somebody, as another commissioner, commissioner stated, it would behoove us to let them have the opportunity to do so.

Thank you. I share the skepticism, although, I mean, I can take the loss of a partner as a non-financial factor in this, and I certainly don't want to turn something down because of the tariff threats that are floating through our economy and changing, changing prospects of getting things done. I think we owe it to everybody to sort of float with what's going on in that regard. I do feel that I hope if your partner is there that they come in with the plans as they are and that they're not looking for changes in a new project and new entitlements, I not sure how I would feel and I'm not seeing this again coming in if it failed the last time, although they certainly have the right to come back in, so I do. I wish I'm going to say yes. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that you can get. If they come in, they come in without a lot of requested changes, unless there are changes that Director Hadwen can make in his discretion, and I would try and limit them to changes that director had. When has the authority to make. But I think at this point we have a what I've heard is a majority in favor of this extension. The extension proposed is a two year extension which will not last two years, but that's what's before us. So do I have a motion for a two year extension.

Motion to approve to your extension? I'll second. Can you call the roll, please? Yes. Mr. Baker? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes yes. No. Thank you. Good luck to you, gentlemen.

Madam chair, if I might just ask a question of staff, it appears that our air conditioning system is either not on or on, but not functioning. If we could make a call to somebody who could address that, I'd love it. Comfortable in here? He's comfortable. They're like, oh, it's so warm. He's. But he's. He's really he decides, well, we'll. Have Nariko check on that since she's off the hook now. I mean, I didn't think it was that bad. I mean, it is warm. Okay, I bet it's.

Next item in front of us, and I'm going to just. No one needs a break, I'm assuming. Thank you. Okay, next item in front of us is a request for a major development permit and minor modification application by PPE USA, LLC, owner for a 16 court commission commercial pickleball complex located at the southwest corner of Avenida Evelina and Airport Center Drive, zone M one General Plan neighborhood, competitive community. Commercial airport. Land use compatibility zone C and E Apns. 677530006 and 007 case DP 2024, Dash 0007 and Am. 20240013. The matter staff report please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as noted in your staff report, this is a proposal for the development of a commercial 16 court pickleball complex open to the public. The project includes a concession building, off street parking. The property project site is approximately 1.78 acres. And as noted there, the project has three frontages on Airport Center Drive, Avenida Evalita and Ramon Road. The project is comprised of the two application types you mentioned, as well as a major architectural that will go to the Arc. Following your consideration tonight. The project as you see it here on the screen, I'll walk through these slides just a moment. This is a view with Ramon Road in the foreground and Avenida Avenida at the right side. There you can see the pickleball courts, a considerable amount of shade trees. The parking is comprised of both an off street parking lot, as well as bay parking that takes access directly from Airport Center Drive along the north. The building that's there, front and center, sort of rear and center, I should say, is the concessions building and administrative building where applicants or players check in restroom facilities and a small grab and go. Concessions area. This is the site in the current context. As you can see, there's an existing warehouse complex, a couple of them to the north of the project site. Otherwise there's a fuel fueling facility and convenience store to the west or to the left, and EOS gym and car rental facilities to the east. There you have a view of the site as looking to the south and west and of the site, and then of a couple of the buildings in proximity to this project. And the project is also, as I mentioned, just south of the Palm Springs

International Airport. So in terms of its conformance with the general plan and other regulatory statutes in neighborhood, community, commercial, and as such, as a neighborhood serving facility or asset for the adjacent communities to the south and west. It does conform to the general plan land use. The zoning is M-1, however, in M-1, other uses that are in C-1 and other zones are also permitted in M-1, and this is one of those types of projects that does have permitted by right listing and C-1, and therefore is permitted by right in M-1. The project conforms to all of the development standards, and with the director approval of the administrative minor modification for a 10% reduction in off street parking. It will conform with the off street parking code as well. The other thing that's a bit unique about this project is it is within hazard zones C and E of the Palm Springs Airport Land Use Compatibility Master plan, and the applicant has applied this project and reviewed it with the director of Alook. And the director has deemed the project consistent with the airport master plan. And that letter is in your packet today. So the proposed commercial use project scope 16 lighted pickleball courts 13. Competition three. Recreation a roughly 1200 square foot building. As I mentioned earlier, we'll have a second level open shading viewing deck and some covered outdoor seating. The on site parking provides for 55 vehicles with code compliant shade, EV charging stations, perimeter screening, decorative paving at the bay, parking along Airport Center drive the project, because it is a play court, has a requirement for a ten foot high perimeter fence, which is required by the zoning code for play courts. In this particular case, they're proposing a combination block wall and a

decorative metal picket fence on top. The amenities are the lockers, ticket kiosk, bike racks, drinking fountains, toilets, and the grab and go space that I also mentioned. So here's a couple of views of the project. The first one on the top is as it would be viewed from Ramon Road. As I mentioned earlier, there's a considerable number of shade trees proposed on the site on all four sides, which I think is a favorable consideration and goes beyond what's required by our parking and zoning code. These are some images as you approach the facility. So the upper left is the entrance. There's a small raised hip roof pavilion there open for the public to identify where the entrance is. Over there at the upper right, you see the concessions building with its hip roof above it, and the concessions area with the windows on the lower level. The lower left shows you the view from the western side of that particular building, as well as some of the play courts. And then the lower right is the whole arrangement of the pickleball courts and the fencing as a prefabricated fencing that separates the courts from one another. The operating plan. This is intended to be a private recreational club owner operated. It will be open to the public with paid memberships, with day and weekend passes for visitors. Its hours of operation 6 to 11 p.m, seven days per week. Staffing is anticipated to be 3 or 4 staffers on site per shift, estimated to be 15 full time employees. As I mentioned, there's an on site, prepackaged grab and go refreshment, sandwiches and snacks that will be offered to the participants at the site. And the applicant has noted in their justification letter, which is in your packet, that they may be applying to the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board for an alcohol license for an on site consumption by members only, which is a private club type of alcohol license where food service is not

required, it is not a nightclub use and minors are allowed. It is not, however, a part of this. This particular approval that you're considering tonight, but something that they may consider in the future. So here is the site plan along the north. As you can see, there is decorative bay parking, which is required by our parking code. A six foot high masonry perimeter wall, a four foot high masonry screen wall around the parking lot, and that's required by the off street parking ordinance, a ten foot high chain link fence court fence on the west side of the courts. However, all the other sides of the court fencing is more decorative, with a ten foot high combination wall, four foot high masonry wall with a six foot high decorative metal picket fence on top, and then between the courts. As you saw in the earlier image, a 42 inch high modular fencing that helps just keep the play to the court on which the ball is running around on. Here's the landscape plan. This is a preliminary landscape plan. It does show drought tolerant plantings, as I've mentioned, generous amount of shaded parking landscape buffers along Avenida Avenida, which also helps screen the off street parking lot and a considerable number of trees along the public. Sideways. Sideways. Excuse me? Sidewalks and then adequate amounts of shrubs and ground covers. The actual final landscape plan will actually be submitted to the Architectural Review Committee when this goes before them, but this gives you a clear idea on the level of planting that's proposed. And it is, according to our estimate and review, adequate based on the planning development standards for landscapes of this type. So the findings for approval for the development permit are those in 9400 401 part D, and we believe that those findings have been met. So our recommendation is to determine the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to Sequa, to approve the project based on the findings in the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval therein, and to recommend approval by the arc of the related major

architectural application, subject to the same conditions that are here today and any additional ones that you will impose. There were some public comments that came in electronically earlier today, as well as those which you heard today by members of the public. The concerns that those public comments that were received electronically, primarily focused upon were environmental. One of the commenters were concerned about the adjacency to the airport in terms of jet exhaust. We have looked at that. We believe this is not necessarily downwind from the airport. The prevailing winds, of course, are from the northwest to the southeast. And so we think that that is certainly possible, but not likely on a constant basis. The other thing that was raises a concern is the potential for noise from pickleball. As most of you know, pickleball has a louder play activity or dynamic than tennis does. And the applicants expressed concern about that relative to adjacent residential areas. I've put together an additional slide tonight, which I'll show you here. It's a bit dense, so I'll try to walk you through this. On the left side is a section out of our noise element of the general plan, and noise is measured around on the surrounding streets as well as the airport on based on what are called noise contours. And those noise contours have a decibel level or what is called a CNL. In this particular case, if you notice in the lower left, the site is sort of in that black and white image. In the upper center, it's labeled there as the site and you can barely see it. I hope it's visible in your packets, but the noise contours for the 60, the 65 and 70 C now overlap with this site. They all they're they're primarily the

noise source. There is, of course, Ramon Road, which is a major thoroughfare carrying heavy traffic, including truck traffic on a regular basis. As you look at the image in between there, the colored site plan, the site is in the purple area or the purple area to the north. A big street you see there in black is Ramon Road. The residential areas that are near this project site are those that are shown in blue. That's an R-2 zoned neighborhood and they are approximately almost 300ft from the proposed site. The comments that I've put in the middle of the site, I think, further describe the characteristics around the potential for adverse noise impacts those adjacent properties to the site are professional and industrial zoned parcels. They are not residential zones that are adjacent. As I mentioned, the 65 and 70 C, L, C, L noise contours from Ramon Road already impact the site as well as the R-2 residential area to the south. There are two blocks away. Distance from the project site is. I earlier mentioned is about 295ft in the material that you were received electronically by staff today. There was a report, and this lower table that I have here is table one from that report. It says it's the estimated minimum distance in feet from courts to avoid potential pickleball noise complaints. And you'll notice there the highest decibel rating in that particular chart is 60dB. The distance at which no mitigation would would be at 200ft away is the minimum. Excuse me, the minimum distance. And as it goes further down in the chart, the more mitigation and walls and things you

provide, the lower the decibel rating becomes. Over on the lower right is also taken out of our noise element, and it gives you some comparative levels of what these numbers mean in terms of decibels and C nel contours. You'll see there that conversations outdoors is a typical 65dB, a busy street 85. And they've gone further upwards until you get to airplane noise, which runs about 125dB. So as we've looked at this, after receiving those comments, taking them obviously in serious consideration, we wanted to offer a couple of different thoughts for you. You may consider the project as it is, with the walls at four feet around it. There is also because this is the M1 zone, there is the possibility for a perimeter wall on any property in M1 to have a solid masonry wall five foot back from the property line as high as eight feet. So if the noise contour, the noise issues were ones that you believe may be concerning here, the applicant could take the existing four foot high masonry wall and raise it to six feet, or even as high as eight feet. We're going to we've not made any recommendations in this case to raise those walls because, as we've said, looking at the proximity of the adjacent residential uses and development, we do not believe this is going to become a problem, especially within the context of the existing noise environment in this area. That concludes my staff report. I'm available to answer any questions the applicant is here in the audience, and we'll answer any other further questions you have. And they also have some of their team online. Thank you.

Questions, Commissioner Murphy. Has anybody on staff? Is anybody aware of complaints coming from Demuth Park and the pickleball courts? Because I think the distance from the pickleball courts at Demuth to the adjacent residential areas is about the same, roughly the same distance. So I wondered if there's been complaints from that neighborhood.

I would suggest that it's potentially even closer in the instance of Demuth adjacent low density residential uses, I believe, would be closer than they would be in this instance. And I think if you look to this chart and some of the information, you know, that background sound level in that location would be lower. So the impact of pickleball noise may be greater. And in that instance, we're moving forward with outdoor pickleball courts. So I think our perspective is this is an area with a lot of ambient noise already. And we don't feel that there's any concern or impact around noise. So my question is have there been neighborhood complaints?

Yes. To the actual question that you asked. There are certainly an ongoing dialog, I think, between that neighborhood and the plans for Demuth, I've not been very involved in those conversations, but I think I think there are some members of that community who are concerned about the noise in Demuth. Yes.

The other question I have on this decibel relative relativity is and this this may be a little off base in a comparison, but, you know, for vacation rentals, the compliance code compliance measures decibel levels periodically to make sure that neighbors aren't being too noisy and loud and disruptive. Does does the does the decibel level predicted for this development compare to the vacation rental decibel level? That's allowable? I'm just I'm looking for a comparison that.

When you look at the city's noise ordinance, all of these various sites that we're talking about must conform to the city's noise ordinance. Now, the noise ordinance allows higher levels of ambient noise in commercial and industrial zones. So when code enforcement has to go out to a complaint in a single family residential zone because a neighboring vacation rental or even other neighbor is noisy, they're measuring the threshold level, which is lower than what the threshold level is for commercial or industrial land uses. Now, I don't have the I don't have the noise ordinance in front of me, but suffice to say, the comparative levels on this site allow for a higher threshold of noise than would be in the example that you gave with vacation rentals.

It's not a good comparison. And plus there's three almost 300ft distance, right? I want to say there's a 15 to 20 decibel difference between what is permissible in a low density residential area. You know, where most of our vacation rentals would be and what's permissible in an industrial area like this, I think 65 to 70dB is permissible from 7 a.m. To 10 p.m. Thank you. Commissioner Brotman. Yeah. Thank you. Ken, a couple of questions. So within the noise ordinance, though, if I recall, after 10 p.m, you're required to have absolutely no. Is 10 p.m. Was like the cutoff, right.

Well, it's a cutoff that takes you to a lower threshold of noise. It doesn't go down to zero okay. So at 10% at 10 p.m. Me if the decibel level, for example, in the residential zone is 50, by the time you get to 10 p.m, it drops down 5 or 10dB, recognizing that it's nighttime. So in a commercial industrial area, what what. It has, it has a similar lowering at that same time frame. I think planning director had one maybe trying to pull up the noise ordinance. I don't have it in front of me. Right. But they all do bring down a certain level at 10 p.m.

In an industrial area after 10 p.m, from 10 p.m. To 7 a.m, you are permitted to have 55 decibel limit. And there are some exceptions to that that I won't get into. The noise ordinance is very complicated. Compare that to a low density neighborhood where after 10 p.m. You're restricted to 40dB. So that's why I think there's so much sensitivity around parties and outdoor activities in vacation rentals and low density neighborhoods, because that 40 decibel level. I mean, if you look at this chart on the side, that's the sound of a low speed car driving by versus, you know, a loud conversation in a backyard. So it's just a different standard applied to a site like this versus something in a residential neighborhood.

And do we know what kind of decibel levels we're at with the pickleball court. Off the top of my head, no, I do not. Okay.

What I can I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. What I can characterize is normally the noise nuisances that we're experiencing, neighbor to neighbor or zone to zone are, are around low frequency noise. Those which have a longer wavelength and are more likely to be those that you feel like a thumping sound from a radio or something. Pickleball is a higher level frequency sound, a shorter wavelength, and so it's a noise. It's a type of noise that's different than what you would normally think in terms of nuisance noise.

Okay. I mean, part of this question is going into their hours of operation, their proposed hours of operation, which is to 11 p.m. And if there is a noise level by a pickleball, you know, court, at a certain point there's it's not going to drop between 11 and between 10 and 11, unless it's just a lack of patrons. So I'm trying to understand what we're actually dealing with, with the hours of operation and the potential noise.

I think it may be a good question to ask the applicant in terms of, of, of whether they think that they can comply with the city's noise ordinance in the hours of 6 a.m. To 7 a.m. And 10 p.m. To 11 p.m, when we have those more restrictive hours. Yeah. Okay. And then, as I recall, on the fence and ordinances, typically it's a change of material and also plain I don't see in there, especially along Ramone Road. It's one long 450 linear feet of the same fence. So I'm wondering whether that's that was a consideration in reviewing this.

It wasn't, but it's something that we can certainly take into consideration. Okay. Yep. Not a problem. All right. And then one of the letters we got talked about an Ada court. Is there any requirement by the in the city codes that you're aware of that would require I'm assuming there's Ada access, but is there any requirement to actually provide a court that meets wheelchair pickleball standards? I don't know what that is, but I'm just asking.

I don't know, but the Ada requires accessibility to public places, and so I'm going to also defer that one to the applicant, who may know more about the question of accessible courts. All right. And I think that's it for now. Thank you. Commissioner Miller.

Yeah I got a number of questions, Ken, I'm looking at the in in the staff report package, the vicinity map that you provide. If you could go to that, I don't think you can bring it up on the screen because it may not be part of your presentation, but it shows the site and then it shows, you know, the proximity with the 500 foot radius drawn on it. Is that map generally considered to scale? Yes. Okay. So Ramon Road is 100ft in width, as I recall from various projects that we've had. Is that correct? Does that sound right? 50 foot from center line. It's around 80 or 100, yes.

So if I'm looking at this vicinity map and then I see the Ramon Road at 100ft and then a row of lots on the south side of Ramon Road that are the currently the vacant land lots that are in a commercial or industrial zone. The residential, as I recall, in this block, starts mid-block. So that row of lots that are on Calle de Ricardo on the north side of Ricardo, those are residential and those are built out as small, low scale apartments, right? That's correct. I don't see how you can get 295ft of distance. Just looking at the scaling Ramon Road is 100. Those lots are thinner than Ramon Road.

The measurement that I took and that I was explaining was to the zone, to the zone boundary, that area, that first block between Ramon and Calle de Ricardo is a zone or professional uses those smaller, older apartment buildings that are on the north side of Calle de Ricardo are what we would consider today a legal nonconforming use. So today in the zone, you would not be seeing residential uses built there. And you would also be subject to the higher noise ordinance requirements, given that they are in a zone despite being residential activity in a zone.

But nonetheless, the report, the two noise reports that we got from the various entities referred to zoning and uses. And the fact is, nobody's taking over those residential uses. They are going to remain residential uses for the foreseeable future. Correct? There's no there's no. Need to apply the city's noise ordinance as it's written to those zones. And so I think the point that we're making is, per the city's noise ordinance, we feel that it satisfies the legal requirements. I understand that there's a reality there that is not based in the regulation, but that was our perspective.

All right. So let me get off that subject. And I'm sorry that there's no engineering representative here because I did have some engineering questions. So I'm going to pose them to you can and see. I'll do my best. There was a little confusion in the plans, in the sense of the intersection of Evalita and Ramone on Evalita. Right now you can only turn right and right, right in and right out at that intersection. Correct? It appears on most of the developers plans that that was being altered so that you could make a left turn from Ramone Road, traveling eastbound and north into Evalita. Does that sound right?

I think so, bear with me. Just a minute. Can I get to the site plan that shows the street? Yeah. So there you can see that that the little whatever you call that thing, the. Call it a pork chop. The pork chop has been squared off on the one side, which is great because that was I want there to be access obviously with a left turn lane on Ramone to turn, but I didn't see any sort of reference to that actually happening. Are we certain that that's going to happen? I'm sorry. I'm certain that I was.

Certain that that's going to happen, that the alteration of that intersection is going to happen such that traffic can safely and permitted wise, make a left turn from Ramone onto Evalita. Give me just a minute. Let me get to the Avenida. Because one of the plans. I'm sorry. Yeah, one of the plans even shows a median developed on Ramone, which doesn't exist today. Yeah. So the Ramone Road and Avenida Evalita engineering conditions begin on page eight of the conditions of approval. Let me just take a quick look through these so I understand it. Nothing referring. To that.

So there's no nothing here under the Avenida Avenida portion in which we would be removing or modifying the pork chop. Nor is there anything in the Ramone Road portion. So the pork chop stays right. But the pork chop, as shown here on this plan in front of us right now, is not the way it exists today, right? That may just be a matter. Of there's a pork chop there today, but it's a triangular shaped pork chop. Let me see if I can pull up. An aerial does not allow traffic. Hold on just a second. I'll see if I can find an aerial of it here with.

This site. Yeah. So I think that's an important detail that we need to make sure is if, if and when. And this gets approved and moves forward, we need to have access there. Otherwise it's going to be a mess of cars that are coming from Palm Springs neighborhoods to the west, traveling eastbound on Ramone. They're not going to necessarily know or desire to turn on the street before this one. They're going to wait, and they're going to make an illegal turn across Ramone to the into the pork chop and cause all kinds of potential traffic nightmares. So I guess all I'm saying is I was curious because I didn't see any, any sort of, you know, validation for that amendment happening. But I think it's really important that it does.

Commissioner Miller, I think it's a good point that you're raising. I don't have an answer for it, but I will absolutely bring it up with engineering. Yeah. They're normally, you know, on top of these things in a very minute level. So let me bring that up. And if it is a situation where they are assuming that we maintain the left and left, excuse me. Right in, right out, then it will stay. But we will come up with a logical answer for how that functions. If the pork chop stays. Okay. The drafting issue between whether it's currently a triangle and whether it's the way it's shown on the earlier landscape plan, is merely a drafting.

Overlay of the survey, correct? Yes. Yeah. Well and related to that is typically engineering would have a condition related to the median development in the, in the in the median of Ramone Road, similar to when we had the credit union and the ATM recently. There was that detailed condition with the 14 foot median and such and such. I didn't see that either. So that's that aspect of it would further indicate that there's a question about whether that pork chop is going to be changed or not. Correct. Okay. Then I have a question about drainage. Approximately 80% of the site is impervious. It looks like there's a an underground structure under the parking area. I'm not a drainage expert. I just wanted to make sure that is getting looked at in detail, because this is a lot of pavement to drain.

It absolutely is. And so let's make sure that that structure underneath the parking lot is going to be able to hold tons of water. And that is something that engineering does review as well as with the engineering plan. Check consulting the third party plan. Check on this drawing in the center part of the parking lot there. That's between the courts and Avenida Evalita. You can see some lines drawn, some vertical lines drawn. Those indicate the underground storm water detention structures. And I can't answer the question whether they are adequate. But engineering through their review of the project will confirm that. Okay.

That's fine. And then also an engineering question engineering in a footnote in your staff report, engineering has rejected the driveway shown on this plan that's in front of us. What have they suggested as an alternative or what is what is either the staff or the developer or engineering looking at as the alternative? Is there going to be a mid-block entrance and exit on Avenida?

Well, you reminded me of something that I failed to remember to bring up to you guys. That staff or that footnote talks about it the way this thing is currently drawn. The vehicular access into the parking lot is there off of Airport Center Drive. The engineering department is fine with that driveway access coming off of Airport Center Drive. However, it has to be 30ft from the intersecting corner of the two property lines as it's drawn. Right now, it's a little bit too close to the corner, so. There'll be a little jog there.

So yes, they have they have the two options. They can either take that and shift it over slightly to the west, still keeping the access point off of Airport Center, or they have the option of bringing the access into the drive into the parking lot off of Avenida Evalita. And engineering is fine with either of those, so long as the distance to the corners are are are correct. Sort of a related question on the debt and the parking lot, which is a dead end parking lot. I again, it's hard sometimes for us to really review these plans on the computer, but it didn't appear that there was a like a hammerhead or a like a space marked out so that somebody could turn in and back out to get out.

Yeah, the plans are small, but as you can see on this particular one that I have up on the board, there is a small hammerhead or backing up area for those last end spaces. It's really only one end space that has a difficulty. The first end space on the east side has adequate area to back up and move forward. But that's that's the backup area for the parking space itself, assuming you get into the parking space, what if I travel down that and I and all the parking spaces are taken? There's no way am I being asked to do a 14 point turn to get back forward, or am I going to be asked to back out that 150ft or more to get out?

It's a fair question. The same condition actually exists in the city parking garage over by Arenas Road, and people wind up do negotiating a 1214 point turn and get themselves turned around. You are correct. That's a mess. So I mean, I would simply mean x-ing out one of those parking spaces which would further reduce their parking. But I think that's important if that is going to function like a relatively, you know, decent parking lot.

And I can review that more with engineering and the applicant, we may have some space there where we can take the first landscape peninsula there on the west side of that drive aisle and bring it back by about a half, perhaps, and give them a little bit of space so they could turn around as you're as you're mentioning. Okay. It's a good point. It's a good observation. No, no, no, just a couple more. I'm trying to get through these lighting. Has there been a lighting plan done yet? I'm a little bit concerned with lighting impacts to Ramon Road with light spillage.

The lighting plan that came with the application did not have a complete presentation on it, so I've conditioned the project to make sure that it does conform to the city's outdoor lighting ordinance, and we'll have a full photometric site plan that will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee. And also we'll scrutinize it at staff level. Okay. Then my final question for you is I'm. Doing pretty good on these engineering questions.

The bay parking. This is a lot of bay parking. The backup parking into the street have I remember we did approve as a commission a small project with bay parking up off of like Oliveira or something. It was a residential project. Northwest, and it was only like maybe 6 or 8 spaces. This is 24. Can you recall? Have we have we the city recently approved and seen built this extensive of backup parking into the street for a brand new project.

In one of the versions of the. Orchid Tree project, which is in the tennis club neighborhood, there was a stretch of bay parking on. I believe the streets are Cahuilla and Balado, and there's a quite a long stretch of bay parking on that project, as it was preliminarily proposed in the last set of schemes. We've not seen the new schemes for that project yet, but neighborhoods like the tennis club neighborhood, it's not uncommon to see a whole block. There may be multiple hotels, but you will often have a whole block of bay parking because of the older development pattern that's there.

Just as a question that that's a rehab, doesn't that impacted differently that you have a whole block of bay parking when you're saving a historic structure? They they are not required to increase the amount of parking than what the site previously had. But that doesn't necessarily impact whether it's bay parking or a parking lot. That's it for me. Thank you Ken. Thank you. Commissioner Baker.

Hi, Mr. Lyons, going back to your Beautiful Noise chart. Could we possibly go back? Oh, you just passed it. Yeah. There we go. Why did we not take into consideration the airplane noise? And we were talking about traffic on Ramon. I live on the other side of the airport, and that's far more noise than trucks and busses driving down Ramon Boulevard.

The actual noise contours for the airport do not overlap onto this site. Curiously enough, that's not to say there's no noise. There is noise if I understand completely. But as you look at the noise contours that were established in the general plan, the noise noise contours for the airport noise don't extend beyond about. Roughly similar expansion on either side of it than what you're seeing here on the road. I can't explain why, but we all do know that there's noise from the airport that that goes beyond that. I didn't identify it in the staff report because the contours did not overlap the site.

Okay. Thank you for that explanation. And second question on the lighting. Doesn't a lot sort of prevail because they're all types of regulations on lighting, because it's an airline approach that probably would even supersede the city's lighting. They're actually as stringent as the Airport Land Use Compatibility Commission imposed a set of conditions of approval on this project that are also in your staff report. So you have not only our conditions but also those from a look. Thank you. Vice Chair. Elaine, do you have questions?

I have a couple of questions before I come to mind. Bigger question, which deals with the noise. First of all, the findings that were required. One of them is that the project is consistent with the general plan and with any applicable specific plan. You were silent regarding the specific plan. Does that mean is it fair to say there is no specific plan governing this? That is correct.

Okay. The. Finding number for the proposed height and massing is consistent with the adjacent development. In this case, there are a number of vacant lots there. And I am thinking ahead and wondering how the land would be used in the in the future. If it has any kind of noise concerns or if it would be impacted. And so what I'm wondering is, have we heard from any of the landowners of those adjacent properties? Or not?

I have not. Okay. Not not the adjacent ones on this block sites to the north and a little bit to the west. There's been ongoing conversations between the airport and various parties who are in control of that site, are interested in gaining control of that site, to thinking about different ways to support the future car rental facility that will go on the airport property just north of here, or off site airport parking. Those are the kinds of conversations we've had with different people over the years. Nothing sort of material or advanced. But they haven't really reacted to this proposed use. Okay.

And those uses, other than if it does become structured parking, there's there would in the past discussions on that surface parking lot he's talking about there were no structures other than carport structures okay.

Finding number eight we're required to find about landscaping. And then that the design of the stormwater management features are appropriately integrated with other designs. In looking at my teeny tiny, teeny tiny drawings, it looks as though all the stormwater is handled in storage underground. There's no retention basins. There's no channels or anything going on grade.

There's no other retention that's being shown as part of the engineering of this site. There certainly is still obviously some permeable, permeable areas on the site. And I think the applicant can probably clarify this for me. If there was a large amount of water, that's stormwater, for example, hitting the area of the courts, it's likely that some of this will run off into the adjacent landscape beds. But the understanding I have from the engineering work that I've seen on the project is that the underground storage has been calculated to be enough for the stormwater that the project site requires.

Okay, so you are comfortable that we could make the finding number eight that is required that it's consistent with the design. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Just in in recognition of the engineering conditions as well. Right. So they will need to prepare more precise grading plans etc. That will be reviewed by engineering to address any issues that may come up. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. The big one, of course, at least to my thinking, is the information that we have received in the last 2440 eight hours regarding potentially adverse effects on the public, public welfare from the noise. And it's hard to evaluate some of them. One of the most. Wordiest, one of the most lengthy document. More documents that we received had no attribution. It was quotes from, you know, 50, 80 people about the impact of pickleball on their mental health, on on their lives. But there's no way of verifying any of it. And particularly in the short amount of time since we received it, the other one does have does was submitted by a pickleball sound engineer or something that I hadn't heard of before. And. Pickleball noise consultants. And I know that he does have a number of professional credentials, or he cites a number for professional credentials. All of which raise some concerns. And I think you've heard that from others. I'm wondering, had you had this information at the time staff reviewed the project in the first place, would you have recommended any differently regarding noise studies, environmental analysis that should be done on the project? Does any of this concern you, and would it have changed how we would have reviewed the project?

I don't want to be dismissive of concerns around noise, but we have to evaluate it within the regulatory and policy framework that we have in front of us, including our noise ordinance and including our the noise element of our general plan. And in doing so, this is an area with a lot of ambient noise. And so if you go back to the chart that Ken had shown you earlier from our noise element, this is an area where we expect the ambient noise to be 70dB or greater. And in the chart that the expert that you're referencing provided as you go across background noise, even at 60, which is lower than we would expect here you're looking at a distance of 200ft to avoid impacts on sensitive uses. We're above that. So our sense is in light of the additional information that's been provided, it's confirmed what we suspected, which is at 65, 70 or 75dB, that distance is going down. And we are on one of the city's busiest roads, adjacent to one of the city's most noise generating uses, in an area that is designated and zoned for higher intensity commercial and industrial uses, which by their nature, generate noise. So if there is an area of the city in which to have this kind of activity, our perspective and a policy and regulatory framework that we have in front of us is it's here and also evaluating it in light of the noise ordinance that we have in an industrial zone. Again, this is a site that is identified as being capable of generating some of the highest levels of noise in the city. So from our perspective, we have to have a nexus to really sort of impose additional conditions on the project that sort of the use is permitted, right? The use is by. Right. So we're really looking at site plan and circulation here. And our view was this is an appropriate site that doesn't warrant additional study or mitigation.

As I understood the information that was presented to us, it wasn't dwelling on decibels. More was the nature, the nature of the noise, how it carried and the long hours and the inconsistent. And there's not a beat. You can't dance to it. The kind of the inconsistent and unexpected quality of it does our noise ordinance. And it's been a long time since I looked at it. Does our noise ordinance only govern absolute decibels, or does it define nuisances? Can nuisances be created by noises that are of a lower decibel, but for other reasons are disturbing to neighbors?

It talks about the notion of constant noise versus periodic noise events. So if you imagine a Harley-Davidson motorcycle running down Ramone Road, that's a periodic and for most people, an obnoxious noise that would be a periodic event. The playing of a pickleball back and forth. Whether you're having people play all day long or the courts are empty until 5 p.m, is something that initially I when I thought through this thing as the planner and analyzing it, it was more of a periodic noise than a constant noise.

Okay, my last question then. Is on a number of concerns about the parking and the entrance to the parking, which I shared, with which I share with Commissioner Miller. And it's irregular to me to see a project presented before the commission wherein the staff report says, oh yeah, there are these other things that aren't addressed, and those will be fixed before it goes to the Architectural Review Commission or committee, which doesn't is not a body that appropriately or typically addresses these types of issues. Is this common practice and I just haven't paid attention to it?

Is no. Do we need more study?

I don't think it's common practice, and it's not something that we would certainly make our common practice. I think it came to light a little bit late in the process, admittedly, and I think we felt in conversations with engineering that the change necessary to address engineering's concern was relatively insubstantial and could be accommodated without major changes to the site plan or the circulation. Of course, you need to make the finding and you need to feel confident in that decision. So. So that was our perspective. And just to kind of help keep things moving along. But I do understand that this is squarely within your purview. And you need the information you need to make a decision. Okay.

Thank you. I'm going to go a little further on noise. I think if we were. The one of the missives we got talked about, a city that hasn't yet incorporated pickleball into their zoning standards. And I think that adequately describes our city. Would you agree that this is a new phenomenon and it's not been dealt with to date? So were this to come to us at a different time, we might be looking at this differently. And I'm kind of I want to say that my concern is the residential neighborhoods, but it's also ever seeing this vacant land next to this developed. It's some concern for the car barn, which you describe as storage, but it actually is. Used very, very often as a fundraising space for our for our charities in the city. So we've got we've got one adjacency that that has evening charitable use. And we have adjacent sites. So I understand we've got a regulatory we're working within our regulatory environment. And probably the two things we can do within that regulatory environment have to do with changing the hours to match our. Match. Our noise ordinance, which starts at 7 a.m. Instead of 6 a.m, correct, and ends at ten instead of 11. In terms of impacts on neighborhoods, and we can also require a consistent

fence or a some kind of something consistent around it without holes in it that would. Would, could, could go up to eight feet but not go further. Those are the kinds of things that we can do. Is that correct? I'm sorry I stopped listening to you. What was that last question? The question is. I shouldn't admit it.

Within our regulatory environment, what can we do? And what I want to do this is my concern is I also have a concern for the vacant lots that may never be developed. And my understanding I live in a community just to explain it. That had a proposed outdoor pickleball coming right next to our community, which because of that, every person in our community, myself included, read every bit of literature we could find on the sound impacts. And there, when they're happening, they're consistent. I mean, it's the sound, but it's again and again and again and it it seems to. Even though the issues weren't ascribed in the materials we got in the materials I read, they were ascribed to specific neighborhoods where there was testimony and there were issues and ordinances being drafted. So I'm one I'm one question is what can we do? And. From the point of view that I take this seriously and it's, you know, I think this is probably the only area in the city we might be able to allow something outdoors, but I think we also I want to think about the adjacent properties that aren't developed that I would like to see developed someday. And it's community serving. So if it was a bank next door, what can we do? What if that use is not a self-storage use? What can we do to protect those vacant parcels so that they're developable?

Well, I want to say, Madam Chair, I never don't listen to you. I was getting clarification from from Ken. On on its proposed. So I can answer the question. And trying to be a little funny, a couple things. Let me first address the point you're making about the zoning code, because I think it's a good one. And obviously it's something that we need to look at through the zoning code update. And so we had our zoning code is so old that the only sort of equivalent that we regulated were tennis courts, because it was written at a time when Palm Springs only had tennis courts. And so we had made an administrative change through one of our annual updates, I believe, two years ago now, where we expanded that definition to be sports courts. And this does comply with the sport court requirements of the zoning code. But it is something that we need to look at in more detail through the zoning code update, so that that is something that we're going to do to the point about adjacency. I think, again, we need to remember that this is an area that is zoned for manufacturing and one uses. So those again are uses that by their nature tend to either generate more noise or be in areas that are subject to more noise. And so their construction standards when they are constructed would address that through the building code and other processes. In addition, because of the adjacency to the airport, there are additional standards imposed through that process in terms of noise mitigation, construction, noise mitigating, construction standards. So I feel like it's addressed in all of those ways. The car barn to the north has a 15 to 20 foot wall on the south side of it, so that is already providing a barrier to those uses that are into the interior of the site. And so we feel again satisfied that that conflict is mitigated through that construction, through that development, that is there already in terms of what's before you. Yes, absolutely. I think and a few people have have raised it. So it seems like this may be where the conversation is going. I think we can certainly

have a conversation with the applicant about potentially, it looks like they have some walls around the courts themselves that with that might go up to ten feet in height, height with some chain link. Perhaps we look at increasing that to something more like eight feet of actual wall to help mitigate. But I think it's a conversation to have with the applicant in terms of what works for them operationally and to find the right balance there. But yes, I do think that's something the commission can consider tonight.

And I guess the last question I have, because I drive ramen all the time, I it is my street into the city, and I know that there are times that ramen is wall to wall car. And then there are times where I'm the only car turning right and the only one on the street. So the 60 70dB seems to me that it's it probably is more consistent, but not completely consistent. And I wonder, how is it in code that it's do we I mean, is it already determined that it's 60 to 70dB and.

It's in the noise element of the general plan. So that is so. Even if. The street is empty and nobody's driving it and it's quiet at that. Well and two minutes. I would have to go back since we didn't update that element as part of this recent update. You know, I can't speak to whether that was an average or the high or a conservative approach. But you know, you're right. It isn't consistent. And I think we have to apply the standards that are in the general plan noise element, because that's what we adopted.

And I can I can slightly clarify that also that the noise element, when it talks about these sea snail contours are at city future build out but build out of ramen road. Aside from the few empty parcels that you see here, those traffic generating uses are all pretty much built out. So I think that when you look at the noise ordinances, yes, they cannot say that at all times of the day and night. It's 60 or 70 CE now, but that's what is recognized as the upper limit that's likely to happen on that street.

And it's pretty. I mean, if it's not built out right there, it's built out in the adjacent city. Yes. Correct. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Yes. I actually have one. And it's in regard to the ten foot perimeter fence slash wall that is required, I guess, for the court. Correct.

And you said they were proposing right now a combination of solid and metal, you know, decorative metal fencing or chain link whatever. Is there anything that would preclude that ten foot requirement as an enclosure from being solid? You know, block? In other words, it doesn't have to be open. Right? Because I got a little confused. You had mentioned something about in an industrial zone, the wall can be eight feet high, five feet away from the property line, but if they're required to have that ten foot enclosure, that ten foot enclosure could be solid, is my question. I guess I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but.

You know, I understand the comment clarifying as you just did. The eight foot high max is for typically the perimeter walls on a property in the M, one's own can't be higher than eight feet five foot back from the front property line. Since you have three property lines here on this site. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Three front property lines. It's surrounded on three sides. That limit of eight feet five feet back would be on all those five foot back on the east side. It could be a maximum of eight on the property line. The play fence, if I can call it that, in the. In the section of the zoning code that that addresses fencing for commercial play courts, it identifies it as a ten foot high. I believe it says fence. Now, when we look at our 9301 section of the zoning code walls and fences, we tend to not make a distinction. So your question is a valid one. Could that perimeter ten foot barrier that's required for the play court be solid masonry? Is that what you're asking? Yes, I think theoretically, yes. The answer would be yes.

My concern would be about transparency. And so I think that we would want to look at some way of ensuring potentially some transparency. I think the goal of fencing is to allow some transparency where it's needed. So it's worth discussion and a question to the applicant.

I'm not I'm not certain that the fence requirement for sports courts is to keep the balls from going off the court, right. Typically you see a tennis court with a ten foot high black, you know, vinyl coated chain link fence. That's to keep the tennis balls from bouncing into the neighbor's yard or into the pool at the, at the Spencers or, you know. But that's the transparency. I mean, if you know, anyway, I think the important thing is to try to mitigate some of the potential noise that is going to be an issue here.

Agreed. And I think I just meant I wonder if there's a design solution there that makes it solid and noise mitigating while still sort of allowing some of that visibility if it's desired. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We've got more questions. I don't really have I don't really have a question, but a quick comment to Scott's comment is, I believe in the engineering recommendations. It says they wanted solid walls, not open walls. And also with the wind down there, I think it would make more sense to have solid walls.

Than I believe that's referencing the perimeter fence. So we're talking about multiple walls and fences at this point. There is a four foot perimeter fence.

Right now it's A44 foot perimeter wall with a six foot wall, decorative metal picket fence on top of it, at the at the at the play at the play court. It's a four foot high wall as the screening for the parking lot on the east side of the property. And it is I look at this real quick before I, I believe it's a. I may have to have the applicant applicant clarify this for me. I, I think the wall on the east. I'm sorry the west side is four feet high too. But I better let the applicant clarify that for us because I'm actually not sure. You can see it in this one where you're viewing it in the top of perspective. There's kind of a fence of some sort over there on the left side. That's the chain link fence for the sports court. And then you see the light brown just left of the trees. That's their perimeter property line wall. I think on that side it is six feet. Now that I'm looking at it.

Can can I on the west side it calls it out as a masonry and metal fence. Ten feet. It's on their key. It's number one okay. Yeah. Thank you. Are there any other questions before we open the public hearing? Seeing none. The public hearing is open. The applicant has ten minutes.

So Max Durda and I have Mark Stewart online. Yes. Okay. And you can share your time. Come up to the podium and identify yourself.

Yes. My name is Max Stewart. I'm an urban planner and I work with my dad, Mark Stewart, architect, and we designed this pickleball sports complex. Along with the owner and operator, Cliff Teston. So I'm excited to, you know, address you guys and address any questions that you might have. I plan to tell you guys about the about the driveway throat and the and the way the way we're going to move it. It's going to be five foot to the west. So it's just an additional few feet. And then we'll make those minor adjustments as needed. As for the landscape plan, there was some questions about clarifying the shrubs and the bushes like we were identified the perimeter trees as mesquite trees. But we're going to be clarifying the and finalizing the landscape plan to also identify those bushes and shrubs. But they're going to be in their current locations. Let's see. As for the screening of the property. As the property is going to be lined with quite a lot of shade trees, which I think is going to benefit the noise reduction, you know, to the adjacent properties as well as the masonry and metal fencing. It's going to be a four foot tall block wall, six foot tall pickets. And then there's also a concern of wind coming onto the site as well. And we were proposing to have some mesh, you know, between the, the

pickets, not only to kind of like keep out the wind and the sand, but also to keep in the pickleball. Yes. Also, there was a question that came up about Ada access. I'd like to address that. You know, that the you know, there's we've always planned, you know, to have Ada access, you know, to the facility, you know, like we don't have. Ada courts, you know, for like the people in wheelchairs to play, but they're certainly welcome to and they certainly have access to the courts. Yeah. Those are the things I wanted to address.

You have at this point, I can't have people ask you questions after after the rest of the public testifies. We'll then keep you here and ask you questions. But if you have more to say or the people that are with you have more to say about this. As a general presentation, please feel free. You've got time. Well, no. That's it. This is the stuff I wanted to address right away. Thank you. Are there members of the public who wish to speak online? No, I don't think anyone else in the room. We've already.

Heard a speaker. No one online has raised their hand. Madam chair. Thank you. So if you'd come back up, you can only speak once. If you were raising your hand from the audience. But if the applicant would come back up, there will be. I'm sure there will be questions, people. Yes, we could take a five minute break. Can we do that in public hearing? I've never done it in public hearing. It's technically not a public hearing. So I think you can.

We can take a five minute break. Great. Sounds good.

Reopening the public hearing. And we are are we ? We are on air. So as I take comments for the applicant, I'm going to go in reverse direction. Since I started with Commissioner Moreau. And I'm going to start with Vice Chair Elaine and go down the line if people have questions and then come back to me because my position is always last. For questions or comments. Comments or questions to the applicant. If you don't have any, it's fine.

I have just one. The. The use of chain link fence and then some more decorative steel fence from four feet up. You indicated something about the lots of landscaping would help with the sound attenuation. Which is a different. Belief from what most of the from what I've learned from sound consultants. And I'm wondering. Where. What your understanding is of sound attenuation. And did you work with a sound consultant at all during this and is your wall design in recognition of that?

To answer your question, I did not hire a sound consultant. We believe that, you know, the site was in a commercial area, that there wouldn't necessarily be a whole lot of regulation on the noise and also the adjacency to the airport and other industrial uses as well. As for the wall condition. I think it's sufficient, you know, from a from an architectural perspective, you know, like not only to keep in pickleball's, but also for like the solidarity and uniformity of the site.

So the are the portions with slats. Will those also stop balls from going out? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Well, okay. So they're close enough together that I've never played pickleball. I don't know how big. Okay, okay. And then one other question in somewhere in the comments that we received, there was a suggestion that there is a type of racket or paddle, excuse me, a type of paddle and a ball that are quieter. Are you aware of those? Is that something that, from an operational perspective, is that something that you could require that people use?

Nothing that we that is not something that we took into consideration when we started the project. I didn't know that there was such a thing as soft paddles or foam balls, but. I think it's I think it's perfectly fine to use a paddle that's kind of like a. Traditional ones. The traditional ones. Okay. And have you developed other pickleball courts before?

No, I have not. But I've done extensive research along with my father, Mark Stewart, even had a couple pickleball, you know, sport court manuals that we've referenced. Okay. Thank you. Going down questionnaires, questions, Commissioner Baker. So are you amenable to some type of mitigation for the noise utilizing a fencing material perhaps different than what you have planned today?

Yes, we are open to the consideration. The lead architect, Mark, was maybe proposing a six foot tall masonry fence in only a four foot tall picket fence on top. This is some design considerations we were thinking about. Okay. And you mentioned that there there are different types of courts. You said there are three recreational courts and but they all look exactly the same. Can you explain that exactly?

Yes. And the and the manual. You know, the difference between a competitive style court and a recreational size as the outside boundary. So the striped in boundary is exactly the same, but the outside boundary around the court. So the blue we see on. Yes, yes the blue the blue is bigger. Oh okay. Thank you. Commissioner Murphy.

Can you. Have you looked at other sites? I'm just trying to get a sense of what other locations you considered, if any, and how you ended up selecting this particular site. Yes, Commissioner. When the owner originally approached us with this project, he already. The landowner. The landowner? Yes. Landowner. It was in the process of buying the property. And. And he was pretty certain that this was the location that he wanted to have. The pickle sports complex. Thank you. Commissioner Brotman.

Yeah. So I know this isn't part of purview, but you're applying for a beer and wine license. And then when I look at the layout of the concession building, how is it all going to be sort of in the display cases, you pick up a bottle of wine or pick up a can of beer. It's all you know, you're not serving it basically. Is that right? Exactly. It's self-serve.

Self-service. Okay. And then you you said you haven't done a sound. You haven't worked with an acoustic engineer about the sound or noise. The. Yeah, well, we've talked about the concerns about it. How do you feel about reducing your hours of operation from especially the morning, early morning hours and the late evening hours?

I think we were really close in alignment with the with the noise ordinance. I'm certainly something we can comply with. Yeah. That's that's it for me. Thank you. I'm sorry. And then we talked about the soft pedal and the balls. If I understand your operation, people bring their own equipment. Is that right? You're not providing mandatory equipment for the pickleball players.

That's correct. People would bring their own paddles and pickleball equipment. But I think the intent is for the owner to also sell merchandise. Okay, okay. Thank you. Commissioner Morrell. Any questions? The it's, I guess kind of an obvious question, but did you consider some kind of sun protection, even on just some of the courts, maybe providing some shade structure or something?

That was something we considered, you know, in a couple initial designs and, and then the, the owner was insisting on having a completely outdoor play space. But also we provide a lot of sanctuary, if you will, around the for the for the patrons of the site with the large shade cover over the concession building. As well as the, you know, providing of, you know, drinks. Yes.

Yeah. One more question. So also on the plans on the second level, you have a outdoor patio and then that's maybe a third of the building. And the other third is identified as roof. Is there any plan to expand the outdoor patio onto that roof area, or is that all with equipment and that sort of thing. Right now this is, you know, vacant space for, you know, for like, you know, rooftop equipment or other utilities such as that. There's no plan to expand it right now. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Murphy, you've got your light on. Okay.

Commissioner Baker, you have. A question?

Yeah. Going back to the heat and the sun, because I think I was thinking that my first observation is like, there's no shade on this. I mean, a day like today, it would just be oppressive to be out there. Plu, the heat from the concrete rising up. Which raises the second question. So this time of year, I think the 6 a.m. Start time probably would be more beneficial to many people trying to get in before it gets too hot, before they go to work, rather than like 11:00 at night. The Palm Springs does tend to be a kind of a earlier question. Yeah. So I'm saying, have you considered maybe shifting that hour from closing at ten and still maintaining the 6 a.m. Opening, but and also having some type of mesh? Shelter over a few courts, especially the western ones, perhaps just to give to do a little bit of shade cover for the players.

That's something we're willing to, to explore. But right now this is like our design intent is to have, you know, open court play. I see. I know there's currently no plans for it right now. The owner wants to wants to keep everything within a certain budget. So he doesn't want to add any shade structures at this time. Additional shade structures. Is your owner. You're not the owner. Then I'm the architect.

You're you're the architect. Yes. Okay. I'm just. Just first on shade. Are you aware that the courts at Yarmouth will be entirely shaded? What was the last part? The courts. The new courts at Yarmouth will be shaded. Your competition will be shaded. I don't know right now, I. I looked around a couple of the, the pickleball courts around town and a lot of them are not shaded.

Okay. I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. We actually have the authority to set the hours because the decibels can. Because the noise ordinance allows us or or because the noise that you can have before seven and after ten, we have the ability to restrict those hours from 7 to 10 and from 6 to 7. It's that's something that's I believe in our discretion. So to do those hours. And part of the reason is that there will be less ambient noise out there and more chance for that noise to travel to keep those hours. Would you be willing to use the different paddles and different balls during those hours and require it?

I think the operational intent was to let people. I'm asking the. Question, not what your intent is, but what would what would you do? Are those hours. Important to you and would you make changes to keep them? Is what I'm asking you. I'm able to individually answer that question at the moment. Thank you. I think. That's that's probably the most important question I wanted to ask you. We have we have the other applicant wanting to speak. If you would like them to answer that question, Madam. Chair, that would be good.

Thank you. Mark Stewart, if you would like to respond.

And hi, I'm Mark Stewart, the senior architect on the project. And to address the issue about the paddles, I don't think the owner would be in a position to tell the people what type of paddle to play and what type of ball, so I don't believe that that would be the avenue we would want to take for to address the noise issue. I think we'd be more inclined to address the noise issue through the perimeter wall, although I did want to point out that that that combination of masonry and metal wall, very architecturally pleasing to look at. It gives you that club like look. And then from from our experience, because all of us are pickleball players, the combination of masonry and open provides the least amount of echo potential. It provides sound attenuation for the lower level of the wall, but also doesn't introduce the echo component. That can happen when you have a tall masonry wall. So we believe that it's a good the best balance between echo attenuation and external sound attenuation. The one thing that we did look at and our proposing is a mesh material on the metal itself, on the metal itself. And that mesh material is semi-transparent, but also provides a, a wind and a sound barrier. And that's what we have found in our research, pretty extensive on the various types of pickleball courts that we've looked at that were successful. They employ a technique like that. Our experience with the solid masonry walls being very high has been that there's an

echo introduced, and we'd like to avoid that at all possible. And but but just yeah. The materials we got talked about putting something on on the masonry walls that would dull the sound.

Yeah. What we're what I'm talking about is keeping that masonry component at a lower height like we have, and then having the decorative metal above it, and then introducing a mesh material on the, on the decorative metal. And that's what we've seen has successfully employed for a variety of reasons. You get some attenuation, you get wind attenuation, you get transparency. But and there's also a sound attenuation component. So that's the direction that we were moving in.

And what is the sound attenuation component for your mesh and your walls. How many how many decibels does it take it down. We would have to we would have to study that further to do the precise decibel reduction. I mean, it sounds like you haven't done any noise. Am I correct?

No. We know that a pickleball at the at the paddle itself. When the when the ball hits the paddle it's 70dB. We also know that that sound diminishes by a square root factor as you get distance from the pickleball. So we felt comfortable that we wouldn't have anywhere near even 70dB at the at the property line. It would be something very much less than that which we can confirm. But it'll be well under that 65 to 70 decibel threshold. That's allowable in that in the zoning.

55 from 6 to 7 and 10 to 11. Correct. Yeah. And that and if you want to put that as a condition on the of the approval, we can certainly make sure that we're 55 at the property line because we are this. Remember the courts on this design are set back significantly from the property line already, especially on the street frontages.

Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. The public hearing is closed. Thank you. And the matter is before the commission. And I'm going to take a stab at this and maybe get comments. I'm going to move approval, but I'm going to move it with an eight foot masonry wall that's consistent. And with hours from 7 a.m. To ten, but within within the zoning, what we can do and. I think that. There are times where the traffic might be lower, the sound will carry further. There's still there's still concerns about sound and noise and nothing that I've read indicates that they can keep that sound at the property line. So I'm, I think those those would be the, the ways that I can support this. And I don't know if there's discussion on it or if there would be a second. I might suggest on the wall that they consult with an acoustic engineer to come up with the best possible design. I think also, as you're driving down Ramone, to have an eight foot solid wall is not necessarily the best look that we want to approve. I think there may be opportunities to do things at angles or, you know, little slots here and there. I think there's that's why I think an acoustical engineer could help better design this wall. And I

think that would be my recommendation.

The other. So that's not a second to what I said. But the other thing is that a heavy a heavy hedge actually helps a little. So for the landscape plan, my understanding is trees will not do any sound mitigation whatsoever. And most plantings don't. But a very heavy hedge either inside or outside of the property can do some sound mitigation. So that. And I think this is for discussion. I think we've got two two possibilities laid out there. And there are three three issues. The issues would be the hours. The issues are the wall, the four issues, the sound, referring it to a sound technician. And maybe there's more issues. Is this done? We've got that turn lane that hasn't been resolved and we have the parking that hasn't been resolved. So possibly one thought is sending this sending this back for more study, resolving those issues, and also working with the sound engineer for the best way to do the wall as esthetically as possible, but to do the best sound mitigation.

Also on the hours of operation. I wonder if we can't whatever we decide, maybe in a year's time come back and review that to see whether we can extend it or not, depending on how they resolve the sound issues. Yes, Commissioner. Miller. Agree on all the concerns about sound and noise for sure. I'm wondering if your chair, if you're willing to see what the commission's feeling is about the bay parking. Oh, absolutely.

I had a concern about that. But there's 24 spaces proposed as the Bay parking. I personally dislike the bay parking, especially for new developments. I understand in lots of non-conforming old neighborhoods there that exists and is not going to go away. But here we have a brand new project and the bay parking is being proposed to allow them to get more courts on the property instead of parking. I'd rather see the bay parking gone and see the 10 or 12 parallel parking spaces on the curb utilized that would be removed with the bay parking. The bay parking is about 240ft, and they can get about 10 or 12, you know, horizontal cars parked there on the existing curb and gutter and keep the streetscape looking the way it does. And there's plenty of street parking in this area. I know we as a city have shied away from acknowledging street parking as an okay thing, but the fact is, there's no reason why a resource like a super wide street can't be used for parking. The reason I bring that up is you'd have to increase the parking reduction from greater than 10%, and I don't know if that's even something that can be asked for.

I think we'd have to. And I agree with what you just said. So in terms of taking advantage of the street parking, it is something as a matter of policy, we're trying to move towards more in the city bureaucracy. But five is the threshold at which I approve, and six becomes the threshold at which the Planning Commission would have to issue a variance with more stringent findings. That said, what we could consider if the Planning Commission so directs us to is a parking specific plan, which is the land use permit approved administratively, where we could account for those surrounding off street on street parking spaces and count them towards their parking calculations to give them some additional relief.

Just as a comment, I'm completely sympathetic to that. I think it's really it's much better planning, and I, I agreed with what you were saying about the bay parking when you were saying it, because every time I've seen it in the city since I've been here, it's been on older, older reuses. So if we can do it with some kind of parking plan, I would be happy to include that in in a, in a motion. And I think it's good that we do it. And I think we also I tend to think we need to see the parking changes on the curb. Coming in without that being resolved is hard. Yeah. Commissioner Murphy.

Are you suggesting we can do that as part of a condition and then without having the applicant come back to us? Not a continuation? I'm not sure. I'm not sure on that. I mean, we could require everything be done before it goes to A or C, but but it may be enough that we need to bring it back.

I'd like to, if we can see this finished tonight and not do a continuation if possible. I mean, I'm not hearing anything so far. That would. That would prompt us to not make a decision on the project tonight. Nothing. Nothing I've heard so far from my perspective. Except consulting a sound engineer and having a plan on that. I think that's that could take time.

I personally think that it needs a little bit more study. The first of all, I understand the absolute need in the community for more pickleball. There's an insatiable appetite for it. But secondly, I, I also understand the need to make this a good neighbor to the surrounding uses. And I think that the most significant feature of this whole project for the rest of the community is going to be the walls, because they're what out is outward facing. And I've heard everything from solid eight foot high or ten foot high to something with more acoustic nuance and architectural treatment and although we could more or less dictate it, I hate to ask the applicant to buy into it tonight, because that's whatever is done. The things that we're talking about are big dollar impacts to their investment, and I think they need to make sure that they're comfortable. And with the design and the cost of that before they commit. So my suggestion would be to check with the applicant and see that they're okay with the additional two weeks worth of study before we impose that. But personally, I I'd like to see more. More thought translated into drawings for the parking, the pork chop, the circulation, the wall conditions.

And the shading. And the shading. Where they can do it, where they can do shading. We know it's only going to get hotter in the summertime. Can I ask a clarifying question?

Just about the hours of operation, if the Commission's direction tonight is to continue this and study it through an acoustic engineer, do you want to allow them the opportunity to study the 6 to 7 and 10 to 11? Because I think a comment was raised earlier about our summer heat in particular. And there may be benefits to 6 to 7 if we have the evidence that shows that it can meet the noise ordinance. And so I don't know if that's something the commission wants to entertain. If this comes back, is if they can demonstrate to you all that it can comply, if that's something you're willing to consider. Just something I wanted to seek clarification on.

I'm still concerned about those hours just for. Peaceful sleep for people who are adjacent. I wouldn't be concerned for the lots next to it, but in case that it's. The noise impacts are more than being projected, I'm really concerned about. Because I know our noise ordinance doesn't cover unusual circumstances, like the heaviness of the paddle and the kind of sound the ball makes. So I don't know how other people feel about it. I, I understand that those might be the best hours to play. It's just the sound issue is critical to me. For those.

My concern would be to make a decision on it without knowing if it violates our regulatory framework. So I don't know that we have the Nexus unless they come back with a study that says it's going to exceed the noise ordinance, I think is the point I'm raising.

I'm actually. Given the distance between the end of the proposed sports complex and the across Ramone into the housing area, which is the only residential area that we're, I think, dealing with. That's a that's a pretty long distance. And so I'm, I'm actually comfortable with. And I'm not comfortable with 200.

I understand but I'm comfortable with the, the noise with the, the mitigation of the noise with the walls that we're proposing and that the distance is further farther away than what we have at Demuth. And Demuth is operating, as far as I know, without a great deal of complaints. So that's what gives me comfort that the noise factor is going to be. It would be good. If we got an answer as to whether there were complaints. We don't know. We didn't get that definitive answer from staff. I don't think they looked at it for this. Did you?

I'm not aware of a high volume of complaints. It's certainly something that we can look into. And it would be good to know what time to move starts. And I was just wondering the same thing. Director Hoffman, the as I understand, the nearest residences are legal, nonconforming and are those closer than the 295ft? Yes. I think when I looked earlier, they were closer to 200ft. Okay. Are we not obligated to protect them? Their legal nonconforming.

This is where it's a difficult conversation, because I don't want to appear to be dismissive to real life impacts that may occur on on users. But we are and we are all bound by the rules that the city has set in our noise element and our noise ordinance. And the noise ordinance applies a different standard of acceptable noise limit to those uses, by virtue of them being non-conforming in a, in a non zoning category. So because of that you know you have to as the commission draw a nexus from your decision making to the city's regulatory framework. And so I think the point we're raising is despite them physically being there and hearing the noise, they are held to a different standard than a house one block south in the actual residential zone will be. And so that's the regulatory framework we're unfortunately living in. So it's an uncomfortable position. But that that's I think the point I'm making. Does that make sense even if it doesn't make sense.

No I don't like it. But it makes sense. So we would have to ask the applicant if they would be willing to do it. We can't impose it as a condition.

I think, without having technical information that suggests it's a problem. We're kind of in a difficult position with all of what's being discussed tonight, because we don't know, for example, that from 6 to 7 a.m. It's not compliant with the noise ordinance. So we're making assumptions without a complete amount of information and imposing conditions that may or may not be necessary. And so I, I do think my recommendation would be to continue this, allow a little bit of additional study, and allow the applicant to and your words, I think you put it very well, determine what's feasible for them in light of actual technical information. That can then inform you in your decision making.

So quickly. I just did a quick internet search and there is this material called. Accusing noise fence curtains that are supposed to reduce noise by 50%. I would suggest that you guys look it's a o u s t fence noise curtains. I think pickleball is. Pickleball noise curtain. They could do that work. And find this product. And it could be that the noise is attenuated within 50ft of the property. We don't know that that answer yet. And then.

I think that's what we need a few we need a little time to do. I mean, it's hard to think of imposing conditions if we don't have better answers. And they haven't brought I mean, we have we have some room as to what we can do. And we also have some other problems with the property, which is the parking. So they're they're issues that, from my point of view, would merit extending this and having it come back a date certain Commissioner Morrow.

No, I just wanted to say if we're going to extend it, I'd like to get some input from Parks Department because they've they're doing studies now, I think, to build more pickleball in the city. Or there were some studies and they have people that are subject matter experts on pickleball. We have. I wonder. If we could reach out to somebody there. Maybe not. Maybe we have. We do have the former director. Right? Sitting on sitting on the dais. Maybe not. I don't know, I don't know. I.

Don't know what level of technical study they've done on these specific issues, but we're certainly happy to talk to them and learn from their experiences. Yes. Commissioner Miller. Yeah. I had just been up for. A long time.

I just want to say in relation I understand the noise ordinance is nuanced in relation to residential zoning line and such, but I want to remind the Commission that our criteria is a little less nuanced. And so if we there is teeth in these criteria, if we determine there to be a need for something, irregardless of what the noise ordinance says, for limitations we can impose, we can attempt to impose things.

So I'm going to take my motion back. I'm no longer making a motion to approve with conditions. My motion would be to ask this to come back on a date. Certain date, certain would be two weeks. Is that. What it's not going to be enough time. That's not enough time. It's not. Going to be. Enough time. Because it's a development permit. I think it's okay to do a date uncertain. We don't have public notice requirements. Don't have to notice. And that way we're not. We have some scheduled vacations and they may want some time. To regroup.

Date uncertain. The things that we would like changed in the site plan have to do with both of the parking issues, and a resolution on the turn issue so that those are resolved in the site plan. We would like the applicant to do more to do some acoustical studies on the material that they're proposing, versus AA8 foot sound wall, and to come back to us with technical information and also come back, if they can, on what the noise would be when the when you're when you're in a, a more restricted time period according to the noise ordinance. And that would be the hours of 6 to 7 and 10 to 11. And I'll just throw in a question. They said that children are welcome into this facility, but their alcohol is just going to be pay and grab, and I do I would like them to resolve that, because if there's no monitoring of, I don't know if just to let us know. I mean, it seems strange that you can do a pay, a pay and grab for alcohol, but you can still have children in the facility.

I think that that's an issue for ABC to resolve. It's, it's not really something we. Would address. Through a development permit. Yeah. It's not a use based decision.

And possibly to look at I mean, for them to look more at the shade issue, I would like them, if they're coming back to refine their landscape plan and look at the possibility of, of helping with some heavier hedges. Hedges as well. And I don't think that we would consider the trees mitigation. Obviously their noise consultant can take a look at that as well. Does that.

Is that a motion that people could second? The part I'm uncomfortable with is. The commission indicating to the applicant that they need to install shade structures. It is a commercial business. Just asking them to look. We have the ability to approve the site plan, and shade may be involved in that site plan. I'm not sure if it can be or isn't it.

It typically falls more clearly into the findings that will be related to the architectural study of this. So I think it's fair to ask the applicant to look at it further, but I do think it would be in the when this comes back to you. And if you were to move it forward to make a request to the Arc, to look at it even further as well. I think that and so asking the applicant to take a look at that is what we were doing. We will be. Doing, but we're not requiring them to install shade structures over one or more courts.

We're asking them to take a look at it and we can ask we can ask the Architectural Review Committee if we think it still would be beneficial to take a look at that issue, because that's in their purview. I'll second the motion. Any comments or should we just call the question? Call the question. Chair. Yes. Commissioner. Miller. Yes. Vice chair. Leon. Yes, Commissioner. Baker. Yes. Commissioner. Murphy. No. Commissioner. Rottman.

Yes. And Commissioner Morrell. Yes. Motion passes. Just as a summary. I think we love the idea of the value of additional sports court and having additional pickleball for our residents. And we're very hopeful that this is the best site. This is a great site for it. We're not.

Don't don't be discouraged because you heard a lot of feedback. This is the best site in the city for it. It's it is a good location. It just needs tweaking to make it perfect. I'm not I'm not sure. Or votes done. Thank you guy.

Okay. Planning Commission reports requests and comments. Any. Thank you for turning on the air conditioning. Going straight from that to planning director's report.

A reminder that we have our joint session with the City Council and the city's boards and commissions next week at the convention center, beginning at 530, I believe. So Kathy will be giving a presentation on behalf of the Planning Commission. It's very brief, but it's going to highlight our accomplishments in the last year. So I know we're all looking forward to that. We also, in wrapping up our contract with Placeworks, who did our general plan update. They have rolled out a new general plan website, which is embedded in the planning department's website, on the city's website, which. Is much more user friendly and we're excited about. So they've they've organized all of the various elements of the general plan and a nice, you know, easy to understand way. And there's actually even an interactive map where you can zoom in and out, you know, it's GIS based on your property to see your general plan designation. So we're moving into the 20th century in terms of planning here in Palm Springs, and we're very excited about that. We have goals to do something similar with the zoning code once that update is done. So ideally we'll have a lot more publicly available information on our website. And so we're excited about that.

Where are we with the zoning code update.

Right. So we had the draft maps, which were the subject of our last round of outreach. And so since then we've been making refinements. I think I had mentioned to you all, and certainly at the open houses, that the draft maps that the consultant produced were really just kind of a one for one translation of the current zoning into the new zoning categories that we are proposing, with some minor changes based on state law. The state law that we had talked about in terms of allowing higher density uses along our high frequency transit corridors, which I know people want to debate that definition, but it's the definition given to us by the state, which allows, you know, 3 to 5 story buildings in a lot of locations adjacent to transit stations, transit stops in the city. So we made some changes there. So all of that to say, what we've been doing since is actually going through the map and making changes based on on sort of more about what we know about areas and where we want to promote growth, to meet Rena allocations and some of the commitments we made in the housing element in order to sort of protect our more established neighborhoods. So we've been doing that level of refinement and just kind of working through some of the comments that we received through public feedback. We are getting into the drafting of the development standards themselves, and so that will likely be the focus of the next round of outreach to come in the fall. So things are progressing. There's also ongoing meetings with the Urban Design Subcommittee, who are looking at the nonresidential urban design guidelines and ongoing conversations with the historic subconsultants around changes, updates that will be made to the historic preservation ordinance. So a lot of work kind of going on behind the scenes. We're we're kind of hoping for a quieter summer, obviously not doing a lot of engagement over the summer, but that work is ongoing. So you'll see more presence in the fall.

Okay. One thing that in Planning Commission reports is Commissioner Morrill was representing us on a subcommittee having to do with marijuana. And I'm wondering what your experience was there and how that came out.

The meeting seemed positive. We they did present some revised drawings that reflected some of the comments we gave them. Not not all the comments we gave them. And the chairman of the Architectural Review Committee meeting was there as well. So he gave his input and some of the things were we still didn't seem to reach agreement on the vaulted ceilings and the changes in ceiling height. That still seem to be an open issue when we left. And. Anyway, Ken did say that he's going to be releasing revised plans in the next few days with his resolution and recommendations, but that basically they they still hadn't really conformed to the Maryland design guidelines.

So I think the report is in production to go to the AAC at this point. You know, we have a limit to the number of meetings we can have and how quickly we need to move residential projects through, but it's going with a detailed summary of the planning Commission's discussion, the subcommittee's discussion, and, you know, sort of a line by line review of the of the requirements and some suggestions on how to get it to compliance for the AAC to review. You mentioned to me today that you're changing your process to some extent in terms of how you're writing AAC staff reports.

Yeah, I think it's more about standardizing it. So I think different planners have done it in different ways. And we've we've done different ways of highlighting the kinds of issues that are discussed in this meeting and passing those on to the Architectural Review Committee. So we're trying to standardize that across all of the planners, but effectively similar to what we do with your reports, after the summary, there will be sort of an issues and concerns section, and that's where we'll be highlighting these types of issues and clarifying. The Planning Commission has requested that AAC review X, Y, and Z or staff have these concerns and these recommendations. So we're trying to front load the report with that information. I don't have any other updates from me.

I have one question for Megan, which is does her microphone light up when she wants to talk so that I can see it? Yes it does. Okay, so I have a way, but if I miss it and you want to speak, just wave. With that. I will adjourn the meeting until 530. Tuesday, June 24th, 2025. Wishing everybody a happy two weeks of following. Happy two weeks of June.